GM "More Open" To Bankruptcy

John Horner
by John Horner

The Wall Street Journal reports that the usual unnamed “top executives” are saying GM is warming to the idea of bankruptcy after all. “The change in thinking, combined with the disclosure Thursday that GM’s auditor has raised ‘substantial doubt’ about the car maker’s ability to keep going, appears to move GM closer to the possibility it will file for reorganization.” Something about staring at the hangman’s noose brings a new clarity of thought to the fore. The journal’s new owner seems to have brought a bit of dry British humor to the biz: “The increased threat of bankruptcy could prod bondholders into making concessions, since these investors are said to believe a bankruptcy reorganization could harm their holdings, according to a person familiar with their thinking.” Wow, those bond manipulating masters of the universe sure are smart!

GM’s new fantasy is that a relatively low-pain, pre-packaged bankruptcy could be done inside a 90 day window without hurting sales, or losing the top dogs their food bowls. What about all those times the company has declared bankruptcy off-the-table because it would send customers packing? No worries—expensive consultants are on the job: “GM’s bankruptcy advisers, meanwhile, have been working on a plan to mitigate the impact a bankruptcy filing would have on GM’s public image.” Meanwhile GM spokesflak, Julie Gibson, spins at tornado velocities when saying the auditors’ going-concern warning “is not fundamentally a big deal.” Apparently not everyone has gotten to the acceptance phase yet.

Meanwhile, politicians and bureaucrats in Washington continue to ponder, pontificate and punt. “Administration officials are still weeks away from making a decision on how to assist the struggling auto makers. The negotiations with GM and Chrysler LLC are supposed to conclude by March 31, but with so many issues unresolved, people involved with the talks say the effort could slip into April. Administration officials who are dissecting GM’s 117-page viability plan said they weren’t surprised by the starkness of the auditors’ assessment.” But tell me this, why is it a negotiation? Beggars don’t negotiate, they beg.

John Horner
John Horner

More by John Horner

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 23 comments
  • Mtypex Mtypex on Mar 06, 2009

    You see, that's the problem. If only the Titanic had OnStar, it would be have been "backed by GM."

  • Craiggbear Craiggbear on Mar 06, 2009

    SecCpotatoes and Arminius are correct - I didn't mean the companies folded up their tents, they just left the (stock) markets - by going private. How else can you leave the market? Ch. 11 or 7, I guess, Nice effect,though, don't you think?

  • 3-On-The-Tree I had a 69 Thunderbird with a 429 and it did the same thing.
  • Lou_BC No. An EV would have to replace my primary vehicle. That means it has to be able to do everything my current vehicle does.
  • Bkojote @Lou_BC I don't know how broad of a difference in capability there is between 2 door and 4 door broncos or even Wranglers as I can't speak to that from experience. Generally the consensus is while a Tacoma/4Runner is ~10% less capable on 'difficult' trails they're significantly more pleasant to drive on the way to the trails and actually pleasant the other 90% of the time. I'm guessing the Trailhunter narrows that gap even more and is probably almost as capable as a 4 Door Bronco Sasquatch but significantly more pleasant/fuel efficient on the road. To wit, just about everyone in our group with a 4Runner bought a second set of wheels/tires for when it sees road duty. Everyone in our group with a Bronco bought a second vehicle...
  • Aja8888 No.
  • 2manyvettes Since all of my cars have V8 gas engines (with one exception, a V6) guess what my opinion is about a cheap EV. And there is even a Tesla supercharger all of a mile from my house.
Next