Reuters Blogs

DealZone

Behind the deals and deal-makers

14:00 July 16th, 2008

Bring MORE players into U.S. auto market?

Posted by: Jui Chakravorty
Tags: DealZone

gm.jpgGeneral Motors Corp, which has lost $51 billion in the last three years (yes, that’s right, $51 billion) and is trying to cut costs and restructure yet again, said yesterday it will try to sell up to $4 billion in assets.

That’s a lot of $$ to raise from asset sales. In fact, it’s almost as much as the automaker’s market cap of about $5.6 billion.

So what can it sell? We know it is already reviewing its Hummer brand — and a sale is likely. But with skyrocketing gas prices and a huge slump in demand in the U.S., Hummer, with its 9-14 miles per gallon, will probably not even net GM $1 billion.

What else could it sell? A sale of Onstar, its vehicle communications system, is possible. A sale of its remaining 49-percent stake in its finance arm, GMAC, is also possible. But what is most likely is that GM — often criticized for having too many brands — will try to offload more brands.

Next likely to come under scrutiny (even though GM has said no other brands are for sale) are Saturn — a fading-but-recently-revived brand made more attractive with an independent dealer network — and Saab —  a Swedish “near-luxury” brand which has the disadvantage of being “neither here nor there,” as some investment bankers have said. (It doesn’t have the premium luxury positioning but lacks the scale of a mass-market brand).

But here’s the real conundrum: Potential buyers for the brands would have to be from overseas — a foreign automaker who wants to gain a presence in the U.S. auto market. As U.S. vehicle sales fall to their lowest levels in 15 years and U.S. automakers are cutting production to align with ever-falling demand, it wouldn’t make much sense to help more automakers come into the market and expand their presence here.

That would only end up putting more pressure on profit margins for everyone. It would force the Big Three to cut production further. It would create more competition and more capacity amid slipping demand. It would give a new competitor a space, a dealer network and a platform to grow in a market that is already hurting the Big Three U.S. automakers so much that analysts are wondering if a bankruptcy is on the horizon.

So it doesn’t really make sense. Besides, with GM having said it needs to raise capital by selling assets, potential buyers are likely to lowball offers. But then again, GM needs the cash. Sure, it has $24 billion in cash on hand, but the automaker is burning through a few billion every quarter.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

3 comments so far

How about you add contstructive articles and post truths along with your slander. Perhaps if you noted that of that 51 billion dollar loss, 38 billion was NON CASH, and entirely a tax write off from a previous years loss. Who is to hold news reporters and wall street accounatable for their malignity? Will you in your report show that despite a massive loss from ResCap, GMAC’s Morgage Lender, GM’s Opererating profit allowed GM to still post almost 700 million dollars in net profit last year?

- Posted by Tim

What’s OnStar worth?

- Posted by charles

This article is not even close to “news”. Also, it is ALL completely speculation from someone who has no real idea about what they are talking about, and probably no clue about the auto industry and the measures that GM has been taking over the course of the last year to return to profitability.

- Posted by Rob

Post Your Comment

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

House Rules:
  • We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information
  • We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous information.