Alcohol: Not just for drivers any more.

My previous post reminded me of Brazil, and then naturally alternative fuels. Why? Because Brazil is the first country to have adopted alternative fuels on a truly national scale and as a result, declared independence form foreign oil about 3 years ago. "Gasp!" I can here you say. "They must have done it using hinky local branded cars and hand pumps by the side of the road". No, actually, the vehicles were developed by the likes of GM, Ford, Fiat and Volkswagen; and the fuel is sold through gas stations of repute, such as Shell, Texaco and Petrobras.

How could Brazil do this while we, with all the resources at our fingertips, cannot? Well, they used will and power. During the 1970's the (then) military government decided that as a developing nation, Brazil needed oil, which it did not have very much of (although, ironically that is changing very fast). The country could not be held hostage to the whims and fancies of a foreign organization (OPEC) and a market over which they had no control of. Sound familiar? So a program was started to develop alcohol (Proalcool), derived from sugar cane, which Brazil has huge amounts of, as a car fuel. Vehicle manufacturers that had a presence in Brazil were "invited" to participate in the process by developing technology that would allow their vehicles to run exclusively on the alcohol. The next problem to be resolved was the problem of distribution. Distributors balked at having alcohol pumps at every station because they did not think there would be demand for the new fuel. The generals immediately recognized this as a chicken and egg situation: If there was no alcohol to be had, no-one would buy the vehicles. If no vehicles were around that consumed alcohol, there would be no pumps. So, being an authoritarian regime, they came up with a simple solution: If you want to sell gasoline in Brazil, you must sell alcohol as well. Period. The first commercially available vehicle run exclusively on alcohol rolled off a Ford dealer lot in Rio de Janeiro in 1980.

The rest as they say, is history. In the beginning, alcohol run vehicles got tax breaks and the fuel was subsidized. These measures were dropped much later and some years after that the program almost went under, until it was revived again by rising oil costs and the development of vehicles that could run on gasoline AND alcohol, allowing the consumer to pick and choose depending on market costs for each fuel, their own cash availability, etc. there are now vehicles that can run on gasoline, alcohol and propane. In a capitalist system this tends to keep the cost of fuel low, since suppliers know that the consumer can pick and choose the fuel they want to use.

So, how does this compare with the US? Well, there is no will, to begin with. Big oil has little incentive to invest in the distribution of an alternative fuel. The government has protective tariffs on alcohol coming from Brazil and other friendly nations in this hemisphere, which make it impossible for these fuels to compete. We, the scions of Washington have decided, must be supplied by corn farmers in Iowa. The fact that this is less environmentally friendly than sugar cane and there is not enough corn around for it to make a viable case for widespread distribution, dooms the program from day one. Mr. Obama, if I were to make one suggestion, it would be to pass legislation requiring oil companies to use 3% of their profits solely for the development and distribution (in equal parts) of alternative fuels. The market will take care of the rest.

Learning from Abroad

I recently re-established contact with an old friend from my time in Brazil, whose passion for cars actually exceeds my own. He was the previous owner of a red 1968 Karmann Ghia which I purchased, mentioned in a previous post. Exchanging e-mails with him reminded me of how our own industrial myopia and arrogance is a sign of the automotive times. Allow me to elaborate.

Throughout the entire current automotive crisis, I have not heard a single voice of humility. That includes the humility to admit that there are solutions in other countries which we could apply here if we could ever admit that we are wrong and they have a better way. The whole Detroit/Washington mindset seems to be that we got ourselves into this mess without your help and by goodness, we will get out of it too, using the same tools we have used with such brilliant success up until now. Am I the only one who sees this?

Ford's most modern plant in the entire world is in the Northeast of Brazil, and is a modern marvel. Different suppliers actually make the parts on the Ford factory floor and place them in the vehicle as it goes by on a conveyor. Parts transportation and warehousing costs for Ford = Zero. Admittedly this is not a Brazilian solution but Ford did implement it in Brazil. Union rules prohibit such modernity in the US, but instead of showcasing to Congress, this plant as an international solution for current cost woes, as well as what Ford can do with a relatively uneducated workforce, it is carefully hidden away in a corner of the developing world. Why? Is it because there is a hidden agenda that wants to show Congress how hard it is for the poor automakers to make cars here in the current environment, so please....give us money? GM makes some very popular vehicles in Europe. They have brought some them here, put them in their most bland brand, Saturn, marketed them as humdrum family transportation and then used this as proof that European cars don't sell so......give us some money. They brought two cheaply assembled vehicles from Australia and marketed them as sports cars (Australia - that land of thoroughbred automotive excellence, the new Germany) which flopped, and wondered why we did not sell our BMW's and jump into an Australian Pontiac.
Do you see a pattern here? Foreign solutions squashed and hidden so that we....give them the money. This is not a conspiracy theory, but a recital of facts. At best, it shows a gross ineptitude on the part of management to leverage global capabilities on anything approaching a comprehensive scale. At worse, it is an effort to get their hands on our money. Either way, shame on Detroit. I just wish that we had an alternative. If GM and Chrysler go under (I still have faith in Ford), who will pick up the juicy leftovers abroad? Where are the capital investment funds today? Oh, yes, they are in dire straits and currently "unavailable" because we were so adept at leveraging our "expertise" in mortgages on a global scale.

