PDA

View Full Version : Ford and GM debt rating 'junk' status



myles
07-05-2005, 05:03 AM
GM, Ford Bond Ratings Cut to Junk Status
Friday, May 6, 2005; Page E01

By Greg Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer

The two biggest U.S. automakers had their bond ratings slashed to junk status yesterday by Standard & Poor's, as the rating service released a grim report on the business outlook for General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co.

The slip might have been expected after weeks of financial trauma at GM and Ford, but yesterday's announcement caught Wall Street off guard and caused both companies' stocks to drag down the whole market.

A spokeswoman for Kirk Kerkorian said the billionaire's offer to invest $868 million in General Motors Corp. still stands (By Reed Saxon -- Associated Press)

"It's a big psychological impact on the bond market and on investor psychology," said David B. Healy, an auto industry analyst at Burnham Securities Inc.

The news humbled two proud symbols of U.S. industry, both of which have lost market share to Asian competitors and are struggling with health care and production costs. The biggest single cause of the companies' financial problems, S&P said in its report, is the mighty sport-utility vehicle. Both Ford and GM make much of their profits on SUVs and relied on the nation's appetite for them to hold off overseas competition during the 1990s.

But high gasoline prices and consumer whims are turning the market against large SUVs, and GM and Ford have been caught flat-footed, with "severe ramifications," S&P said in its report.

The drop to junk status will increase the cost of borrowing and limit the companies' access to certain credit, but experts said that GM and Ford have enough cash on hand in their automotive businesses to shield them from that problem for some time.

Their finance arms stand to be more immediately affected because they are constantly seeking money to support loans, but both have been working to diversify their sources of funding and should be secure for now, S&P said in its report.

In fact, both companies argued yesterday that those factors showed that S&P was wrong to downgrade their ratings.

"We disagree with S&P's action today," Ford Chief Financial Officer Don Leclair said in a news release, citing the company's liquidity and access to various funding sources. "While today's development presents a challenge, it doesn't shake our confidence in our future or our determination to achieve continued success as a global auto maker."

Ford's rating dropped a single notch, to the highest non-investment grade of "BB-plus," with a negative outlook. S&P took GM down two notches, to "BB," also with a negative outlook.

GM was "disappointed" by the rating agency's action, said Jerry Dubrowski, a company spokesman. The company is "firmly committed to improving its performance as quickly as possible, and today's decision will not deter GM from achieving its objectives," he said.

On Wednesday, Kirk Kerkorian announced an offer to invest $868 million in GM, increasing his stake in the company to nearly 9 percent from 4 percent and making him one of its biggest shareholders. Yesterday a spokeswoman for the billionaire's Tracinda investment company said the offer still stands.

Kerkorian's offer had given a quick boost to GM stock, which has been falling because of recent announcements that the company expects to miss financial targets and lose money in the coming months. Yesterday, GM shares fell nearly 6 percent to close at $30.86, and Ford stock lost 4.5 percent to close at $9.70 per share.

S&P said both GM and Ford are in risky financial positions for some time to come. Both companies have been losing market share to Asian rivals Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai, even as the overall number of new vehicles purchased each year in North America has hovered at record highs. Rising interest rates could keep the market from growing much more, the ratings agency said, and any reduction in demand "would be a traumatic event for GM and Ford."

More ominously, sales of medium and large SUVs declined last year and are down more steeply so far this year. North Americans bought 17.1 percent fewer large SUVs in the first three months of this year than in the same period in 2004, according to S&P. Buyers increasingly prefer "crossovers" -- small, car-like SUVs -- but many of the new products Ford and GM plan for the next two years are big trucks.

And Americans seem to simply show a bias against Detroit's products. Both companies "have made clear progress in improving vehicle quality and durability," the S&P report said, "but the U.S. consumer has been slow to recognize this." So while Ford and GM have gone to great lengths to cut costs and become more efficient, their declining sales have kept them from seeing extra profit.

