1968 Chrysler Newport Custom Hardtop 2-door Mopar Big Block on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Auto bailout cost the US goverment $9.26B

Depending on your outlook, the US Treasury's bailout of General Motors, Chrysler (now FCA) and their financing divisions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program was either a complete boondoggle or a savvy move to secure the future of some major employers. Regardless of where you fall, the auto industry bailout has officially ended, and the numbers have been tallied. Of the $79.69 billion that the Feds invested to keep the automakers afloat, it recouped $70.43 billion – a net loss of $9.26 billion. The final nail in the coffin for the auto bailout came in December 2014 when the Feds sold its shares in Ally Financial, formerly GMAC. The deal turned out pretty good for the government too because the investment turned a 2.4 billion profit. The actual automakers have long been out of the Treasury's hands, though. The current FCA paid back its loans six years early in 2011, the Treasury sold of the last shares of GM in late 2013. According to The Detroit News, the government's books actually show an official loss on the auto bailouts of $16.56 billion. The difference is because the larger figure does not include the interest or dividends paid by the borrowers on the amount lent. While it's easy to see fault in any red ink on the Feds' massive investment, the number is less than some earlier estimates. At one time, deficits around $44 billion were thought possible, and another put things at a $20.3 billion loss. Outside of just the government losing money, the bailouts might have helped the overall economy. A study from the Center for Automotive Research last year estimated that the program saved 2.6 million jobs and about $284.4 billion in personal wealth. It also indicated that the Feds' reduction in income tax revenue alone from Chrysler and GM going under could have been around $100 billion for just 2009 and 2010, significantly more than any loss in the bailout.

Trucks, SUVs — and Camry — shine in mixed U.S. January vehicle sales

DETROIT — Automakers posted mixed U.S. new vehicle sales data for January, with American consumers continuing to abandon passenger cars for the larger pickup trucks, SUVs and crossover models that manufacturers also love because they are far more profitable. Total industry auto sales for the month rose 1 percent versus January 2016. According to Autodata Corp, which tracks industry sales, the seasonally adjusted annualized rate (SAAR) of U.S. car and light truck sales in January fell to 17.12 million units from 17.44 million a year earlier. Analysts polled by Reuters had expected a January SAAR of 17.2 million units. U.S. auto industry sales fell 2 percent in 2017 to 17.23 million vehicles after hitting a record high in 2016 and are expected to drop further in 2018 despite a solid economy. Interest rates are rising and around 4 million late-model used cars will return to dealer lots this year to compete with more expensive new ones. Automakers have used consumer discounts to boost sales, a growing concern for observers who say this undermines resale values and profits. Discounts declined in January, but remained above 10 percent of manufacturers' recommended prices. ""I think the industry has accepted that (sales) volumes will fall somewhat in 2018 ... and I don't think the industry is going to go over the cliff with insane incentives," Mike Jackson, chief executive officer of AutoNation Inc, told Reuters after his company, the largest U.S. auto retail chain, posted a higher quarterly net profit. Mark Wakefield, head of the North American automotive practice for consultancy AlixPartners, had a gloomier perspective. The industry's less-than-stellar sales performance for January showed "we are now past the peak," he said. "Automakers are now selling the deal instead of the vehicle," he said. "That's a tough spot to be in because that treadmill is hard to get off once you're on it." General Motors January sales rose 1.3 percent, driven by a 16 percent rise in fleet sales. Sales to consumers fell 2.4 percent. GM posted strong gains for models such as the Silverado pickup truck and Equinox crossover model, while its passenger cars continued to struggle. Ford The Blue Oval posted a 6.6 percent sales decline for January, with retail sales down 4.3 percent. Sales of Ford's F-Series pickup trucks - America's best-selling vehicle brand for decades — rose 1.6 percent. Passenger cars were down more than 23 percent.

Detroit and Silicon Valley: When cultures collide

Culture is a subject that rarely, if never, gets discussed when traditional auto companies buy — or hugely invest — in Silicon Valley-based companies. The conversation surrounding the investments is usually about how the tech looks appealing and how it's an appropriate step to move the automakers toward autonomy. Culture — the way things are done, the expectations, and the approaches — is something that is overlooked only at one's peril. The potential cultural gap is almost always evident in the obligatory photos of the participants in these deals, with is essentially a photo op of auto execs with their Silicon Valley counterparts. The former — rocking jeans and no ties — look like parochial school kids playing hooky. Don't worry: The regimental outfits will be back in place once they get back in the Eastern time zone. Consider what happened back in 1998 when Daimler bought Chrysler. First of all, there was a denial in Detroit that it happened. It was positioned as a "merger of equals." Which it wasn't. In any corporate situation, when one has more than 50 percent of the business, it owns the whole thing. And the German company was in the proverbial driver's seat. People who were around Auburn Hills back then kept their heads down and their German Made Simple books at hand. Things did not go well. Daimler had had enough by 2007, when it offloaded Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management — which brought ex-Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli into the picture, which is a story onto itself. But when you think about the Daimler-Chrysler situation, realize that these were two car companies (at least the Mercedes part of the Daimler organization), so they had that in common, and the language of engineers is something of an Esperanto based on math, so there was that, too. Yet it simply didn't work. It doesn't take too many viewings of HBO's Silicon Valley to know that the business people in that part of the world are far more aggressive than people who ordinarily head and control car companies in Detroit. About 20 years ago, a book came out about the founder of Oracle titled The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison* - and the asterisk on the book jacket leads to: God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison. It would be hard to imagine a book about a Detroit executive, even a book that had the decided bias that the tome about Ellison evinces, that would be quite so searing. Sure, there are egos. But they are still perceived to be, overall, "nice" people.