In previous posts (see Chrysler Still Needs a Miracle or Chrysler/Fiat Update) I suggested that the Fiat/Chrysler deal looked increasingly like a longshot. Fiat was asking for deep concessions from both the auto union and Chrysler’s creditors, and it seemed unlikely that Fiat was going to receive those concessions.

But over the past few days, the Obama Administration, the auto union, and Chrysler’s creditors seemed to have come to some sort of understanding (see Treasury Close to Deal with Chrysler Creditors, Chrysler Reaches Agreement with UAW, and UAW Gets 55%).

Hallelujah??

Maybe, but not so fast. Several issues remain:

1. Creditors must agree to the debt cancellation.

According to the NY Times:

Chrysler has about $6.9 billion in secured debt owned by big banks like Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase and a group of hedge funds. Under the proposal, all of the debt would be canceled in exchange for $2 billion in cash…

The Treasury drew up the latest proposal in consultation with Chrysler’s biggest secured creditors, which hold about 70 percent of the company’s secured debt. It requires approval by almost all of the secured lenders. That could be difficult as some lenders, including several hedge funds, may hold their ground and reject it.

2. The issue of pay for union workers must still be resolved. Although Chrysler, the federal government, and the union have come to terms with respect to pension and benefits, my understanding is that they have not yet reached a meaningful agreement to reduce wages. Just how important are wage reductions to Fiat? That remains to be seen. According to the Michigan Messenger:

The new agreement does not cut wages, but it does apparently reduce Chrysler’s commitment to pay into the UAW-run retiree health care fund.

3. According to the latest accord, the auto union will get a 55% equity share in Chrysler. The US government will get a 10% share. Fiat would get a 20% share. Where does the other 15% go? Is this 15% set aside for Fiat depending upon whether it meets performance goals? Will this 15%, or a portion of it, get doled out to Chrysler’s creditors? This was not entirely clear to me.

4. Ultimately, Fiat needs to agree to be party to the alliance. Until that happens, there is no deal. Time will tell if these concessions are enough to convince Fiat that the deal is worthwhile.

Nevertheless, given the concessions that all parties have made to help Chrysler avert bankruptcy, a Fiat alliance seems far more likely today than it did as little as one week ago. Chrysler is no longer looking for a miracle. Perhaps now just a random act of kindness.

But assuming a Fiat/Chrysler deal goes through, the question then becomes: Is this the best outcome for Fiat, Chrysler, and the auto industry? It is not entirely clear. The global auto industry continues to be plagued by massive overcapacity. Keeping a weak competitor around will certainly not resolve systemic overcapacity.

For Fiat, it might be a bit premature to re-enter the U.S. market (the most competitive auto market in the world) and sign on for a complicated global expansion/integration (see Fiasco for Fiat?). Let’s also not forget that Fiat is a firm that, as little as two years ago, was on the verge of bankruptcy itself.

Finally, for Chrysler, it is not clear that its products (even with technology infusions from Fiat) can improve quickly enough for it to once again become a profitable enterprise. For this reason, and as I’ve mentioned before, Chrysler likely needs more than Fiat and an additional $6 Billion infusion from the federal government to survive.

So even if the deal goes through this week, it is entirely possible that Chrysler might end up right back in the same place – on the verge of bankruptcy.

And we wait…

From the vault of the sublime, a friend recently e-mailed me a story (hat tip Joel) about how the Topps Company plans to release a set of trading cards depicting the “world’s biggest hoaxes, hoodwinks and bamboozles” (see Topps to Issue Cards with Swindlers). According to Fortune:

This year’s product will…nod to Madoff’s financial chicanery as part of a group of cards featuring the “world’s biggest hoaxes, hoodwinks and bamboozles.” Among the other do-badders in the subset are Charles Ponzi, The Runaway Bride, and Enron.

“These cards feature 20 perpetrators of some of the most notorious pranks, dubious claims, and outright frauds of the last 2 centuries,” boasts a Topps sell-sheet for the collection.

Apparently the “gimmicky” cards depicting the deplorable will be inserted into packs of baseball cards.

Upon hearing the news, I confess I chuckled at first. I’m always game for a good laugh. But then reality set in: The cards would be much funnier, and certainly less crass, had the victims of these “hoaxes, hoodwinks and bamboozles” not lost so much money.

I received an e-mail message yesterday from the folks at Weber Shandwick (GM’s PR firm) calling my attention to a recent blog post by Tom Wilkinson, GM’s news relations director (see Why Not Bankruptcy?).

In that post, Mr. Wilkinson objects to those who have called for bankruptcy reorganization as a viable option for GM. He writes:

Let me briefly review why we think a tough out-of-court reorganization is best for GM, the taxpayers, and other stakeholders.

