Bailout Means Look Into Cerberus and Chrysler


Ever since Cerberus took ownership of Chrysler, it has been lights out at what was once America’s third-largest automaker. With Daimler holding on to a 20% stake in the firm, some small news was public. And Chrysler did report its [dismal] sales each month. But that’s about it. The public relations folks were rolled into human resources. Cerberus played its cards close to its chest. And this was what we all expected from the beginning; it was at least in theory one of the major high-points of Cerberus taking over as Chrysler’s owner. They didn’t have to keep an open book, report financial data, and be subject to the short-term goals of shareholders. But it has also meant we have no idea what is going on inside this big company with tens of thousands of employees. Now that you and I are non-voting shareholders, we should have a better idea.
Comments
Join the conversation
It's always a bad sign when PR gets cut back or eliminated. Unless some firm has too much PR for their size, they are usually doing it because they prefer less transparency, and/or they don't give a rat's arse what anyone thinks. PR doesn't just spin for the press, they also advise management to prevent boneheaded moves that may play poorly in spite of being reasonable business decisions (jetgate). They also usually control the charitable giving, which can prevent it from being abused by upper management. When you consider all the PR functions, and then you see a company dump them, you can usually predict bad news will eventually catch up with them. You should dump shares and business ties quickly when this occurs.
@Justin, There is no evidence available that indicates scrutiny is being applied to ANY of the TARP money. If there is, I would be excited to learn of it. The same appears to be the case here with the money grab by GM and Chrysler. Bush mumbled something about no more private jets or job banks and a vague reference to limiting executive pay, but from what I understand, it's just talk. Those are not legal conditions that are part of the $17B "loan". By the way, what are the repayment terms on this "loan"? What interest rate is being paid? The game of smoke and mirrors continues on the taxpayer dime.