Recs

3

New Bailout Bolted Onto Detroit's Suppliers

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

It's not exactly a surprise that the auto parts makers are getting a bailout. We knew they were lobbying to have a bit of the congressional pork set aside for them. But the manner of the final bailout ought to raise citizens' eyebrows.

The government will shuttle $5 billion to the parts companies that supply Detroit's automakers, on the grounds that these companies have shipped parts to General Motors (NYSE: GM  ) and Chrysler, but have not yet gotten payment. Typically, these companies would use their own cash in the interim, or draw upon lines of credit from lenders. But since the former has apparently dwindled, and the latter remains nonexistent, the parts suppliers requested a bailout. In essence, the taxpayers will now be financing GM's and Chrysler's accounts receivable business, too.

With Lear (NYSE: LEA  ) and American Axle & Manufacturing (NYSE: AXL  ) rumbling that they are on the cusp of filing for bankruptcy, Visteon has doubts about whether it can remain a "going concern," too. Analysts sugges that even the relatively healthy Johnson Controls (NYSE: JCI  ) should mull the decision to cut its dividend. In this light, a cash infusion would undoubtedly be a welcome buffer.

But the aid won't go directly to the auto parts suppliers themselves. Instead, it will be channeled through GM and Chrysler, who will ultimately decide which critical suppliers qualify for the program. Ford (NYSE: F  ) , to its credit, has once again said it will not participate in the government-sponsored program, noting that it's not having any problems paying suppliers.

The plan requires the automakers to pay a 5% fee of the total funds given to their suppliers. In turn, the suppliers will also be charged fees for participating: 2% of the receivable for a guarantee and 1% more to get cash. According to the Treasury, the suppliers will get a government guarantee they'll be paid money owed them by the carmakers "no matter what happens to the recipient car company."

That's scary. If either (or both) GM or Chrysler ends up declaring bankruptcy, taxpayers will be on the hook "no matter what." The hopeful among us might suggest that this move foretells the government's plans to shovel billions more to the automakers. They've requested another $21 billion on top of the $17 billion already received, so why else would we bail out their suppliers? But it might also mean that the government anticipates one or both of the automakers going belly-up, or even a shotgun wedding between the two.

Shares of the auto parts suppliers jumped on the news, but that doesn't mean investors should rush in. This is bound to be a bumpy process; GM and Chrysler are the ultimate arbiters of who gets what and how much, so the largesse certainly won't be spread around evenly. Taxpayers, on the other hand, can justly assume that it will be another costly tab they'll have to pick up.

The Steve Jobs Betrayal
You may already know that in the final year of his life, Jobs revealed a stunning betrayal — and told his biographer, "I will spend my last dying breath... and every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong." What was it that made Jobs so irate — and why could it make a few in-the-know investors some major profits over the coming months and years?

Enter your email address below to find out what made Jobs so enraged!

Fool contributor Rich Duprey does not have a financial position in any of the stocks mentioned in this article. You can see his holdings here. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On May 06, 2009, at 7:45 PM, dlc10727 wrote:

    Bailout or Free Economy?

    By Ethan Schulze

    Bailouts have been argued as against a free economy and as necessary to save our economy. The debate on the automotive industry bailout was everywhere on the news three months ago, with experts coming out of the woodwork. There are many sides of this debate, and the majority have merit. The debate on violations of the free market principles, the compensation of the auto workers, and the debate on bailouts are at the heart of the matter.

    First, the bailouts are against the principles of a free market economy. A bailout could also cause foreign companies to avoid creating jobs in the U.S. (Slaughter). Foreign companies would see the bailout as supporting their competition, which discourages these companies from investing in the U.S. Also, a bailout could harm American companies because governments could implement protectionist policies that would cost American companies much of their foreign sales (Slaughter). It is the duty of governments to protect their citizens and their interests, which include companies, and a bailout could provoke other governments into employing protectionist policies. But, it is also the duty of the U.S. government to protect its citizens and interests, including American companies.

