I want to take a break from banking and macro stuff and talk a little bit about technology. I wrote an article about Android a few weeks back. That was a more personal account on why I was switching from a Windows Mobile phone to Android, the latest whiz-bang operating system running mobile phones. (Don’t ask me why I stuck with Windows Mobile for so long – even I don’t know any more). This article is looking at the Android phenomenon more from a strategic perspective.

You may have seen the Verizon commercials on TV. They’re everywhere: Droid has arrived. And this happens to be a big problem for Apple Computer.

(In case you haven’t seen the commercials, here is one embedded below)

As you probably know, I am a bit of a technophile.  I’m that guy you remember from high school who was taking AP Computer Science and programming in Pascal, the guy you remember who always had the latest gadget. And I’ve done my stint in technology companies too. But, at heart, I am a finance guy and when I look at technology, I do so from a finance guy’s point of view.  That’s why I see the emergence of Android phones as significant. The recent flurry of announcements about hardware manufacturers adopting the Android platform has me thinking about Apple Computer and the 1990s again – and that’s not good for Apple.

The Macintosh

From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, I was a Macintosh user and an avid fan of Apple Computer and its products. I started using PCs only because incompatibility with my colleagues’ work product forced me to do so.  The Macintosh was miles ahead of the PC in user-friendliness and platform robustness. And Apple is a company that cares about customer service too.

But, forced to do so or not, I did switch to the PC, as did millions of others.  The reason: one company cannot compete against 100s. Apple refused to open its system and that limited production to Apple alone. Meanwhile, in PC world, you saw Compaq, Gateway 2000, HP, Dell, IBM, Toshiba, NEC, Packard Bell and a host of other vendors jumping onto the PC platform. Eventually, the PC was ubiquitous – and often incompatible with the Macintosh. How could Apple compete?  It couldn’t. Eventually, the Macintosh lost market share and became a niche product for die-hards, education and design.

Digital Music

But, Apple maintained its core competencies of user-friendliness, platform robustness and customer service. While PC makers were technology companies run by engineers, Apple was a consumer product company run by design and marketing. So, when Apple hit upon the digital music scene with iTunes and the iPod, it instantly became a success.

I am a big music fan. Because I tend to be an early adopter, I went all-in for digital music and CDs, buying my first CD player in 1988 – a top-rated Kyocera DA-610cx. When digital music hit the portable device market, I was there as well with my portable supposedly skip-free CD player plus car adapter. But, eventually I switched to Mini Disc and then on to Digital Audio Players. Remember the Diamond Rio 500?

The iPod

Then came the iPod. This was a ground-breaking product which was to digital music players what the Macintosh was to computers. It revolutionized the industry, bringing Apple Computer back to prominence as a technology company. The iPod became the dominant digital audio player (the hardware) – and with it, iTunes became the dominant digital music player (the software). It was almost like Intel and Microsoft rolled into one. Again, it was the product design and robustness of the iPod and the user-friendliness of Apple which made the difference.

Since then, Apple has successfully branched out into all manner of related spheres: video, podcasts, and most crucially digital music purchases and mobile telephones. They have also been very successful at integrating all of the platforms.

The iPhone – Android wars

But, everyone knows the standalone digital music player is passé. And iTunes, the digital music software application is free, a loss leader. The real money is going to come from digital music purchases and Apple’s mobile telephone, the iPhone. So, strategically speaking, this is why I see the flurry of announcements about Android phones as a problem for Apple.

Android is the Linux-based operating system developed by Google. it is now being implemented on a number of different platforms from internet tablets to low-end personal computers to mobile telephones. 

What I question is how Apple is going to compete in mobile telephones. Don’t let the hype around the Verizon Droid fool you. The phone, manufactured by Motorola, is a very good phone. But, it is only one of many that are now coming to market. There are also phones in the works from Sony Ericsson, Samsung, HTC, Dell, Garmin, LG, and a host of other manufacturers. Even Google is supposed to be coming forth with the much anticipated Google Phone – the phone designed to prevent the splintering of Android which doomed Unix as a consumer-based operating system.

To my eyes, this is looking like a repeat of the Macintosh-PC Wars of the 1990s which Apple lost. On the one side, you have Apple, competing at the high end and very concerned about platform integrity and control, and preventing other manufacturers from building its hardware. On the other side, you have another operating system designed for the lower end and installed on a host of manufacturer systems – which may or may not cause serious platform integrity problems down the line.  Who wins that battle?

In the 1990s it was Intel and Microsoft. And they went on to reap massive rewards as Apple foundered.  Today, Apple risks a repeat of this if it does not come out with a credible solution to deal with its burgeoning Android problem.

Related posts:

• Android gaining momentum on Apple’s iPhone
• Yahoo: run into the ground
• Walt Mossberg says Apple’s new browser Safari is fast
• eBay to cut 10% of its workforce
• Porsche and VW merge as auto consolidation continues

There are a lot of threads to tie together in today’s reporting of news in the auto sector.

General Motors has reported a third-quarter loss of $1.15 billion. But all indications are that car sales continue to outpace expectations in the United States.  Meanwhile, there are conflicting stories that GM both plans to pay back its bailout money, and to use it to help its ailing European operations. I will try to tie all these stories into a common thread.

First are the earnings. This is the first report by General Motors since leaving bankruptcy.  The results are decidedly mixed showing increasing sales, but a large loss and declining liquidity.

The video above points to losses and negative cash flow. But Bloomberg has reported that GM had significantly positive cash flow in Q3: $3.3 billion worth. Irrespective, sales are up.

The New York Times’ Deal Book says:

Excluding taxes and one-time items like the costs related to restructuring its dealership network, G.M. said its operations lost $261 million from July 10 and September 30. The loss in North America was $651 million.

For the entire third quarter, including the final 10 days of G.M.’s bankruptcy, the company said its revenue was $28 billion, up 21 percent from the second quarter.

In addition, retail sales have revealed that car sales in the U.S. are still relatively brisk for October despite the expiration of cash for clunkers. So, GM is benefitting from more sales, but is still not making money and still seeing cash go out the door. Obviously, they are going to need to cut costs even more, unless they count on sales returning to pre-crisis levels.  However, all indications are that they do, as CEO Fritz Henderson says revenue growth is their number one priority.

“We have significantly more work to do, but today’s results provide evidence of the solid foundation we’re building for the new G.M.,” the chief executive, Fritz Henderson, said in a statement. “With a healthier balance sheet and a competitive cost structure, our focus is on driving top line performance.”

See the Bloomberg video below for my comments by Henderson.

Meanwhile, in what should be seen as a PR move, General Motors has also announced it will begin repaying government money. The first $1 billion to be repaid in December. The company will make $1 billion payments to the U.S. government and $200 million payments to the Canadian government every quarter. It has said it could repay all the aid money by 2011, four years ahead of schedule. Presumably, this does not include the equity government stakes which can be sold on in the open market in an I.P.O.

