Today Only! New-Car Sales Report Out! Hurry! Don't Miss It!

I wrote a brief piece a few days ago about the cash-for-clunkers program and how it would simply pull sales forward rather than stimulating any sustained demand. The first piece of evidence came out today with the release of new-car sales.

From the New York Times:

After two frenzied months during the government’s cash-for-clunkers program, new-vehicle sales in the United States fell in September back to the levels seen earlier this year, automakers said Thursday.

General Motors said it sales declined 45 percent, and Chrysler reported a 42 percent drop from September a year ago.

Sales were down 20 percent at Honda, 13 percent at Toyota and 7 percent at Nissan.

Total industry sales are expected to be 23 percent less than a year ago, according to a forecast by the Web site Edmunds.com.

Those are big declines, but they shouldn't have surprised anyone. Free money is a powerful incentive, even if you had to go further into debt for that new car.

The clunkers program also cleared out inventories at many dealerships, leading G.M., Ford, and other automakers to increase production at some plants and call back thousands of laid-off workers to their assembly lines. Without a large selection for customers to choose from, many dealerships had more difficulty making sales in September than they would have otherwise.

Right. Sales were weak because there just wasn't enough inventory on hand. Ok. Sure. They can float that excuse for a month or two as they're busy ramping production to replenish inventory to meet this supposed burgeoning unmet demand. However, I suspect they'll soon be sitting on too much inventory, offering the latest excuse for weak car sales while aggressively lobbying Congress for Revenge of Cash-for-Clunkers. Here are a few potential excuses for next month's new-car sales report:

• Customers are eager to buy but are just dazed and confused by our huge inventory selection.
• Consumers were too busy cashing out their 401Ks to buy food, but they'll be back soon.
• With more people losing their homes we expect car sales to rocket any day now as folks are forced to live out of their cars.
• We just didn't have the right mix of inventory to meet the huge demand.
• We think we just didn't have enough balloons in the showroom to spur sales.
• It would have been a great month if our commission-based salesmen could have made more money selling cars than collecting unemployment insurance. But just wait til their insurance runs out!
  
• Coming soon! Zero down, $10,000 cash back, 1 year no-risk trial period, we'll babysit your kids every other weekend!
  
• Americans were too distracted trying to find American Samoa on a map.

We are very unlikely to see a sustained and strong improvement in new car sales, absent continuous government incentive welfare programs. Consumer debt is too high, unemployment is too high and rising, and job loss fears remain elevated. More and more people are discovering that you really don't need a new car every few years.

If only the car manufacturers had stuck to their earlier strategy of manufacturing a bad product that didn't last very long...

---

The Market Rubbernecker is affiliated with Aspera Financial, LLC, a registered investment advisor. Please read the disclaimer on the home page of the Market Rubbernecker site.

Quote Of The Day: German Car Industry

Every frat boy (U.S. government) loves a kegger (cash for clunkers), but the resulting hangover (fewer future sales) is another story. Cash for clunkers has come and gone. As expected, auto sales jumped. I personally finally benefited from the government's recent generosity (your tax dollars) and traded in my dear old '96 Ford F-150 for more of a family car. Would I have bought a new car without the incentive? Yes.

All of these government incentive programs are simply shifting sales/demand forward and arbitrarily rewarding some consumers at the expense of others, often for decisions they would have made anyways. They are clearly boondoggles and a waste of taxpayer money, and we're likely to see more of them since "free" money is a difficult drug to kick. We're not even close to a real recovery given that we haven't even completed Step 1 - admitting we have a problem.

The following comes from the latest piece by Evans-Pritchard:

The risk for Germany is that the economy tips into a double-dip recession as emergency stimulus subsides. Its cash-for-clunkers scheme expired earlier this month after a rush of sales over the summer. The Centre for Automotive Research says sales will fall by a million next year in "the largest downturn ever suffered by the German car industry".

---

The Market Rubbernecker is affiliated with Aspera Financial, LLC, a registered investment advisor. Please read the disclaimer on the home page of the Market Rubbernecker site.

Auto Industry Bailout - Nyet Comrade!