Bankruptcy reorganization takes cash – lots of it. For a company like General Motors to operate in Chapter 11, it would need massive debtor-in-possession loans. With credit markets frozen, there is realistically only one source of such loans – the federal government. We estimate loans needed to reorganize GM in Chapter 11 could top $100 billion, far more than the out-of-court fix envisioned in our restructuring plan.

MY COMMENT: OK, what’s the problem with that? So the government becomes the de facto DIP financier. And perhaps it is to the tune of $100B (although I think that might be a bit overstated). But that money does not fall down a sinkhole. It is a loan that is collateralized by GM’s enterprise, whatever the value of that may be. The real question is not whether the federal government would have to pony up $100B now if it forced GM into bankruptcy. The government could easily reach (if not exceed) that amount under the current arrangement, only in $10-20B increments.

The real question is whether a GM turnaround would result more quickly, efficiently, and effectively via bankruptcy; whether GM emerges as a healthier organization after bankruptcy; and, whether the likelihood of the federal government getting paid back is higher as a result.

I am not necessarily opposed to additional out-of-court aid for GM, provided that it come with extremely strict terms. However, in many ways, bankruptcy allows GM greater flexibility to reorganize (see GM Plan, Pre-Packaged Bankruptcy, and Preventing Moral Hazard for details).

Mr. Wilkinson continues:

One reason this [$100B DIP financing] figure is so large is that GM’s revenues would plunge in bankruptcy. I ask: “Would [customers] buy a car or truck from a company in bankruptcy, when there are similar products available at another dealership right down the block?” I expect that if they were honest, they would answer “Probably not.” So why do they expect other shoppers to behave differently? The GM viability plan includes a detailed analysis of this revenue risk (Appendix L, Exhibit 3), an analysis bankruptcy advocates seem eager to dismiss or ignore.

MY COMMENT: I am not so sure the answer to Mr. Wilkinson’s question is “no”, or even “probably not”. And this is where I take some issue with the GM plan.

GM assumes that post-bankruptcy revenues for their products will fall by around 35%-40% (compared with the non-bankruptcy alternative). They use Daewoo’s experience as a benchmark. They also try to gauge potential consumer demand via survey instrument.

I am not sure that Daewoo is the right benchmark. Moreover, I am skeptical of the surveys. The fact is that a GM bankruptcy would be very different from a “traditional” bankruptcy. As Mr. Wilkinson points out, in the case of GM, the federal government will act as the DIP financier. With the federal government as the DIP financier, GM not only has the explicit backing of the US government, but the implicit guarantee that it shall continue as a going concern. Moreover, the federal government can stand behind GM warranties. Those stylized facts alone are enough to diminish consumer flight.

It’s no surprise that GM management is strongly advocating an out-of-court solution. After all, an out-of-court solution maximizes their chances of continued employment with GM.

With respect to GM’s position on the matter, the insight of Milgrom and Roberts (RAND, 1986) rings true: Beware (and be skeptical) of information provided by interested parties.

So, YES, GM could survive bankruptcy, and we needn’t be frightened by the prospects, …no matter how much GM tries to convince us that it would spell the apocalypse.

Some funny stuff (hat tip Henry)…

IKEA to sell automobiles in knock-down kits…

(hat tip Gene)

Leave it to The Onion to come up with this amusing, yet sadly accurate, story (hat tip, Gene).

Recession-Plagued Nation Demands New Bubble:

A panel of top business leaders testified before Congress about the worsening recession Monday, demanding the government provide Americans with a new irresponsible and largely illusory economic bubble in which to invest.

“What America needs right now is not more talk and long-term strategy, but a concrete way to create more imaginary wealth in the very immediate future,” said Thomas Jenkins, CFO of the Boston-area Jenkins Financial Group, a bubble-based investment firm. “We are in a crisis, and that crisis demands an unviable short-term solution.”

…According to investment experts, now that the option of making millions of dollars in a short time with imaginary profits from bad real-estate deals has disappeared, the need for another spontaneous make-believe source of wealth has never been more urgent.

“…The manner of bubble isn’t important—just as long as it creates a hugely overvalued market based on nothing more than whimsical fantasy and saddled with the potential for a long-term accrual of debts that will never be paid back, thereby unleashing a ripple effect that will take nearly a decade to correct…The U.S. economy cannot survive on sound investments alone,” [Greg] Carlisle added.

Well what do you know, if you give people incentives to do something (e.g., behave irrationally), they will do it, …in excess even.

Bottom-line: Incentives work.

There’s more of the story on The Onion site. Good fun!