The bankruptcy-by-some-other-name solution at GM

Last week, after considering GM’s arguments for why it can’t go into Chapter 11, I wrote:

GM is headed for bankruptcy without government intervention. So any government intervention ought to be structured like a bankruptcy: Current shareholders wiped out (they’re almost there already), debt converted to equity, top management out. We could just, for the sake of not scaring car buyers, call it something else. “Government-arranged workout”? “Bailoutruptcy”? “GMerdämmerung”? “Economic stimulus”?

Sadly, none of those names–except “economic stimulus,” which doesn’t really count–has caught on. (I’m especially distraught about GMerdämmerung. First Fanniefredderung fails to make it to the big-time, and now this. I’ve had it with this country’s anti-Wagner bias!) The concept, though, is everywhere. A lot of people are calling it “conservatorship”, which is the state in which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently find themselves. This would resolve two of GM’s three concerns about Chapter 11–that it’s currently almost impossible to get the debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing needed to keep bankrupt companies going as they reorganize, and that the taint of bankruptcy would scare buyers away from GM cars. In a conservatorship, taxpayers would provide the DIP financing, and you and I would presumably keep blithely buying Chevy Cobalts. Right? (I’ve rented a few Cobalts from Hertz over the past year, and I actually kinda like them. But I’m not in the market for a car.)

Those are the easy parts. The whole point of Chapter 11 is to allow a company to break contracts–with creditors, with employees, with suppliers, with retailers–and renegotiate them under the supervision of a bankruptcy judge. Some GM executives have said that the company doesn’t need this because it has already dealt with the legacy costs and overcapacity that usually drive companies into bankruptcy. I think that’s nonsense. Yes, the company has set aside billions over the past decade to cover pensions, it’s about to offload retiree health care to the UAW, and it has shut down some auto plants. But it did all this with borrowed money, and those debts are now weighing down its balance sheet.

Another decade or so of low gas prices and no recessions might have allowed GM to outrun its debts. But instead of a decade of low gas prices and no recessions, we got this decade. And so, to have much chance of surviving, GM probably needs to break some of its contracts with creditors, with employees, with suppliers, with retailers. It’s probably the creditors, who gambled along with management that the company could sell enough SUVs to pay off all its legacy debts, who will need to take the biggest hit. And if it’s not a bankruptcy judge administering that hit, somebody else in government will have to do it. (Felix Salmon has more on this.) The problem is that, right now, nobody in Washington wants the job. After January 20 somebody will, but it’s possible GM won’t make it that long.

Related Topics: Wall Street & Markets
  • Latest on Business

    Ryan Anson / AFP / Getty Images

    FBI File on Steve Jobs Probed Apple Founder’s Drug Use, Character

    The FBI’s 191-page file on the late Steve Jobs — released Thursday — reveals that the feds were keenly interested in the Apple founder’s character, as well as his past drug use and criminal history. The FBI opened an investigation of Jobs in 1991, because he was under consideration for a presidential appointment to the President’s Export Council under George H. W. Bush.

    Ben Bernanke Is Wrong About Debt and Interest RatesSlate

    bank_5

    White House Announces $25 Billion Mortgage Settlement

    This post was updated at 1:25pm

    It’s been a long slog, but government officials and representatives from major U.S. banks have come to terms on a settlement that would put an end to federal and state investigations into alleged foreclosure abuses by financial institutions.

  • Andy from MA

    Justin, what happens down the supply chain if GM or Ford,or Chrysler file for chapter 11? There hasn’t been much ink written about this, but lots of blood will be spilled if they go bankrupt. Please tell me how the auto makers are any different from AIG?