At the same time, Ford and GM are burdened with significantly higher health care and pension costs than foreign-based rivals, and their unionized work forces have shown little inclination to restructure contracts to ease that pressure. The companies will have to address those costs, as well as make significant cuts to their oversized North American production capacity, to get on more solid footing, the ratings agency said.

Analyst Healy said the report could "cause you to develop an ulcer," but that he found it right on target. The companies can withstand the credit humiliation for the short term, he said, but they have serious work to do to become healthy again. "And I think it will get worse before it gets better," he said.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/05/AR2005050501962.html

National Public Radio - Audio News click here (http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ME&showDate=06-May-2005&segNum=10&NPRMediaPref=WM&getAd=1)

Sydney Morning Herald - article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/SampP-cuts-GM-Ford-debt-ratings-to-junk/2005/05/06/1115092685047.html)

vxcalaiszzz
07-05-2005, 10:53 AM
GM is a complete basket case. Ford was a bit hard done by. Can't see things turning around until crude oil prices are bought under control and the US economy is under better management with a bit more long term foresight.

mavss
07-05-2005, 12:11 PM
I find it hard to believe that these organisations pay their employee's healthcare, including retirees !!!

The unions certainly have a lot of clout over there.

Not sure if this practice is also found in Europe, but if not, then I wonder how long it will be before the USA reviews this policy.

Dacious
07-05-2005, 12:21 PM
Employers pay their employees' healthcare because there is no Government-funded Medicare, and full health insurance costs about $US10,000 for a moderate level of hospital and specialist cover, against an av. salary of $40k.

That along with the 'get the poor off the dole schemes' they want to introduce here is why you see homeless people everywhere in California, the sixth richest economy in the world.

Remember that when you vote for the 'We Love Medicare - NOT!' warm and fuzzy Liberals who reckon everyone should pay fee-for-service for everything, and if you can't afford it you can't have it.

In the US it is common for Health to be bundled in to your salary package, along with a retirement fund scheme as there is no compulsory Super, either.

Being poor or sick in the US is usually a precursor to being the other very quickly.

Falcon Freak
07-05-2005, 04:07 PM
GM is a complete basket case. Ford was a bit hard done by.

Seems similar to what happnes locally. If GM is in the shit then they try to drag in Ford with them. If Ford is in the shit then they are on their own.

FF

PJK
07-05-2005, 04:23 PM
I find it hard to believe that these organisations pay their employee's healthcare, including retirees !!!

The unions certainly have a lot of clout over there.

Not sure if this practice is also found in Europe, but if not, then I wonder how long it will be before the USA reviews this policy.

It actually costs GM more money per vehicle produced for healthcare and pension plans (about US$2000) than they spend on the metal that makes up the vehicle. This makes GM the largest healthcare provider in the US alone. They haven't made money from producing vehicles for a very long time.

Marco
07-05-2005, 04:49 PM
Hmm, the US customer is turning away from SUVs because of high fuel prices, and GM has just canned US versions of Zeta cars.

You know, cars? Those things that people buy to drive that aren't SUVs that use less fuel?

*shakes head*

Ghia351
07-05-2005, 05:35 PM
Maybe if the American government spent less on "Foreign Policy" and more on "Domestic Policy" and looked after their poorer citizens then the corporations wouldn't have to pick up the gap and could return to concentrating on their actual businesses rather then social services.

Ghia351
07-05-2005, 05:38 PM
Hmm, the US customer is turning away from SUVs because of high fuel prices, and GM has just canned US versions of Zeta cars.

You know, cars? Those things that people buy to drive that aren't SUVs that use less fuel?

*shakes head*

I guess it comes down to profit and an SUV makes a great deal more while a cheaper platform then Zeta and rehashing a current design will also help.

Patrick
07-05-2005, 05:54 PM
Seems similar to what happnes locally. If GM is in the shit then they try to drag in Ford with them. If Ford is in the shit then they are on their own.

FF

That is a stupid generalised comment, why don't you back-up your comments with fact.