soccerjunky
New member
Remember in 2005 when GM had a 35 billion surplus
This will come across as rocket science. But I will give it a try. Say you have a $200B/yr revenue company. With a average return on sales of 1-1.5%. What happens if sales drop 20-30% with no decrease in operating costs. Big losses, right?
The auto industry has been a very low return on sales industry. That is why it is risky business. Huge capital costs. Huge revenue and huge operating costs. All with little return on investment or revenue. Changes in the range of 1-2% are huge. The last 6 months with 20-30% sales reductions is unprecedented in history. The 1970's or depression era do not come close. Do not underestimate how significant it is in an industry that needs to operate above 90% of capacity to make a return on investment, when the industry as a whole is operating below 70% of capacity (12M/yr vs 18-19M/yr capacity in the US). The only way to recover is to increase sales dramatically or shed capacity. And with an average of a 4 year product development cycle a quick change in products to meet a rapidly changing market cannot happen.
So why the sudden change. You may think the fuel cost increase. Yes, that accounts for some 5-10%, mostly toward the US industry which had tooled for the higher rate of return SUV and truck market. But the other 20% drop is due directly to the lack of credit in a credit intensive business. Everyone needs credit. The dealers to purchase cars for their inventory, customers to lease or buy cars and the auto industry itself to provide ongoing captal for future products.
You can attack the US auto industry for pursuing the higher rate of return SUV and trucks. But that is what the market was demanding. Remember, demand is from the customers. Four years ago, when the 2009 product line was just in the concept stage fuel prices were low and customer demand was for big vehicles. Chrysler stopped the Neon line because of low demand and profit for a small car. And it was not just the US industry. Toyota moved into the full sized truck market and a plethora of SUV's came onto the market. From each area of the globe. The big difference is that the foreign companies have major market shares in countries where smaller sized cars remained the norm. That allowed them to keep in the small car market even though the US market demand was not there, and made a product mix change possible. Note it takes half as long to retool for different cars than to come out with a new design.
I do not expect many outside of the industry to understand what really occurs. But the protection other countries provide, either trade protection like China, Japan and Brazil, or tax based protection like Europe and Japan, shields them from market changes here in the US moreso than local industry. Our tax differences are on the order of 10-20% more than other industrial countries when you include social security, unemployment and health care expenses on top the the average 39.5% tax that is paid in the US (I include those on top of the tax as in most industrial countries those are paid out of the general fund and not from the employers after tax). Note also the 50% duty in China on average and 40% in Brazil on average. Pretty big barriers to exportation to those countries.
So sorry to try to bring some facts to the auto industry bashing party. But given that the US auto industry provides about 5% of the GNP directly, and significantly more indirectly, the loss of the industry will be felt by everyone, everywhere. And that is without a major war where the auto industry manufacturing war production was a decisive difference in WWII. Next time it will be the other guys with that advantage.
This will come across as rocket science. But I will give it a try. Say you have a $200B/yr revenue company. With a average return on sales of 1-1.5%. What happens if sales drop 20-30% with no decrease in operating costs. Big losses, right?
The auto industry has been a very low return on sales industry. That is why it is risky business. Huge capital costs. Huge revenue and huge operating costs. All with little return on investment or revenue. Changes in the range of 1-2% are huge. The last 6 months with 20-30% sales reductions is unprecedented in history. The 1970's or depression era do not come close. Do not underestimate how significant it is in an industry that needs to operate above 90% of capacity to make a return on investment, when the industry as a whole is operating below 70% of capacity (12M/yr vs 18-19M/yr capacity in the US). The only way to recover is to increase sales dramatically or shed capacity. And with an average of a 4 year product development cycle a quick change in products to meet a rapidly changing market cannot happen.
So why the sudden change. You may think the fuel cost increase. Yes, that accounts for some 5-10%, mostly toward the US industry which had tooled for the higher rate of return SUV and truck market. But the other 20% drop is due directly to the lack of credit in a credit intensive business. Everyone needs credit. The dealers to purchase cars for their inventory, customers to lease or buy cars and the auto industry itself to provide ongoing captal for future products.
You can attack the US auto industry for pursuing the higher rate of return SUV and trucks. But that is what the market was demanding. Remember, demand is from the customers. Four years ago, when the 2009 product line was just in the concept stage fuel prices were low and customer demand was for big vehicles. Chrysler stopped the Neon line because of low demand and profit for a small car. And it was not just the US industry. Toyota moved into the full sized truck market and a plethora of SUV's came onto the market. From each area of the globe. The big difference is that the foreign companies have major market shares in countries where smaller sized cars remained the norm. That allowed them to keep in the small car market even though the US market demand was not there, and made a product mix change possible. Note it takes half as long to retool for different cars than to come out with a new design.
I do not expect many outside of the industry to understand what really occurs. But the protection other countries provide, either trade protection like China, Japan and Brazil, or tax based protection like Europe and Japan, shields them from market changes here in the US moreso than local industry. Our tax differences are on the order of 10-20% more than other industrial countries when you include social security, unemployment and health care expenses on top the the average 39.5% tax that is paid in the US (I include those on top of the tax as in most industrial countries those are paid out of the general fund and not from the employers after tax). Note also the 50% duty in China on average and 40% in Brazil on average. Pretty big barriers to exportation to those countries.
So sorry to try to bring some facts to the auto industry bashing party. But given that the US auto industry provides about 5% of the GNP directly, and significantly more indirectly, the loss of the industry will be felt by everyone, everywhere. And that is without a major war where the auto industry manufacturing war production was a decisive difference in WWII. Next time it will be the other guys with that advantage.