Given the fact that General Motors is still losing money, it would make sense for them to delay repayment. However, I reckon they are going to repay early in order to tamp down criticism about their government-funded bailout.

The same is true in Germany as well as GM has also announced it will repay ALL German state aid before month’s close.  That is big. It significantly reduces the German government’s leverage over GM plans for restructuring in Germany.

This makes the recent statements about using bailout funds to bolster European operations seem inexplicable. If GM is losing money and needs to use bailout funds to plug up holes in Europe because it has decided to renege on an agreement to sell operations, why is it paying back bailout funds?  Is it not obvious the company needs the money?

My interpretation of GM’s actions is this: they are still a loss-making company and their cost basis is unprofitable at present sales levels. In order to return to profitability, they will need to further reduce costs or increase sales. At present, management have opted to grow the top line – and this makes retaining the European operations vital as the auto technology at Opel is considered first class.

So, GM has reneged on the Opel sale, risking the political backlash, because it is flush with bailout cash.  However, it knows that its desire to use these funds to stabilize the European business is likely to invite populist outcries in North America. This is why they have announced the repayment schedule today; it is purely a public relations maneuver to quell any anti-bailout sentiment. They are repaying German state aid for similar reasons, but also because it gives them greater flexibility in making operating decisions about job cuts and plant closures.

As GM is not publicly traded, we do not have stock prices as a gauge of how receptive investors are to these latest moves. But, according to Bloomberg, GM 8 3/8 bonds maturing 2033 jumped significantly, adding $2.63 to move to $20.3 on $100 par value.

You can expect to see GM as a topic in both the business and political press for some time to come.

Related posts:

• GM looks to use US and Canadian tax money to bailout Opel
• GM and Chrysler to get more bailout money
• GM headed for bankruptcy
• GM considers keeping Opel, raising capital
• Chrysler: bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered

The Motorola Droid is the so-called iPhone killer. Is it the real deal?  Mossberg seems to think so.

See also: Motorola’s Droid Is Smart Success for Verizon Users – Walt Mossberg, WSJ

Related posts:

• Mossberg: Palm Pre to Rival iPhone
• Walt Mossberg says Apple’s new browser Safari is fast
• Walt Mossberg reviews the new iPhone
• Walter Mossberg: Top 2009 Gadgets
• Android gaining momentum on Apple’s iPhone

I had a feeling there was an energy component to the Berkshire Hathaway decision to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe. And now comes the evidence via coal, a major freight on BNSF’s tracks. But, there is a lot more to this acquisition than just hauling coal.

Warren Buffett has been increasing his energy plays in recent years, both in the U.S. and abroad.  he has said repeatedly that he likes energy and power. His chief asset in the U.S. is Mid-American Energy, a major utility company whose CEO is often touted as one of the eventual successors to Buffett at the helm of Berkshire.

On the other hand, Berkshire was on record as hating the railroad business.  When I was a panellist on BNN TV in Canada at noon today, fellow panellist Brian Milner, business columnist at the Globe & Mail in Toronto, mentioned that Charlie Munger, Buffett’s right-hand man at Berkshire, said two years ago he and Buffett hated the fundamentals of the railroad business.  Rolfe Winkler has a good post showing that the BNSF acquisition is fully priced. So, what gives – why is Berkshire paying top dollar for a company in an industry with what it used to describe as poor fundamentals?

The answer is coal.

This comes via MarketWatch (hat tip PapaSwamp):

Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s $44 billion deal to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. is basically a huge bet on coal, a fuel that powers Warren Buffett’s power plants at his MidAmerican Energy utility and plays a major role in the railroad business.

While regulatory delays and uncertainty over climate-change legislation has slowed the addition of new U.S. coal plants, plenty of new facilities are expected to come on line in the United States, becoming prospects for future growth for the railroads.

Nine new coal plants have been permitted in the United States and 25 are under construction for a combined generation capacity of nearly 15,000 megawatts, according to an Oct. 9 report by the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

Moves by the Obama administration to curb emissions in proposed climate-change legislation are also anticipated to push the generation industry toward wider use of carbon-capture and storage technology at coal plants, which still supply nearly half of America’s electricity.

With the U.S. economy poised for a rebound, both the coal-fired electricity industry and the railroads that haul the black rock are primed for growth, leading Buffett to describe his huge purchase as "an all-in wager on the economic future of the United States."

Moreover, Munger’s comments in regards to coal were more to the effect ‘we hated railroads for decades. But we love them now because the industry has consolidated, affording the remaining players monopoly-like rents.’ Given the fact that BNSF gets a quarter of revenues from hauling coal and this is a major feedstock for MidAmerican, there are a lot of synergies.

The Motley Fool talks about Munger’s change regarding railroads in a December 2007 post on Charlie Munger’s 10 Rules for Investment Success:

9. Be ready for change
Accept unremovable complexity.

Investing success requires us to accept inevitable changes. Munger and Buffett hated railroads for decades, but as the times changed, they threw their old thoughts out the door and invested billions. The world around us won’t always conform to our preferences and prejudices, and sometimes our best ideas will prove incorrect. If you aren’t willing to roll with a changing market, you may find yourself fighting a lost cause.

The Wall Street Journal’s Matt Phillips also believes Buffett has waited until the turn to buy these assets as freight traffic is off its lows earlier this year – something Buffett tracks as a proxy for aggregate demand. But, this is not a market call alone. When Berkshire buys a business outright, they are making a long-term investment .

Let’s see how this call turns out because Buffett’s record over the last few years has been less stellar than in the past as ‘largeness’ makes earning high returns more difficult.  If you look at the timing of his Conoco Phillips and General Electric calls last year, there is ample room for doubt (Berkshire has since rotated out of COP).  On the other hand, his Goldman preferreds are looking quite nice.

Note: Goldman Sachs was also BNSF’s advisor on this deal.

Other sources

Catching up: Buffett bought railroads, J&J, Comcast – USA Today, May 2007

Buffett’s Berkshire buys more shares in railroad – USA Today, Jan 2008

Related posts:

• Buffett buys up Burlington Northern and does 50-1 split at Berkshire
• Warren Buffett backs Goldman
• Buffett to invest in General Electric
• Quote of the day: Warren Buffett
• Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting this weekend

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has been making some very significant moves of late.  Selling of Moody’s shares is one.  But, the latest is sure to cause a stir amongst Buffett watchers because he is definitely making some “bets” on economic recovery with his purchase of Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNI). It is unclear as yet what precipitated the share split (Hat tip Roula).

