Category: Autos

John Gapper

Sergio Marchionne of Fiat and Chrysler has got himself into a fine mess with one appearance in San Francisco on Friday in which he managed to scandalise two governments simultaneously.

One of his sallies was foolish as well as offensive. Describing the finance offered by the US and Canadian governments to keep Chrysler afloat with taxpayer money as “shyster” loans was an absurd comment (for which Mr Marchionne has apologised).

To state the obvious, Chrysler would have collapsed in 2009 without those loans and no-one else apart from the US government was willing to make them. I still question whether it was a good idea at all.

The fact that it charged interest on behalf of taxpayers was the least it could do, and Mr Marchionne, who as I previously noted enjoys being the centre of attention, was silly to bite the hands that fed him.

John Gapper

The General Motors initial public offering looks as if it will be successful – and will be priced well in excess of the range first set by the underwriters. That will let the US government sell down its 61 per cent stake substantially and perhaps exit entirely next year.

So who deserves the praise for this achievement? GM’s new management (even with the revolving door at the top), the government for its act of tough love in financing GM’s purge in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, or former GM executives led by Rick Wagoner?

My money is on the government and its auto industry taskforce led by Steve Rattner for not listening to Mr Wagoner’s dire warnings about Chapter 11 and for realising that GM could only be properly restructured in bankruptcy.

John Gapper

I admit to having been sceptical about Alan Mulally‘s chances of turning around the ingrained culture and under-performance of Ford when he was recruited from Boeing as chief executive in 2006. But Mr Mulally has been proving me wrong.

Ford’s third quarter results put the company on track to be free of net debt by the end of the year. More importantly, Mr Mulally’s internal restructuring appears to have placed it on a long-term growth path, rather than being a short-term fix.

A lot of conventional wisdom about the industry have been proved wrong recently, including the idea that it would be a disaster for any of the Big Three to go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Bankruptcy was the best thing that could have happened to GM.

John Gapper

Steve Rattner, the Obama administration’s former “car czar” who has a book out about the bailing out of General Motors and Chrysler, gives an interesting summary of his first impressions of Detroit to Peter Lattman in the New York Times.

So, for example, I found that the culture in Detroit, and at General Motors in particular, was even more bureaucratic and more stultified than what I would have guessed before I got there. The financial controls were far weaker than anything I would’ve imagined before I got there. On the positive side, GM had better projects than I would’ve imagined and it had also brought its manufacturing efficiency to a much higher level than I would’ve predicted.

That can be summarised as: GM was a terrible company making surprisingly good cars. Or: Detroit itself was in a bad way, whereas its manufacturing plants were healthy.

John Gapper

The speed at which global auto makers, particularly luxury car companies, are switching their focus of interest from the US to China continues to amaze.

BMW’s results on Tuesday, showing that its second quarter sales in China doubled from 22, 700 to 45,200, followed a declaration on Monday by Volvo’s new Chinese chairman that it will compete more directly with BMW, Mercedes and Audi.

China’s luxury car market is not only growing very rapidly but also has better margins than other markets, making it very attractive to global car companies.

John Gapper

If you were investing in an initial public offering, would you not want the company’s chairman, chief executive and “product architect” – the most important individual to the enterprise – at least to work full-time?

I ask this because Elon Musk, the chairman and chief executive of Tesla Motors, the electric car maker that held its Nasdaq IPO successfully on Tuesday, does not.

Mr Musk is already a controversial figure, having admitted just before the IPO that he had run out of cash as a result of investing $74m of his money into Tesla, and being in the middle of a messy divorce. His wife Justine Musk has been adding her own thoughts about Tesla on her blog.

The IPO prospectus has this to say about Mr Musk:

“Although Mr Musk spends significant time with Tesla and is highly active in our management, he does not devote his full time and attention to Tesla. Mr Musk also currently serves as chief executive officer and chief technical officer of Space Exploration Technologies, a developer and manufacturer of space launch vehicles and chairman of SolarCity, a solar equipment installation company . . .

“Mr Musk is currently engaged in divorce proceedings and previously entered intoa  post-nuptual agreement which provides that the holdings of the trust, including Mr Musk’s share of our capital stock, shall remain solely his property. This post-nuptual agreement has been upheld by the Superior Court of Los Angeles though such decision may be subject to an appeal . . .

“However, we do not believe that the divorce proceedings will result in Mr Musk owning less than 65 per cent of the capital stock held by him . . . We do not expect the divorce proceedings to have a material impact on Mr Musk’s ability to serve as our chief executive officer and chairman.”

Tesla investors should consider all this carefully, I think.

John Gapper

Before the Abacus synthetic CDO that led to Goldman Sachs being accused of securities fraud came the CDO deals associated with Magnetar, the Illinois-based hedge fund.

Now Magnetar has come out fighting against accusations from ProPublica, the online news group, that it helped to stoke the US housing bubble in order to short its CDOs with astronomy titles such as Libra and Norma.

Magnetar sent a letter to investors on Monday, attached at the bottom of this post, in which it attacks ProPublica’s “blatantly false and misleading story” and provides an analysis of its strategy.

The letter is a pre-emptive defence against any accusations of misconduct in the synthetic CDO market, where Magnetar was a major force in 2006 and 2007.

I wrote about Magnetar in my column last week, before the Securities and Exchange Commission accused Goldman of securities fraud, and the issues involved are similar.

Magnetar insists it “did not control asset selection in CDOs in which it participated”, although though it told collateral managers (playing the same role as ACA in the Abacus deal) what sort of yield it needed to invest in the equity.

It also asserts that it “did not participate in the marketing or distribution of CDO transactions” and “did not make representations to qualified investors who purchased CDO tranches.”

Magnetar argues that it was not shorting the subprime market but was arbitraging between different layers of CDOs, taking advantage of the fact that it could get a yield of 20 per cent on the equity and then hedge that by shorting the mezzanine layers.

The chart it provides on page three of the letter suggests that it would have made money as long as the CDO market held up with no or few losses, and also make money if there was a high percentage of losses. Its risk was that subprime losses ate through only the equity tranches.

As it turned out, almost all of the Magnetar deals defaulted, bringing it very high returns in 2007.

Magnetar Letter to Investors (PDF)

Richard Milne

The number of German companies embroiled in serious bribery allegations continues to grow: we have had Volkswagen, then Siemens, MAN and now Daimler.

But the preponderance of heavyweight industrial names leads to one to wonder about why so many German companies have recently become caught up in corruption scandals. Put simply: are German businesses more corrupt than others?

Business blog

Strategy & managing

About this blog Blog guide
This blog is mainly about business and strategy and how and why people who run companies take the decisions that they do.

Most of the time, John Gapper is in New York and Andrew Hill is in London. We occasionally debate business issues between us, but your comments and criticism are welcome.




To comment, please register for free with FT.com and read our policy on submitting comments.

All posts are published in UK time.

Contact andrew.hill@ft.com or john.gapper@ft.com about the Business blog.

See the full list of FT blogs.

About John and Andrew

John Gapper is an associate editor and the chief business commentator of the FT. He has worked for the FT since 1987, covering labour relations, banking and the media. He is co-author, with Nicholas Denton, of All That Glitters, an account of the collapse of Barings in 1995.

Andrew Hill is an associate editor and the management editor of the FT. He is a former City editor, financial editor, comment and analysis editor, New York bureau chief, foreign news editor and correspondent in Brussels and Milan.

Archive

« JanFebruary 2012
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829