    Additionally, both sides of the debate on auto workers’ wages have merit. These workers are paid a high wage and receive very good health care benefits. “UAW workers earn $75 an hour in wages and benefits--almost triple the earnings of the average private sector worker,” (Sherk). The auto workers are highly paid, earning over $130,000 a year, so why should the companies they work for be bailed out if they can afford to pay their workers that much? But these numbers include the workers’ hourly wage, their benefits, and the cost to the company to provide these benefits. Actually, the auto workers’ wages with benefits are about $55 an hour, with hourly wages at about $29, overtime, bonuses and paid time off at about $11 an hour, and $15 an hour in benefits (FactCheck.org). These wages come to about $56,000 a year plus benefits, bonuses, and overtime; a fairly average wage according to the National Average Wage Index (National Average Wage Index). In reality, the auto workers are not over-compensated, but paid an average living wage salary.

    Finally, a bailout would encourage other industries to seek a bailout, but the financial industry has already been bailed out, with some success. If a bailout were granted to the auto industry it would encourage other industries to do the same, which would stagnate the economy (Mitchell). The financial bailout helped save that industry; “By late October 2008 it appeared that the government's plan to inject capital into banks was showing signs of working. Key estimates showed that the credit freeze was thawing and banks were beginning to lend to each other again,” (Economic Rescue Plan). The plan to bailout the financial industry has been a success, and a bailout of the automotive industry would most likely be successful as well. A bailout would save jobs, much the same way the financial bailout did; “an estimated one out of every 10 jobs is supported, in one way or another, by the Big Three. ‘A bankruptcy would be like a hurricane blowing through the U.S. economy,’” (Automobile Industry Crisis). A bailout is necessary to save these jobs; without a bailout the whole economy could collapse. Bailing out the auto industry is necessary to save the economy and is vital to make sure that average citizens like you or me will be able to have a stable job.

    In conclusion, a bailout is necessary to save our economy; as the duty of a government is to protect its country’s interests, including the corporations. Both sides of the debate on the auto workers’ wages have value when first looked at, but the auto workers’ wages are much lower than advertized. Due to the success of the financial bailout and the risk of economic failure an auto bailout is necessary. The auto bailout should be supported even if it is against the principles of a free economy due to the risk of inaction leading to disaster and the success of the financial bailout, and leave the workers’ wage as is. We cannot risk the disaster of inaction, we have too much to lose.

    Works Cited

    "Economic Rescue Plan." Issues & Controversies On File 14 November. 2008. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. 5 April. 2009 <http://www.2facts.com>.

    Slaughter, Matthew J. “An Auto Bailout Would Be Terrible for Free Trade.” Wall Street Journal. 20 November. 2008. Wall Street Journal. 4 April. 2009. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714450941743143.html>

    Sherk, James. “Auto Bailout Ignores Excessive Labor Costs.” The Heritage Foundation. November 19. 2008. The Heritage Foundation. 4 April. 2009. <http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2135.cfm>

    Mitchell, Daniel J. “Commentary: Say no to the auto bailout.” CNN Politics.com. November 19. 2008. CNN. 4 April. 2009. <http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/mitchell.auto/index.h...

    "Automobile Industry Crisis." Issues & Controversies On File 19 December. 2008. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. 4 Apr. 2009 <http://www.2facts.com>.

    Miller, Joe and Viveca Novak. “FactCheck.org: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?” FactCheck.org. December 11. 2008. FactCheck.org. 5 April. 2009. <http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_auto_workers_really...

    “National Average Wage Index.” Social Security Online. 16 October. 2008. www.socialsecurity.gov. 5 April. 2009. <http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html>

  • Report this Comment On May 06, 2009, at 7:45 PM, dlc10727 wrote:

    Bailout or Free Economy?

    By Ethan Schulze

    Bailouts have been argued as against a free economy and as necessary to save our economy. The debate on the automotive industry bailout was everywhere on the news three months ago, with experts coming out of the woodwork. There are many sides of this debate, and the majority have merit. The debate on violations of the free market principles, the compensation of the auto workers, and the debate on bailouts are at the heart of the matter.

    First, the bailouts are against the principles of a free market economy. A bailout could also cause foreign companies to avoid creating jobs in the U.S. (Slaughter). Foreign companies would see the bailout as supporting their competition, which discourages these companies from investing in the U.S. Also, a bailout could harm American companies because governments could implement protectionist policies that would cost American companies much of their foreign sales (Slaughter). It is the duty of governments to protect their citizens and their interests, which include companies, and a bailout could provoke other governments into employing protectionist policies. But, it is also the duty of the U.S. government to protect its citizens and interests, including American companies.