From Business Wire:

The boards of directors of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE: BRK.A; BRK.B) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (BNSF; NYSE: BNI) today announced a definitive agreement for Berkshire Hathaway to acquire for $100 per share in cash and stock the remaining 77.4 percent of outstanding BNI shares not currently owned to increase its holdings to 100 percent. Based on the number of outstanding BNI shares (including shares currently owned by Berkshire) on Nov. 2, 2009, the transaction is valued at approximately $44 billion, including $10 billion of outstanding BNSF debt, making it the largest acquisition in Berkshire Hathaway history.

“Our country’s future prosperity depends on its having an efficient and well-maintained rail system,” said Warren E. Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway chairman and chief executive officer. “Conversely, America must grow and prosper for railroads to do well. Berkshire’s $34 billion investment in BNSF is a huge bet on that company, CEO Matt Rose and his team, and the railroad industry.

“Most important of all, however, it’s an all-in wager on the economic future of the United States,” said Mr. Buffett. “I love these bets.”

Railroad freight traffic is often used as a proxy for aggregate demand in the economy when looking for substitutes to government measures of GDP or consumption. So, clearly Buffett is making a bet on American prosperity going forward as the last paragraph I quoted says.

However, the announcements today at Berkshire were a twofer as Berkshire also announced a 50-1 stock split. Berkshire couches the rationale for the split in terms of making the transaction viable for small stockholders of Burlington Northern Sante Fe, but I suspect there is a bigger plan.  The press release on Berkshire’s site says:

The great majority of the stock issued by Berkshire in the BNSF acquisition announced today will be “A” shares. “B” shares, however, will also be needed to accommodate holders of smaller amounts of BNSF shares who opt for a share exchange rather than a cash payment.

By splitting Berkshire “B” shares 50-for-1, we can accommodate even the smallest holdings of BNSF shares that elect a tax-free exchange.

Berkshire Hathaway “A” shares last traded for a massive $98,750.00, putting it clearly out of reach for the average retail investor except through participation in a fund. Berkshire created the B-class of shares to accommodate more retail-oriented investors. So, I suspect this is a move to put “B’ shares further into the reach of retail investors. The B-shares last traded for $3,265, so a 50-1 split puts them at $65.30, a price any retail investor would find reasonable.

Related posts:

• Buffett: Is Berkshire’s Burlington move all about coal?
• Warren Buffett backs Goldman
• Buffett to invest in General Electric
• Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting this weekend
• Quote of the day: Warren Buffett

In my recent post on greed, I wrote about how for the last generation corporations have been trying to get out of as many of their expensive obligations to workers as they can reasonably get away with.  The list of obligations includes but is not limited to pensions, health care and job security.

One can debate whether they are being pulled into this unwillingly by competition from overseas or being pulled by the lure of large bonuses from cost cuts which boost shareholder returns. Either way, evidence that ordinary Americans are increasingly worried that corporations are looking to slough off their commitments onto workers comes from a case in Houston.

The Guardian reports:

Was it a sudden spate of marital disharmony? Or were there mercenary motives at play? A US judge has thrown out a case brought by Continental Airlines against nine pilots accused of getting "sham" divorces in order to collect large payouts from an employee pension fund.

The Houston-based international carrier smelt a rat when a spate of its cockpit crew members dissolved their marriages between 2005 and 2007, only to remarry shortly after their spouses had obtained up to $900,000 under a loophole permitting lump sum pension payouts to divorced partners of staff members.

Continental fired the pilots and sued, claiming it had been duped into distributing between $10m and $11m under false pretences. But at a federal court in Texas, a judge has sided with the pilots, ruling that, irrespective of its employees’ motives, Continental cannot hold itself up as an arbiter of marital authenticity.

Are these pilots greedy or are they worried that Continental will dispose of its pension obligations in bankruptcy court much as other American airlines did post 9/11?

• Basics of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (pdf)
• PBGC Assumes Pensions of Aloha Airlines
• Effect of United Airlines pension termination on PBGC deficit (pdf)

Continental plans to appeal.

Related posts:

• Lehman pension shortfall is a foreshadowing
• Pensions: $400 billion hole to reduce U.S. corporate earnings
• Another writedown risk: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
• Muncipalities can tear up contracts
• Judge stops BofA deal with the SEC

I recently switched from a Windows Mobile telephone to an Android-based mobile phone.  When I was making the switch, I had to decide whether I was going with the iPhone, which my wife uses. or to run with Blackberry or Android, a Google-centric operating system (Symbian, which runs Nokia phones, and the Palm-based OS look like losers and I don’t want to get caught with limited app choice or upgradeability).

I liked the iPhone but the lack of keyboard made Blackberry look inviting. In the end, what sealed the deal for me was the apparently anti-competitive behavior of Apple and AT&T in declining to accept Google Voice as an App for the iPhone.

• Apple Is Growing Rotten To The Core: Official Google Voice App Blocked From App Store
• FCC Takes On Apple And AT&T Over Google Voice Rejection
• Why The FCC Wants To Smash Open The iPhone
• Andy Kessler: WSJ: Why AT&T Killed Google Voice
• Apple Isn’t Even Bothering To Lie Anymore

Why should I reward companies which are engaging in this type of behavior with my business?  Apple is already acting anti-competitively by tying iTunes to the iPhone and iPod. So I went elsewhere.

Android is an open-source software system, which means that the code is available for everyone to see, which gives developers maximum flexibility. It also means that Google can’t win the OS war by making your life more difficult and tying you into their system like Microsoft and Apple do. Instead, they must compete to be the best at what they do.

And they are doing that well.  The video below from Bloomberg features Nicholas Thompson of Wired Magazine telling us why Android is gaining ground on Apple.

Related articles

Google enables Push Gmail for iPhone & Windows Mobile – Download Squad

AT&T Risks Losing Voice To Skype – Wall Street Journal

Related posts:

• Apple: Can it stop the Android menace?
• Mossberg: Palm Pre to Rival iPhone
• Walt Mossberg says Apple’s new browser Safari is fast
• Walt Mossberg reviews the new iPhone
• Why GM is repaying bailout money while it is still loss-making

Pete Cashmore launched a blog called Mashable from his home in Scotland in 2005.  You may have seen the articles from the site in the links from time to time. Well, this happens to be the number 1 social media-focused blog on the Internet, usurping prior leader TechCrunch’s position. Cashmore’s site gets 10 million page views a month and is highly profitable. His Twitter page has 1.6 million followers and rising.

In the video below, he talks to Bloomberg about his take on social media, blogging and the Internet. He sees the web as a meritocracy where anyone who has something valuable to say can succeed if they work hard at it.  New media like blogs are more interactive and democratic and provide a better sense of community than traditional media outlets. Well said, Pete.

Related posts:

• The German econblogger space is just fine
• Get Daily Updates from Credit Writedowns
• About Credit Writedowns
• The 50 Best Business Blogs of 2008
• Walt Mossberg says Apple’s new browser Safari is fast

Toyota, now the world’s largest automaker, has said it would halt production at a plant in Aichi prefecture in Japan, reducing total output by a massive 220,000 cars.  This should be seen as a recognition of the over-capacity tat exists in the auto sector despite other recent upbeat news.