Kudos to the Senate for standing strong on the auto bailout, and shame on the UAW for not agreeing to cut compensation next year to the hardly unreasonable level of their Japanese competitors. I guess unions feels they need all the money they can get their hands on in order to keep buying political appointments (ok, low blow). This is clearly (well, clearly to me) an instance of the UAW giving the finger to the American taxpayer. The UAW is calling Congress's bluff. Unfortunately, with weak-kneed politicians as their opponent, they're likely to win (link to "Special Loan Financing" post).

The autos are in trouble for a number of reasons, one of which is the cost of their labor force. It's difficult to have too much sympathy for overpaid union workers who aren't willing to step up and share the pain. Unfortunately, it's hard to imagine that some form of congressional compromise, executive action, or Fed intervention still won't occur to bail out the auto industry.

I've had a number of questions about what I think should happen with the autos. I have my idealistic answer and then my slightly more realistic answer. Ideally, the government would just step out of the way, and let the market choose the winners and losers. GM and Chrysler would likely fail and be liquidated (in a perfect world). People would still buy cars, but now there would be more business to be spread among the survivors, including Ford. This would help accelerate the shift of industry capacity to the new reality of demand. (It's critical to understand that the level of demand for autos can only support an auto industry of a certain size, and at the moment, the auto industry has more plants, workers, and debt than demand can support.) It's likely that the surviving auto firms would even have to hire some of the ex-GM and Chrysler workers and buy some of their facilities, especially once the economy begins to improve. This is capitalism. The weak are destroyed, and the strong benefit. The industry as a whole would be stronger.

Of course, we don't live in a capitalist society, and this isn't going to happen. In light of that, I think the best likely solution would be for the government to provide debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing to whichever of the (shrinking) Big 3 file for bankruptcy. This would enable them to continue operating, their equity holders would be wiped out, and the firms would be able to more quickly slash operating costs, reduce debt, rationalize capacity, and renegotiate absurd labor contracts. The government would be providing the bailout, but at least we would be first in line with our claim on assets when they eventually fail.

If you really want the U.S. auto industry to have any chance of surviving and prospering then capacity needs to be reduced further and labor wages and benefits should be reduced to levels below those paid by the Japanese automakers to their U.S. auto workers. The debt needs to be eliminated or substantially reduced. The unions should be abolished, corporate jets sold, and executive cash bonuses eliminated. We should not have a bureaucratic "Car Czar" overseeing the industry. A prepackaged bankruptcy with the government providing DIP financing is the only realistic means to effect these changes. Ideally, a consortium of private banks would step up and provide the DIP financing, but that's not likely in this environment.

Of course, none of these actions would guarantee success -- they are necessary but not sufficient. The auto companies would still need to produce products that people want to buy and that can compete with the Japanese. However, without drastic changes to cost structure and the balance sheet, the autos stand little chance of surviving.

Unfortunately, the government is still likely to approve a bailout without demanding the drastic measures really needed. The tune will be familiar. We start with the modest mid-teen billion dollar "loan." Next year, Obama's administration will spearhead a much larger bailout package. Later in the year, once it becomes apparent that more is still needed, more will be provided.

It would be far cheaper to have these companies declare bankruptcy today with the government providing DIP financing than to keep approving serial bailouts. Besides, if after 100 years, an industry hasn't figured out how to make money, is it really worthy of taxpayer dollars (link to my post on GM from this summer)? The Rubbernecker says "Nyet, comrade."

[As I'm getting ready to send this I see that GM has gone from -40% in the pre-market to down only 4% as talk escalates of the White House bypassing Congress and tapping the TARP funds to provide the first leg of this bailout. Hardly surprising.]

Disclosure: The Rubbernecker is long liquidation and short overpaid, out-of-touch, selfish union "leaders" and short-sighted politicians.

---

The Market Rubbernecker is affiliated with Aspera Financial, LLC, a registered investment advisor. Please read the disclaimer on the home page of the Market Rubbernecker site.

Auto Industry: Special Loan Financing!

What do you do with an industry that has been losing billions of dollars, has an uncompetitive cost structure, is struggling to raise enough cash to fund itself, and is slow to innovate?

a) Short the stock, and wait for the bankruptcy announcement.

b) Hire an arsonist to torch the place in hopes of collecting some insurance money.

c) Lend it a huge amount of money at a ridiculously low interest rate.

If you chose A, you are of above-average intelligence and think quickly on your feet. You're well-liked, held in high esteem by your friends, and are very attractive. You're also wrong.

