Sorry!! The article you are trying to read is not available now.
Thank you very much;
you're only a step away from
downloading your reports.

Demoting General Motors?


Hope you're wearing your seat belt!


Excellent article on General Motors (GM) in the May 9th edition of Business Week. Here are some important points and my thoughts:

  • GM is saddled with $1,600 of legacy costs per vehicle - retiree health and pension benefit costs.

  • Because of 15 year old union agreements, GM must run plants at 80% capacity, wether it makes money or not. (I believe this is another substantial legacy cost. This also upsets their dealers since they are flooded with inventory. Its Japanese counterparts are famous for regulating production to control inventory at the lots level. That is a main reason why Toyota and Honda's dealership franchises are so much more profitable and valuable than GM's)

  • The idea of being number 1 (at any cost) is etched into GM's culture and unlikely to be dropped by current management.

  • GM has enormous liquidity: $19.8 bln in cash, $8.3 bln in bank lines (I am not sure how junk status would impact that), $5 bln it can draw from GMAC, $1.1 bln could be saved from cancelling the dividend. In addition, it could raise $10-15 bln from selling GMAC (I am not sure that they would do that since it is the only part of the company that makes money. However, that liquidity may not protect GM if gas prices go higher, commodity costs increase, economy slows down etc...)

  • Discontinuation of the Oldsmobile brand cost GM a billion dollars. According to Business Week, GM must discontinue some of its brands i.e. Buick and Saab but it will cost GM a lot of money.
    GM needs to keep making old outdated cars just to keep plants running.

  • This is the most important: GM spent $7 bln on R&D last year vs $15.3 bln by Toyota. That R&D spending is spread over 89 auto models and 8 divisions, versus 26 name plates and three divisions for Toyota. Toyota changes its cars every three years, where GM changes every four years.

The bottom line: In my opinion, GM has too many brands that are under-researched and with few exceptions stand for nothing. The obvious under-investment into R&D almost guarantees that GM will not be making good cars that are competitive on features and price any time soon. Its legacy union contracts are forcing the company into making mediocre cars, and it seems to me that the gap between GM and Japanese is likely to widen going forward, not shrink.

I wrote an article on U.S. automakers awhile ago that highlighted additional problems faced by GM and Ford awhile ago, but these problems are still facing both companies today.

Side Note: GM's pension plan's return assumptions are too optimistic, GM assumes 9% long-term rate of return on its assets. Considering the age of its workforce, a very large of portion of its assets should be in bonds. Maybe GM is welcoming the downgrade and loading up on its own junk bonds (I am pretty sure they are not doing it, but I cannot contain my sarcasm). I just cannot see how the company will produce this rate of return for the foreseeable future.

No positions in stocks mentioned.

The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Videos