Toyota raised its parent-only production target for 2009 by 150,000 units to 5.95 million on Aug. 20 in response to various government stimulus programs and a reduction in inventory. The last press release from Aug. 21 on Toyota’s US website touts Toyota’s addition of capacity at its site in Huntsville to produce an additional 216,000 vehicles, with production scheduled for 2011.  From these two announcements, one would assume that production is slated to ramp up.

Yet, we now understand that the company is looking to actually reduce overall capacity in order to return to profitability.  In fact, some experts believe Toyota’s capacity cuts could eventually reduce capacity by 700,000 cars or 7% of annual production.  Reuters is talking about a cut of 1 million units of capacity or 10% of annual production.

The problem is that Toyota, which produced 8.2 million vehicles in 2008, has a capacity of about 10 million units worldwide.  And when your 2009 target is for 5.95 million vehicles that necessarily means you have a huge amount of excess capacity.

To my mind, these announcements speak to the vast difference between the meaningful uptick in demand today, the much larger demand of just a few years ago, and the capacity built for even more demand that was expected. 

Yes, the economy is picking up globally, but while 5.95 million units is more than 5.8 million, it is nowhere close to 10 million.

Related posts:

• Third quarter auto production to be significant boost to U.S. GDP
• Industrial production implodes
• Auto sales plunge in September
• Sweden: competitive auto bailouts begin with Saab and Volvo
• Chart of the day: Industrial Production

Alcohol used to seen as a recession-proof good. This downturn is changing that thinking as evidence of cutbacks in spending, consumption, and on-premise drinking abound.  Back in the Spring of 2008, Nielsen conducted a bunch of surveys to see how the economy was affecting the consumption of wine and spirits.  The answer then was it was not yet a major impact. The Blog “Wine & Spirits Daily” reported:

When it comes to wine, 49% said the economy has had “no effect” on the amount they spend, while 37% said “just a little” and 13% said “significantly.” With spirits, 48% reported “no effect,” while 34% said “just a little” and 17% claimed a significant difference in spending. Beer, meanwhile, had 47% of consumers reporting that their spending hadn’t changed, while 40% said “just a little” and 13% said “significantly,” according to Nielsen.

But, by January of 2009, the industry was reporting a change in dynamic.  The Associate Press put out a story called “Is the alcohol industry recession proof?” which showed major impact being felt in the industry.  The big change in behavior is what is called off-premise drinking i.e. carry-out beer, wine and spirits instead of drinks in restaurants and bars in order to cut costs.

Consumers are eating out less as they try to save money, and when they do go, Cressy said, they’re limiting what they order. On-premise volume fell 2.2 percent last year.

Instead, people are drinking at home and buying from stores.

Off-premise volume rose 2.9 percent for the year.

So people are drinking, but they’re paring back, said David Ozgo, the council’s chief economist.

The number of drinking occasions is falling; he said he wasn’t sure yet how much they were dropping.

"They still want to have a good time, so a certain amount of those drinking occasions will be shifted to at-home," he said…

And the beer industry isn’t recession proof either, figures show. Earlier this month, SABMiller PLC, the maker of Miller Genuine Draft and Peroni Nastro Azzurro, said its beer shipments fell unexpectedly in the most recent quarter amid a worldwide slump in consumer spending.

And I know this trend has continued.  A source in the industry told me last month that her company was focusing on off-premise premium brands to add sales.  The point is to get customers to choose a premium brand in a higher price point now that they are spending less due to the off-premise drinking.

However, when it comes to beer, people are trading down. Real Time Economics says “Sorry, Bud: Natty Light Isn’t Just for College Anymore.”

Heineken sales sank 18% from the previous year in grocery, convenience and drug stores during the two-week period ended July 5, followed by Budweiser at 14%. Corona Extra sales dropped 11%, while Miller Lite declined 9% and Bud Light fell 7%. Coors Light sales held up better, falling less than 1% from a year ago.

Meanwhile, sales of “subpremium” beers including Busch, Natural Light and Keystone posted “substantial gains”, according to Ad Age, which didn’t provide the specifics.

It’s a sign that despite the cheap, frat-party image of those brands (and debatable taste), consumers are focused on one thing right now: the bottom line.

Clearly, people still want to get a buzz, but they are not willing to pay the same price for that buzz.

Nevertheless, alcohol consumption is down – not just in the US, but globally. Another source who works at a major national beer distribution center in German told me a few months ago that staff was being cut as sales are down there. This pattern In the land of Oktoberfest was confirmed by the recent report showing German beer consumption is now down. 

According to German-language weekly Spiegel, beer consumption is down 5% this year.  This decline in beer consumption in Germany is the most on record. All of the major German-owned brands are getting killed: Veltins (–6.5%), Krombacher (-53%), Bitburger (-4.6%), Warsteiner (-6.5%), König (-6.7 %) und Jever (-7 %).

There are some clear trends from the anecdotes and data; people are indeed cutting back on consumption, trading down, and going off premise.  However, the loser here is less the wine and spirits makers and more the hotels, restaurants and bars. The pullback in alcohol consumption and sales is another sign that the travel and leisure industry is due for more pain to come.

Related posts:

• Conspicuous consumption in China
• Germany: Inflation tames retail sales
• April U.S. retail sales: upside surprise?
• The Economy’s Four Horsemen
• Why the personal consumption data is important to the stock market

Back in the 1970s, a Japanese car would be laughed off the road in America as a cheap poor man’s vehicle. But thins changed. Remember the Datsun 240Z? That was a car that showed us the Japanese were for real.  Datsun became Nissan and spawned Acura Infiniti, steadily moving up the chain toward even the luxury category.  Eventually Nissan, Toyota and Honda became car brands of merit in the United States – along with their luxury spin-offs Acura, Lexus, and Infiniti.

Today, it is ‘cheap Chinese knockoffs’ that are the common refrain if one thinks of Chinese products in America.  But, perception lags reality because this is changing…drastically.  In fact, when it comes to patents and copyright, the Chinese are now suing the Americans in order to enforce Chinese companies’ intellectual property.  It is the Americans who are selling the knockoffs and the Chinese who own the legal rights they are trying to protect. Wal-mart and Best Buy have gotten caught up in the fray.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Best Buy, Wal-Mart Stores and other companies were sued over dashboard mounts for navigation devices in a rare instance of a Chinese company trying to enforce patent rights in a US court.

Changzhou Asian Endergonic Electronic Technology, based in Changzhou, China, claims the retailers are infringing its patent on a design for the dashboard mounts by selling products made by a rival. It wants cash and a court order to prevent further use of the design. The patent was issued in March.