    Additionally, both sides of the debate on auto workers’ wages have merit. These workers are paid a high wage and receive very good health care benefits. “UAW workers earn $75 an hour in wages and benefits--almost triple the earnings of the average private sector worker,” (Sherk). The auto workers are highly paid, earning over $130,000 a year, so why should the companies they work for be bailed out if they can afford to pay their workers that much? But these numbers include the workers’ hourly wage, their benefits, and the cost to the company to provide these benefits. Actually, the auto workers’ wages with benefits are about $55 an hour, with hourly wages at about $29, overtime, bonuses and paid time off at about $11 an hour, and $15 an hour in benefits (FactCheck.org). These wages come to about $56,000 a year plus benefits, bonuses, and overtime; a fairly average wage according to the National Average Wage Index (National Average Wage Index). In reality, the auto workers are not over-compensated, but paid an average living wage salary.

    Finally, a bailout would encourage other industries to seek a bailout, but the financial industry has already been bailed out, with some success. If a bailout were granted to the auto industry it would encourage other industries to do the same, which would stagnate the economy (Mitchell). The financial bailout helped save that industry; “By late October 2008 it appeared that the government's plan to inject capital into banks was showing signs of working. Key estimates showed that the credit freeze was thawing and banks were beginning to lend to each other again,” (Economic Rescue Plan). The plan to bailout the financial industry has been a success, and a bailout of the automotive industry would most likely be successful as well. A bailout would save jobs, much the same way the financial bailout did; “an estimated one out of every 10 jobs is supported, in one way or another, by the Big Three. ‘A bankruptcy would be like a hurricane blowing through the U.S. economy,’” (Automobile Industry Crisis). A bailout is necessary to save these jobs; without a bailout the whole economy could collapse. Bailing out the auto industry is necessary to save the economy and is vital to make sure that average citizens like you or me will be able to have a stable job.

    In conclusion, a bailout is necessary to save our economy; as the duty of a government is to protect its country’s interests, including the corporations. Both sides of the debate on the auto workers’ wages have value when first looked at, but the auto workers’ wages are much lower than advertized. Due to the success of the financial bailout and the risk of economic failure an auto bailout is necessary. The auto bailout should be supported even if it is against the principles of a free economy due to the risk of inaction leading to disaster and the success of the financial bailout, and leave the workers’ wage as is. We cannot risk the disaster of inaction, we have too much to lose.

    Works Cited

    "Economic Rescue Plan." Issues & Controversies On File 14 November. 2008. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. 5 April. 2009 <http://www.2facts.com>.

    Slaughter, Matthew J. “An Auto Bailout Would Be Terrible for Free Trade.” Wall Street Journal. 20 November. 2008. Wall Street Journal. 4 April. 2009. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714450941743143.html>

    Sherk, James. “Auto Bailout Ignores Excessive Labor Costs.” The Heritage Foundation. November 19. 2008. The Heritage Foundation. 4 April. 2009. <http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2135.cfm>

    Mitchell, Daniel J. “Commentary: Say no to the auto bailout.” CNN Politics.com. November 19. 2008. CNN. 4 April. 2009. <http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/mitchell.auto/index.h...

    "Automobile Industry Crisis." Issues & Controversies On File 19 December. 2008. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. 4 Apr. 2009 <http://www.2facts.com>.

    Miller, Joe and Viveca Novak. “FactCheck.org: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?” FactCheck.org. December 11. 2008. FactCheck.org. 5 April. 2009. <http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_auto_workers_really...

    “National Average Wage Index.” Social Security Online. 16 October. 2008. www.socialsecurity.gov. 5 April. 2009. <http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html>

  • Report this Comment On May 06, 2009, at 7:46 PM, dlc10727 wrote:

    Bailout or Free Economy?

    By Ethan Schulze

    Bailouts have been argued as against a free economy and as necessary to save our economy. The debate on the automotive industry bailout was everywhere on the news three months ago, with experts coming out of the woodwork. There are many sides of this debate, and the majority have merit. The debate on violations of the free market principles, the compensation of the auto workers, and the debate on bailouts are at the heart of the matter.

    First, the bailouts are against the principles of a free market economy. A bailout could also cause foreign companies to avoid creating jobs in the U.S. (Slaughter). Foreign companies would see the bailout as supporting their competition, which discourages these companies from investing in the U.S. Also, a bailout could harm American companies because governments could implement protectionist policies that would cost American companies much of their foreign sales (Slaughter). It is the duty of governments to protect their citizens and their interests, which include companies, and a bailout could provoke other governments into employing protectionist policies. But, it is also the duty of the U.S. government to protect its citizens and interests, including American companies.