If you chose B, you are either a criminal, a pyromaniac, an aspiring Mafioso, or you work at the Federal Reserve. You are also wrong and should stay well away from my house and family.

If you chose C, you are correct. Unfortunately, you are either a village idiot, a U.S. Congressman, or an auto industry executive. You are not good with numbers, investments, ethics, or the truth. You think you are well-liked, but behind your back people are constantly mumbling, "Wow. I feel sorry for the village that idiot comes from."

The socialization of America continues to run amok. With the nation busy quibbling over the relatively insignificant foreign and economic policy differences between McCain and Obama and with the distraction provided by the teetering of the global financial markets, the mere $25 billion that our U.S. Congress just approved in loans to the auto industry may slip through the cracks.

Remember the widespread consternation over the $29 billion "rescue" of Bear Stearns? Just a few months ago, $20-something billion was considered a substantial amount of money and caused quite a tizzy. Ah, the good old days. Since then, we've had an $85 billion "rescue" of AIG and are now facing an impending $700 billion bailout of the financial industry. In this brave new world, $25 billion is practically quaint. It's the change between the cushions of Uncle Sam's sofa.

Nevertheless, let's put that $25 billion in perspective. Our entire annual federal education budget is $56 billion. Homeland security is getting $34.3 billion this year. $25 billion is greater than the annual federal budget for each of the following agencies: Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, EPA, Judicial Branch, NASA, and the National Science Foundation. I'm not saying we should spend more on these departments -- just providing some perspective.

The combined market value of Ford and General Motors is $16 billion. Raising significant equity capital would, if even possible, result in massive dilution. No private bank in the world will loan them a dime, and let's not naively blame that solely on the banking crisis. Banks weren't rushing to loan the U.S. auto industry any money before the meltdown either. The capital markets simply don't deem them worthy of investment.

Our legislators, however, always think they know better, so they've rushed in to supply the industry with $25 billion that no other sane institution/investor would provide. To add a touch more insult to the U.S. taxpayer, this loan is not accompanied by an equity stake in the participants, and these loans are coming at a below-market interest rate. According to a Detroit Free Press article:

Under the loan program, automakers and suppliers could borrow at interest rates close to what the U.S. Treasury does -- roughly 5% -- rather than the 15% they would have to pay on financial markets. On a loan of $1 billion, that's a savings of $100 million.

That, of course, is $100 million less that the U.S. taxpayer will make from this "investment," and that 5% interest rate is lower than even our best companies can get in the market. Let's remember this the next time we read how our U.S. officials are complaining about foreign tariffs, subsidies, trade barriers, and unfair trade practices. This is no different.

Why is the government intervening to prop up these companies? As I detailed in my article "General Motors - It's Your Money Demand Better", GM has lost a cumulative $33 billion since 1993. Shouldn't it be clear by now that the U.S. has no competitive advantage in auto manufacturing? Is the auto industry really vital to the US? If our ambition is to solidify our position as a leader in the manufacture of inferior and unprofitable products, then by all means, this loan package is a master stroke.

I don't know about you, but I don't need GM, Chrysler, or Ford. There are plenty of foreign-owned car manufacturers making a better product at a better price who are eager to sell to me. Furthermore, many of these competitors have been opening up manufacturing facilities and creating jobs in the U.S. over the years. They have the cost structure and manufacturing know-how to produce profitably, and some of them have been leaders in the development of more fuel efficient vehicles. This loan supports those who have failed and is a slap in the face to every strong competitor.

Clearly, the only reason the government is making this loan is to stem the loss of thousands of jobs that would result from the failure of the industry. It's all politics, all the time. Where do we draw the line? Nokia and Research In Motion have better cell phones than Motorola, and Motorola has had to cut jobs. Why don't we give Motorola a sweetheart deal? Our U.S. furniture manufacturing industry has suffered due to low cost Chinese competition. Let's throw billions at them. And what about our Swiss Army knife manufacturers? The Swiss are killing us! Let's give them some cash so they can compete!

Disclosure: The Rubbernecker is long the Bankruptcy Code and short arsonists.

---

The Market Rubbernecker is affiliated with Aspera Financial, LLC, a registered investment advisor. Please read the disclaimer on the home page of the Market Rubbernecker site.