The closely held company is trying to build a market in the US and filed the complaint to deal with ”the typical Chinese knockoff,” said Changzhou Asian lawyer Chad Nydegger. The company also is suing the manufacturer in China, accusing it of infringing two Chinese patents, he said.

The complaint, filed July 2 in US District Court in Texarkana, Texas, reflects the rising use of the US patent system by Chinese companies. US patent applications by residents of mainland China, which excludes Hong Kong and Macau, surged 12-fold between fiscal years 2000 and 2008, according to the US Patent and Trademark Office.

”The Chinese are becoming sophisticated enough to take advantage of the patent system in the US,” said Brian Nester, a lawyer with Fish & Richardson in Washington who often represents South Korean companies in US patent fights. ”You will see more Chinese companies filing suit in the US.”

You might say what is good for the goose is good for the gander because the United States is famous for trying to protect patents, copyright and intellectual property abroad.  I do know that U.S. diplomats also lobby on behalf of American firms wishing to protect their valuable patents and copyrights.  Now the Chinese government is assisting its companies as well.

”The Chinese government is taking steps to assist companies into enforcing their patent rights both inside China and elsewhere,” Nydegger said. ”My client’s view is China is starting to emerge as a first-world country. There’s been a significant influx of technology and they are starting to make improvements — they are becoming innovators, not just copiers.”

As for the case at hand, look at it as a test case, a beach head for future Chinese legal rights in the U.S.

This may be the case of a Chinese company ”dipping a toe in the water” to see how the US legal system deals with intellectual property issues, said lawyer Robert Krupka of Kirkland & Ellis in Los Angeles, who has represented Japanese companies in US courts.

”They’re very carefully picking and choosing their battles,” he said. ”This is a licensing play, not a real desire to go to court.”

How this case is decided will set a precedent that will be an important step for the Chinese as they seek industrialised first-world status going forward.

Related posts:

• Chinese to start settling trade in Yuan
• Tariffs: Other industries may line up for sanctions against China
• Chinese stock market bubble inflating
• China wants all of Repsol’s Latin American oil assets
• Who is the Rio executive arrested by the Chinese?

This comes via Liz Pulliam Weston of MSN Money.

You probably know that it’s not a good idea to make too many claims on your homeowners insurance policy, because your insurer could drop you.

What you might not know is that a claim could make selling your home more difficult down the road. What’s more, you could find your home’s value damaged or a sale jeopardized even if a previous owner, and not you, made a claim.

Insurers increasingly are using a huge industry database, called the Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange, or CLUE, to drop or deny coverage based on a home’s history of claims or damage reports.

Of course insurance companies are in the business of making money.  That is why they drop houses they think could cost them a large claim down the road.

To my mind, this speaks to why health care insurance companies also look to drop people who are more likely to file large claims or deny people coverage who have filed large claims (see Bill Moyers’ interview with former healthcare insurance executive Wendell Potter).

For more on why the CLUE database exists for houses and what to do to protect yourself from being dropped, see the full article here.  Choicepoint, the company which controls the database, is the same company which had a role in the 2000 Florida election controversy.

Related posts:

• Obama and health care: Wasting political capital
• What real comprehensive healthcare reform looks like
• The purpose of health care reform
• Obama: knowing when to be an asshole
• Delivering a brilliant healthcare speech

Reuters is reporting that the ratings agencies are about to get into some serious legal problems.  You see,during the bubble years, the ratings agencies gave a gold-standard AAA rating to what now seems to be dubious investment vehicles.  Now, investors are angry and they are starting to sue.

Calpers, the biggest U.S. public pension fund, has sued the three largest credit rating agencies for giving perfect grades to securities that later suffered huge subprime mortgage losses.

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System said in a lawsuit filed last week in California Superior Court in San Francisco that it might lose more than $1 billion from structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that received top grades from Moody’s Investors Service Inc, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Inc.

SIVs are complex packages of loans and debt, including subprime mortgages and collateralized debt obligations, pooled by investment banks and which then issue debt to investors.

By giving these securities their highest ratings, the agencies "made negligent misrepresentations" to the pension fund, Calpers said. Such ratings, which typically accompany investments with almost no risk of loss, "proved to be wildly inaccurate and unreasonably high."

Calpers seeks unspecified damages.

The ratings agencies deny these claims. ""The claim is without legal or factual merit, and we will take action to have it dismissed," a McGraw-Hill spokesman said.  McGraw-Hill, you will recall, is the same company that created a bit of a stir when it refused to release a book critical of the ratings agencies written by blogger Barry Ritholtz (see my February article “McGraw Hill drops book critical of its own subsidiary”).  The book was picked up by another publisher and has gone on to become widely read and critically acclaimed.

It does make you wonder about the ratings agencies.  Just last week I mentioned that they were up to their old ways again, rating assets from tarnished investment pools Aaa.  While some find their ratings defensible, the conflicts of interest inherent in the ratings agencies’ business models has led others to call for an investigation of ratings practices.  Apparently, these calls have borne fruit. The Financial Time reports:

The Securities and Exchange Commission has created a new group of examiners to oversee credit rating agencies, which came under sharp criticism for their role during the financial crisis.

The SEC has already adopted a number of measures to increase transparency at credit rating agencies, which are paid by the issuers they rate. But greater oversight is needed with officials expected to conduct both routine and special examinations of their activities, Ms Schapiro is set to tell a Congressional oversight hearing on Tuesday.

‘’I also have directed the Commission staff to explore possible new regulations in this area, including limiting the potential for rating shopping,’’ Ms Schapiro said in prepared testimony to the House Financial Services subcommittee on capital markets.

These investigations are long overdue.  The conflicts between the rating agencies consulting business and ratings business are exactly the types of conflicts we saw with audit firms during the tech and telecom bubble in the 1990s.  And this led to disaster at firms like Enron as the Enron auditor Arthur Andersen looked the other way.

Moreover, as it stands today, audited firms actually pay for their ratings, making the ratings agencies revenue stream dependent on the firms they audit. My hope is that conflicts like this can be stopped.  So, I welcome the SEC investigation and look forward to seeing substantive changes.

Meanwhile, it may take legal action like the one being initiated by Calpers to affect real change because, to date, few substantive regulatory changes have been made despite a crisis which is more than two years old.

Related posts:

• McGraw Hill drops book critical of its own subsidiary
• Lawsuits: Rating agencies are next
• S&P cuts ratings of big U.S. banks
• S&P cuts HBOS counterparty credit ratings
• Hungary cut to a notch above junk by S&P

I have been looking forward to the Alcoa (AA) earnings report, due out later today, because of what it suggests about the economy.  As the economy bottoms, the fortunes of cyclical companies that are leveraged to the overall state of the economy turn up.  As Alcoa is the first company to report every earnings season and it is an cyclical basic industries company, its earnings report have been seen as an economic bellwether for some time. But is this set to change?