    Additionally, both sides of the debate on auto workers’ wages have merit. These workers are paid a high wage and receive very good health care benefits. “UAW workers earn $75 an hour in wages and benefits--almost triple the earnings of the average private sector worker,” (Sherk). The auto workers are highly paid, earning over $130,000 a year, so why should the companies they work for be bailed out if they can afford to pay their workers that much? But these numbers include the workers’ hourly wage, their benefits, and the cost to the company to provide these benefits. Actually, the auto workers’ wages with benefits are about $55 an hour, with hourly wages at about $29, overtime, bonuses and paid time off at about $11 an hour, and $15 an hour in benefits (FactCheck.org). These wages come to about $56,000 a year plus benefits, bonuses, and overtime; a fairly average wage according to the National Average Wage Index (National Average Wage Index). In reality, the auto workers are not over-compensated, but paid an average living wage salary.

    Finally, a bailout would encourage other industries to seek a bailout, but the financial industry has already been bailed out, with some success. If a bailout were granted to the auto industry it would encourage other industries to do the same, which would stagnate the economy (Mitchell). The financial bailout helped save that industry; “By late October 2008 it appeared that the government's plan to inject capital into banks was showing signs of working. Key estimates showed that the credit freeze was thawing and banks were beginning to lend to each other again,” (Economic Rescue Plan). The plan to bailout the financial industry has been a success, and a bailout of the automotive industry would most likely be successful as well. A bailout would save jobs, much the same way the financial bailout did; “an estimated one out of every 10 jobs is supported, in one way or another, by the Big Three. ‘A bankruptcy would be like a hurricane blowing through the U.S. economy,’” (Automobile Industry Crisis). A bailout is necessary to save these jobs; without a bailout the whole economy could collapse. Bailing out the auto industry is necessary to save the economy and is vital to make sure that average citizens like you or me will be able to have a stable job.

    In conclusion, a bailout is necessary to save our economy; as the duty of a government is to protect its country’s interests, including the corporations. Both sides of the debate on the auto workers’ wages have value when first looked at, but the auto workers’ wages are much lower than advertized. Due to the success of the financial bailout and the risk of economic failure an auto bailout is necessary. The auto bailout should be supported even if it is against the principles of a free economy due to the risk of inaction leading to disaster and the success of the financial bailout, and leave the workers’ wage as is. We cannot risk the disaster of inaction, we have too much to lose.

    Works Cited

    "Economic Rescue Plan." Issues & Controversies On File 14 November. 2008. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. 5 April. 2009 <http://www.2facts.com>.

    Slaughter, Matthew J. “An Auto Bailout Would Be Terrible for Free Trade.” Wall Street Journal. 20 November. 2008. Wall Street Journal. 4 April. 2009. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714450941743143.html>

    Sherk, James. “Auto Bailout Ignores Excessive Labor Costs.” The Heritage Foundation. November 19. 2008. The Heritage Foundation. 4 April. 2009. <http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2135.cfm>

    Mitchell, Daniel J. “Commentary: Say no to the auto bailout.” CNN Politics.com. November 19. 2008. CNN. 4 April. 2009. <http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/mitchell.auto/index.h...

    "Automobile Industry Crisis." Issues & Controversies On File 19 December. 2008. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. 4 Apr. 2009 <http://www.2facts.com>.

    Miller, Joe and Viveca Novak. “FactCheck.org: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?” FactCheck.org. December 11. 2008. FactCheck.org. 5 April. 2009. <http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_auto_workers_really...

    “National Average Wage Index.” Social Security Online. 16 October. 2008. www.socialsecurity.gov. 5 April. 2009. <http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html>

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 856952, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/25/2012 9:04:30 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/25/2012 4:01 PM
JCI $30.54 Down -0.29 -0.94%
Johnson Controls,… CAPS Rating: *****
LEA $41.01 Up +0.51 +1.26%
Lear Corporation CAPS Rating: *****
GM $22.44 Up +0.40 +1.81%
General Motors Com… CAPS Rating: **
AXL $9.32 Down -0.09 -0.96%
American Axle & Ma… CAPS Rating: **
F $10.60 Up +0.01 +0.09%
Ford CAPS Rating: ****

Advertisement