  • bryanfromhouston

    Andy,
    -
    I think that the automakers are different in that the total cost is not quite as large as it was with the exposure to AIG. I may be wrong, but the numbers I have seen don’t indicate that there are the astronomical numbers which say “Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!!”
    -
    Bankruptcy was created to respond to situations where a business goes insolvent. I’m not so certain that it is necessarily the best vehicle to deal with large interconnected industries which can bring on systemic collapse.
    -
    Ultimately, whether we are discussing government workouts (through some sort of conservatorship) or bankrupcty, we are looking at what will be fundamental changes to the industry. In any event, I don’t think it is wise to make such decisions on the spare of the moment.
    -
    Ultimately, my hope is that GM, alone – Ford says they don’t need it and Chrysler is the walking dead – can get a bridge loan. The loan will give enough time to look at the market, determine inefficiencies and reallocate resources in a smart way. Anything less and this will just be another TARP effort that we are not sure is actually working.
    -
    Btw, Justin, any thought to examining whether TARP is actually working? :-)

  • 0megapart1cle

    I’m pretty sure they’re much bigger than AIG, if you take into account all the suppliers and related companies they support with their business.

    I think a GM “conservatorship” is a good idea. Just giving GM money without strong rules put in place for how to spend it and a plan for success doesn’t really make sense. As much as I hate to say it, I think I am more with Republicans than Democrats on this one. (No, we can’t just let GM fail, as many Republicans are saying. We need to give them the money to succeed. But we need far more control over how that money is spent than Democrats are talking about requiring, and I think a conservatorship would provide that.

  • bryanfromhouston

    Omega,
    -
    But how do we deal with the largest source of anti-competitiveness within the Big 3?? –The Legacy Costs– I just think the Republican approach is probably right but there discussion is intellectually dishonest.
    -
    The reason Toyota and Honda are doing better is they don’t have the legacy costs. Those costs WILL ultimately be paid by the taxpayer. The question is do we want to do it with the possibility of getting the money back or just paying out in Pension Guaranty and Medicare/Medicaid Funds. Some adult has to sit down and run the numbers. After that, they have to say this is the best way out of this debacle.
    -
    Short of that. The talking heads on the Hill are going be different ones that just blab the same stuff.

  • gmalcolms

    byranfromhouston,
    But GM has already succeeded in offloading its underfunded pension liabilities to the UAW and has won other concessions on lower wages/benefits for new hires. Moreover, its international subsidiaries (especially in BRICs) are doing very well. As Justin points out, if GM can get out from under its mountain of debt with govt assistance those legacy issues with be passed.

    BTW, I like GMerdämmerung, too, for what it’s worth.

  • banzai7

    Baby Can You Bail Our Cars
    (Baby You Can Drive My Car, The Beatles)
    WilliamBanzai7

    Asked a politico what he wants us Big 3 to be
    He said baby, its so clear can’t you see
    We want fuel efficiency instead of giant SUVs
    But it seems you can’t even do something in between

    Baby can you bail our cars
    Yes they’re a bunch of gas guzzling discards
    Baby can you bail our cars
    And maybe we’ll love you

    We told Congress that our prospects were good
    And they said really?, it’s not well understood
    Manufacturing petrol pigs is not very fine
    Can you show us a better time

    Baby can you bail our cars
    Yes we need a new fresh start
    Baby can you bail our cars
    And maybe we’ll love you

    Beep beep’m beep beep yeah

    We told told those D.C. lards we can start right away
    They said listen we got something to say
    You got no fuel efficient cars and it’s breaking our hearts
    But here’s a bailout dollar and that’s a start

    Baby can you bail our cars
    Yes we want a new fresh start
    Baby you can bail our cars
    And maybe we’ll love you

    Beep beep’m beep beep yeah
    Beep beep’m beep beep yeah
    Beep beep’m beep beep yeah
    Beep beep’m beep beep yeah

  • curmudgeon57

    Okay, I haven’t heard any news outlet say this, but I think someone has to. If you’re looking for intellectually dishonest, look first to Bill Ford. Since he became chairman of Ford (I think 1999), along with the pitiful attempt at CEO, he did little but sing the mantra of the green car company, and said that that was his mission at Ford. Instead, his was the Ford that brought us the largest SUV on the market, and the Ford that sold more trucks than they did passenger cars.
    -
    And when Waggoner got up in front of Congress and bragged about how the innovative GM was launching nine hybrids next year, why did not one of our elected representatives ask him how many years he was behind the market leader?
    -
    I hate being so negative, but I can see nothing good coming our of the domestic auto industry. If there were ever an industry that deserved to crash and burn, this is it.

blog comments powered by Disqus