Alcoa Inc, whose results are traditionally viewed as an indicator of the country’s economic health, is expected to post a third consecutive quarterly loss this week.

But many on Wall Street no longer see the aluminum producer’s numbers as a bellwether portending either a deeper recession or an easing of the global downturn.

"It’s a large company in a major industry and it is the first to report, so it gets special recognition," said Joseph Battipaglia, a market strategist at Stifel Nicolaus & Co in Yardley, Pennsylvania.

"But it’s only telling you about the health of the aluminum industry and that’s not very good right now.

"FedEx and UPS are better signs of a change in direction," he added, referring to the two largest U.S. shipping or package-delivery companies. "I wouldn’t take what Alcoa says as a significant indication of how the American or global economy is faring."

Battipaglia said that even if Alcoa — the first member of the Dow Jones industrial average to release earnings — reported an upsurge of orders on Wednesday, it was no real sign of a turnaround. Most customers let their inventories go down in recent months, he noted, and were now restocking while aluminum prices are relatively low.

Battipaglia’s comments are significant for two reasons.  First, there is the fact that we may well be seeing an inventory-induced uptick in the economy right now.  It is far from clear that the economy has bottomed in a sustainable way.  I made this point in my recent post, “ISM: Is this the mother of all inventory corrections?.”To be sure, I do think the economy is bottoming and that a technical recovery will ensue late this year or early next year. However, I am willing to entertain the notion that a balance sheet recession for U.S. consumers has created conditions in which this view could turn out to be optimistic.

The second reason I believe Battipaglia is on to something is that UPS and FedEx (FDX) are more representative of overall economic conditions these days. In my post “If FedEx is losing money, you know the economy is in bad shape” I said we should worry about what FedEx’s numbers are saying about economic growth in America.

Last month I said that June was significant for two reasons.  First, we are going to get our first test of data that could disappoint, which would spell trouble for an overbought market. But, just as important, we need to watch the industrials because there is going to be no sustainable recovery unless these cyclical companies are leading the way.  If the recent awful earnings report from FedEx is any indication, this sector is still in a world of hurt.  The Globe & Mail has a good take on how this is shaping up.

So, certainly look toward the Alcoa earnings report today for signs of economic direction.  However, keep in mind that we have already seen FedEx’s numbers and they are not good. UPS reports on 23 Jul 2009.  Let’s have a look at what those numbers are telling us as well.

Source

What does Alcoa’s expected loss mean for the economy? – Reuters

Related posts:

• Earnings results at Swedish banks show large writedowns in Baltics
• Are European banks sitting on 16.3 trillion in toxic assets?
• If FedEx is losing money, you know the economy is in bad shape
• Goldman crushes earnings estimates
• Lehman Brothers earnings: loss of $3.9 billion

Judge Robert Gerber has given General Motors approval to sell its assets under section 363 of the bankruptcy code.  Last month I indicated that this 363 sale was more questionable than Chrysler’s and could meet more resistance in court.  That has not happened and the GM bankruptcy looks likely to proceed according to the Obama Administration’s plans. 

I said “The Obama people are going to argue that GM is dependent on government monies to exist and that it cannot ‘survive the full plan process.’”  The judge agreed with this reasoning as evidenced by the quote from the FT article below.

Regardless of what you think about other aspects of Obama’s handling of economic issues, the general success of the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies will give Obama a lot of credibility on the economic front just when he needs it.

A US judge on Sunday approved General Motors Corp’s bankruptcy sale, in a move that will allow the company’s most profitable assets to exit bankruptcy protection under government ownership.

Judge Robert Gerber of the US bankruptcy court in Manhattan said the sale would ”prevent the death of the patient on the operating table.”

GM, which filed for bankruptcy protection on June 1, had argued that it would be forced to liquidate if the sale was not approved. The US government said it could walk away from funding the automaker if a deal was not approved by July 10.

”If GM liquidates, there will not only be nothing for stockholders; there will be nothing for unsecured creditors,” Judge Gerber said in a 95-page opinion.

Source

Judge approves plan to sell GM assets – FT

Related posts:

• Is the GM section 363 bankruptcy plan really a stealth re-organization plan?
• Did Tim Geithner blow it?
• The case of the dissident Chrysler bondholders
• Obama ready to put Chrysler into bankruptcy
• Obama Team considering a pre-pack Auto bankruptcy

You have probably heard the stories about China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) bidding for Repsol YP’F’s Argentine assets in a quest for more natural resources for China. Well, apparently, the Chinese want a lot more than just Argentina; they want the whole of Repsol’s Latin American asset base.

The Chinese have been buying up African oil assets left and right.  But, this is a HUGE asset grab by the Chinese in America’s backyard.  Remember the Monroe Doctrine? Well, forget about that now, because it is game on for the Chinese.

Here’s my translation of the important bits of a Spanish-language article discussing this development.

Contacts between Repsol and several Asian companies goes beyond their Argentine subsidiary YPF. As confirmed by sources close to the talks, the Spanish oil company has negotiated with China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) to unite all exploration activities in Latin America.

According to what Finanzas.com has learned, the discussions between representatives of the Spanish energy group and the Chinese oil company began a little over six months, but intensified in April and May. The aim was to create a group owned by the two companies, with the majority owned by Repsol, which bring their exploration activities.

The negotiations progressed to the point that both requested a valuation of the assets by two investment banks. However, according to official sources of the Spanish group, there has been no agreement between Repsol and CNOOC on price, such that the contacts have cooled in June. In fact, yesterday, the president of the third largest oil company in China said "CNOOC’s strategic focus remains focused on the search for cooperation, rather than mergers and acquisitions," explained Fu-Chengyuan.

Irrespective of whether these developments yield results, CNOOC obviously is willing to spend a lot of money to get access to more oil.  And several sources are saying that Chinese companies are willing to pay top dollar.  You will recall that CNOOC is the same company that attempted to buy Unocal in March 2005.  Their overtures were spurned on national security grounds despite the very limited domestic asset base that Unocal controlled and despite their offer being materially higher than Chevron.

I have a couple of takes on this news.  First, the Chinese clearly want access to natural resource assets in order to power their domestic growth. Previous attempts to acquire Unocal and and the over-indebted Rio Tinto by Chinese companies proves this. But, these attempts have been met with protectionism and I imagine the Chinese find this extremely frustrating.  So, they have decided to look elsewhere for their natural resources.

In my view, the fact that they have met protectionist hackles in the West makes them all the more desirous to acquire good assets outside of developed countries both to power their economy and to reduce dependence on the West. Let’s see if the Repsol deal meets with a protectionist response.

Source

Repsol negocia una alianza con la china CNOOC para toda Latinoamérica – Finanzas

Related posts:

• Will the U.S. allow China to buy more Gulf of Mexico oil assets?
• China detains Rio executive on suspicion of espionage
• Should we expect a protectionist China?
• Spain: consumption drop four times as much as in ‘93
• China company performance

This one is due out tomorrow.  His review is pretty favorable.  But, he does say its not a must upgrade if you already have an iPhone.

Related posts:

• Mossberg: Palm Pre to Rival iPhone
• Walt Mossberg reviews the Droid
• Walt Mossberg says Apple’s new browser Safari is fast
• Android gaining momentum on Apple’s iPhone
• Walter Mossberg: Top 2009 Gadgets

You probably saw the mention of Six Flags’ bankruptcy in the links over the weekend (here’s the original article).  It is a shame that the company has gone bankrupt.  However, I was contacted via e-mail by a Six Flags spokesperson informing me that bankruptcy does not equal liquidation.  The company’s theme parks are still open for business.  Given the fact that now is the time when children go to theme parks in droves, I reckon it is crucially existentially important that Six Flags get out a positive message – lest they truly face liquidation.  Therefore, I am passing on the message.

Hello Edward,

I hope this email finds you well.

We know that you and many of your readers have been seeing the news reports about Six Flags’ bankruptcy filing earlier this weekend.  We can assure you that this is a corporate issue, and it does not affect the day-to-day operations of the parks. Our parks are open this weekend, and will continue to be open with more new rides and attractions and longer hours all summer.

I’d like to share with you a letter from Six Flags CEO Mark  Shapiro that he sent to park employees earlier today:http://www.sixflags.com/national/footerNav/News_OpenLetterFromOurCEO.aspx

For more insight, I want to invite you to join Mr. Shapiro for his first blogger conference call this Monday, where he will give more information on the parks and  take your questions about the great future we have planned for the months and years ahead.

Following record performance in 2008, which completed the three-year turnaround of our system-wide park operation, our restructuring deal to clean up the balance sheet paves the way for a full revival of the company and we want to ensure you, and your readers, have an opportunity to hear about our plans for the future directly from Mr. Shapiro.

The conference call is scheduled for this Monday, June 15, 2009 at 3:30 pm EST. Please let us know via email response if you would like to join us for the call and we will send you the conference call details directly.

We hope that you find this information useful and look forward to hearing from you later this week.

Related posts:

• Expect bankruptcy in the record Stuyvesant Town real estate deal
• CRE: GMAC-related Capmark Financial near bankruptcy
• Will Lehman be bought on Sep 13th?
• I got my answer on homebuilder bankruptcy
• Obama ready to put Chrysler into bankruptcy

We have just learned that Fiat has successfully completed its deal with Chrysler.  This means that the bankrupt ‘Old Chrysler’ will now have far fewer cash and assets available for creditors and that it will be liquidated with large or total losses likely for creditors.  Dissident creditors tried to get their case heard by the Supreme Court.  But this was rejected, paving the way for the Fiat deal. 

Key to why things turned out as they did is the use of section 363 of the bankruptcy code, which allows a company to sell assets without creditor approval and before a re-organization plan can be submitted.  The sale produces cash available to creditors in the eventual liquidation of the company. The sold assets can continue to operate as before, but in a re-organized fashion.  This is exactly what the Obama Administration wanted for Chrysler. So, in the case of the government versus bondholders count round one to the government.

Now, it’s time to turn to General Motors. This is a very important case because GM is such a big player in so many arenas. Think of Chrysler as a  test run of GM, the real US auto emergency.  A bankrupt GM that does not receive the same quick section 363 treatment that Chrysler received would be a very nasty  shock to the U.S. and global economy. 

The problem is that General Motors is a whole different case altogether.  And I am not so sure the government is going to be successful here. Here’s why. While the Chrysler deal involved a sale of the principal assets, the GM bankruptcy looks more like a stealth re-organization which violates the spirit of section 363. Back in 2004, Daniel Glosband, a bankruptcy expert at the law firm Goodwin Proctor reflected on this issue at the site FindLaw. (emphasis added below)

Advantages of a Section 363 sale include speed, transfer of assets free and clear of encumbrances and interests, transfer of restricted contracts and avoidance of exposure to claims under fraudulent transfer laws. For a seller, the Section 363 process eliminates director and officer exposure for the sale and limits exposure for breach of representations and warranties. Cosmic balance, however, requires a few clouds to accompany the silver linings.

Traditionally, the sale of a business in chapter 11 was accomplished through a plan of reorganization that identified and dealt with each class of creditors and equity holders. The sale plan was described to the affected creditors and equity holders in a prospectus-like disclosure statement and put to a vote. Bankruptcy law required acceptance of the plan by specified majorities of affected parties, a cumbersome process that lasted for several months and sometimes several years. Initially, courts were skeptical of Section 363 sales that circumvented the protective reorganization plan process. Early cases required the debtor to prove that a sale outside of a reorganization plan was necessary, for example by showing that the debtor’s business had insufficient cash flow to survive the full plan process. Lately, however, the Section 363 sale, which can be completed in as little as two to three months, has become the preferred method for sales of distressed businesses.

Clearly, if the courts decide that the government is trying to circumvent the normal Chapter 11 process by invoking section 363, you are going to have a problem.  The Obama people are going to argue that GM is dependent on government monies to exist and that it cannot ‘survive the full plan process.’  But, creditors are going to contest this case and they may have more success than they did at Chrysler.

Stay tuned.

As for Fiat, the last paragraph of the FindLaw article describes quite well why their stock has popped on the news of a successful Chrysler deal.

The goal of the purchaser at a Section 363 sale is to take advantage of the financial distress of the seller and the power of the Bankruptcy Code to make a safe, profitable investment. While a Section 363 sale is a complex exercise with risks for the unwary, it can be an efficient avenue for a well-prepared buyer to acquire a financially troubled business.

Related posts:

• GM gets the green light on its section 363 bankruptcy
• The case of the dissident Chrysler bondholders
• Opel and Fiat spells bankruptcy for Chrysler and GM
• Obama ready to put Chrysler into bankruptcy
• Chrysler: bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered

The Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg has a nice video explaining how much he likes the new Palm Pre smartphone and why he thinks it could rival the iPhone going forward.  He thinks its a challenger to the Blackberry as well. It comes out on Saturday.  I thought Palm was basically dead.

If it does well, that’s very bullish for PALM.  But , of course, a new iPhone is coming out too. Take a look – the phone looks pretty nice.

Related article

Palm’s New Pre Takes On iPhone – Mossberg, WSJ

Related posts:

• Android gaining momentum on Apple’s iPhone
• Walt Mossberg reviews the Droid
• Walt Mossberg says Apple’s new browser Safari is fast
• Walt Mossberg reviews the new iPhone
• Walter Mossberg: Top 2009 Gadgets

You probably saw in my links that Fiat had bowed out because of German government demands. The Magna story also comes via the BBC:

Canadian car parts maker Magna International is the preferred bidder for GM Europe, owner of Opel and Vauxhall, Lord Mandelson has said.

The UK business secretary said a deal between Magna and GM was very near.

He was speaking after reports that Magna had reached an agreement in principle to rescue GM Europe.

The other potential bidder, Fiat, did not attend Friday’s talks with the German government, saying Berlin’s position was "unreasonable".

GM in the US is expected to declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Monday.

Here is the associated video of Lord Mandelson spinning the details about how government in the UK sees things.

Related posts:

• GM considers keeping Opel, raising capital
• German Press: Fiat to sign a deal with Opel, not Chrysler
• Opel and Fiat spells bankruptcy for Chrysler and GM
• Fiat as the engine for change in the auto industry
• Germans reject Chinese offer for Opel

GM Bondholders are not happy about the GM deal because the government seems to be running the same scheme where senior bondholders get a serious haircut while other constituents like the union and the federal government get more.  Chrysler set a precedent, so bondholders are likely to hold out, GM will go bankrupt and then bondholders are going to get stuffed.

Meanwhile Deal Journal, the Wall Street Journal blog, sees this deal as a massive bailout.  They said the following yesterday:

Some extraordinary things are happening in the bailout of General Motors. Too bad everyone is too numb to notice.

Consider this extraordinary fact: The U.S. government is likely putting up to $50 billion in new money to back the company’s bankruptcy reorganization, according to people familiar with the plan.

Most of this is what is known as a “debtor-in-possession” financing made to companies in bankruptcy protection. The sum is also expected to include $6 billion to buyout GM’s secured lenders and another $7.6 billion requested by GM last week to fund ongoing operations.

It’s clear that a large portion of this amount will be secured with the equity of the “new GM.” Why is the government likely to get equity and not, say, debt with interest and a repayment schedule? Because too much debt would apparently make the company unviable. It’s as if the government has devised an SAT exam for GM, and is blatantly funneling the company the answers.

What is clear is that Team Obama wants nothing to do with a messy bankruptcy or massive job losses. You can bet that they will do anything including bludgeoning bondholders and bailing GM out in order to make this deal work.  General Motors is too important to be liquidated or trimmed back significantly, at least domestically.

What happens in Europe is another story. In fact, what is happening in Europe is that the Chinese are now bidding for Opel in Germany.  If you recall, last year the Germans wrote a law specifically designed to keep the Chinese out of Germany (see my post “Germans to SWFs: keep your hands off our companies“).  So I see it as rather unlikely that the Chinese will get Opel before Fiat or Magna.  The German government might use the Chinese for leverage over other bidders.  However, there is zero chance that Germans would allow the Chinese to take over a prized German company like Opel.

Later today, we are to hear who the preferred bidder for Opel and Vauxhall is.  While this is an important piece of the puzzle, it is unlikely to prevent bankruptcy.

Video below on the American side of things.

Related posts:

• GM considers keeping Opel, raising capital
• Germany gives GM a stiff arm on state aid
• Opel and Fiat spells bankruptcy for Chrysler and GM
• Germans reject Chinese offer for Opel
• GM offers a debt for equity swap to bondholders

I just finished watching this show called Celebrity Apprentice hosed by Donald Trump.  Why I did is a question for a psychologist. You may be familiar with the show.  It pits two teams of individuals against one another in random tasks, ending in the dismissal of one of the contestants from the losing team.  The contestant leaves the show when Donald Trump as Chairman of the Board says, “you’re fired.”

I don’t know about you, but I don’t find this spectacle to be a particularly flattering image of corporate governance in America. It represents a ‘hire and fire’ mentality in vogue along with de-regulation and finance über alles over the past quarter-century, that has led to a crisis of confidence in the American system of capitalism.  What I found particularly galling in the particular segment I watched was how little of the boardroom decision-making was based on fact and how much of it was based on favouritism.

At some point in an earlier show that I did not see, two of the contestants, Joan Rivers and her daughter, let loose in a tirade that was completely out of bounds, reeling off a blistering attack of the most personal and bitter nature on two others.  Annie Duke, one recipient of the abuse, remarked that she believed such behaviour would be met with censure, sanction or dismissal in any real boardroom.  Yet, Joan Rivers ended the show triumphant.  And from what I saw, it was clear that Joan Rivers was getting favoured treatment.

But, is it  really true —  are American corporations run by captains of industry who act in the best interests of shareholders, employees, and the communities they serve without prejudice?  Or is American capitalism rife with favouritism, backroom dealing and corruption?

As for the outburst, I tracked down a copy of it to see what really transpired.  Here it is below.  Judge for yourself (you’ll notice Jim Cramer in the boardroom, by the way).  Is this the kind of thing that goes on in American boardrooms? Is Celebrity Apprentice a reflection of American corporate governance?

Related posts:

• Asymmetric information and corporate governance in bank bailouts
• John Bogle decries ‘failure to observe the fiduciary principle’
• Tendencies of irrational behavior
• Black: The Great American Bank Robbery
• A conversation about the film ‘Duplicity’ on Charlie Rose

This is a video “discussing whether the Obama administration has intervened too much in business affairs, with Thomas Lauria, White & Case attorney and CNBC’s Michelle Caruso-Cabrera.”  As GM has similar circumstances, the case is still very relevant.

Note: I think Lauria forgets that the U.S. government had poured billions into the carmakers and that his clients would have gotten considerably less in a liquidation if not for that fact. With that editorial comment, here he is on CNBC arguing his case.

Related posts:

• The case of the dissident Chrysler bondholders
• Chrysler dissident lenders lose fight and disband
• UBS woes with IRS have Swiss worried
• Bernie Madoff caught on tape in 2005
• Bloomberg News is still after the Fed for more disclosure

Reuters is reporting that the dissident Chrysler lender group has disbanded. Apparently, the lenders have finally figured out that they have zero chance of getting what they want as I have been saying all along (see posts here and here).  Let’s see what is in store at General Motors now.

A group of Chrysler LLC’s dissident lenders disbanded, representatives said on Friday, removing the last legal hurdle to the embattled automaker’s quest to complete a merger with Italy’s Fiat SpA with U.S. government backing.

"After a great deal of soul-searching and quite frankly agony, Chrysler’s Non-TARP lenders concluded they just don’t have the critical mass to withstand the enormous pressure and machinery of the US government," said Tom Lauria, the White & Case attorney representing the group.

But Lauria said the group did not intend to agree to the proposal to exchange their debt for 29 cents on the dollar.

Good luck with that.

Source

Chrysler dissident lender group disbands – Reuters

Related posts:

• The case of the dissident Chrysler bondholders
• A Case Of Gangster Government?
• Opel and Fiat spells bankruptcy for Chrysler and GM
• Lawsuit: steering mortgage applicants could mean more writedowns
• Wow, judges now nixing lenders’ foreclosure claims entirely in court