What's Good For GM........

So it finally time for us to test that old saw, "what is good for GM is good for America". As this scribbler predicted, Ford emerges as the most viable car company while Chrysler and GM are poised to become history (at least in their current guise) as the bailout failed in the Senate yesterday.

Entering bankruptcy will be painful, but not necessarily bad for America in the long run, for a number of reasons. Firstly it will signal that badly run companies must succumb to market forces at some point, no matter their size - the checkbook, if not closed, is at least in need of a refill of fresh checks. Secondly, it will focus the minds of the surviving entities and we will have better vehicles as a result. Thirdly, the suicidal race to the bottom in terms of discounts will hopefully be reduced to a gentle glide toward efficiency: he who is efficient will sell at the most attractive prices. Fourthly, it will extirpate the fat and impossible demands of labor that are crippling our car makers. Finally, it Will reaffirm that we are indeed a capitalist society, not a corporate welfare society.

But where from here? Well, like guys who have their fantasy football teams, here is my fantasy US car maker breakup scenario:

(1) Chrysler sells Jeep to Tata Motors, who urgently need an "in" to the mass US 4X4 market, and something to erase the memories of dismal British quality (if only to replace it with dismal Jeep quality, but better the devil you know). Tata also gets Hummer for free. GM should be happy to get rid of the cash drain.

(2) GM sells Saab to Ford who, with Volvo, would have a credible European premium brand base in the US. Talks of selling Volvo are insane, given the myriad Ford products that are based on Volvo products. Ford needs a reasonable premium European alternative in the US.

(3) Lincoln and Mercury are history. Ford concentrates its premium brands on Volvo/Saab combo, incorporating the best of Mercury (the Mariner. Period) and Lincoln (everything except the Town Car).

(4) Pontiac is gone.

(5) Buick is gone.

(6) Saturn is euthanized after a long agonizing death.

(7) Chrysler gets a much needed boost by absorbing Cadillac and merging its "premium" Chrysler line. This would give Cadillac a wider market (a Cadillac minivan for heavens sake! Soccer moms rejoice! Owning a Cadillac that gets more than 10 miles to the gallon and can seat 8 - it could be cool to drive a minivan again). And Chrysler would gain some street cred.

(8) Chevrolet,GMC and Dodge merge to form a company that sells lower end pickups and sedans for people who like to buy their cars where they buy all things utilitarian (hey, Sears! Why not sell Craftsman products at these dealerships?).

Hey, that would be an ideal world - at least for me. I think however, that if Washington keeps weighing in, we will end up with no synergy and a big bill. Time will tell, but for now, let capitalism ring!

Sayonara Mazda.

Ford announced yesterday that it was selling most of its stake in Mazda. This is a shame for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, because Ford has invested heavily in turning Mazda around from a losing automotive also-ran, to a stunning success. Mazda now has a competitive array of attractive vehicles and owns the segment of Asian "sporty" vehicles.
Second, the timing is bad. The shares are worth less than they were last year, for instance. Sadly, this is a good way for Ford to raise much needed cash, and is a smart move right now. It also reinforces the view that Ford is a far more visionary company than GM. Having this ace in the hole may be the difference between perishing and surviving, even is it is being sold cheaply.
Thirdly, Mazda has arguably benefited from the Ford stake in it's business, far more than Ford ever did. Ford vehicles serve as basis for several Mazda vehicles: the Tribute is a Ford Escape, The Mazda pickup is based on the Ford Ranger and the snazzy CX-9 is based on a Volvo platform, as is the hugely successful Mazda 3.
The question that comes to my mind, however, is how come Ford made such a huge success with Mazda, but failed to learn form this exercise? Perhaps it was because Mazda is not a family enterprise, and the experts were allowed to run it - and save it. Ford has shown signs that it is willing to remove the family from every day running of the business but the question is, is it too little too late? Time will tell, but this blogger is still confident that Ford is in the best shape of the not-so-big three to weather this storm.

Are We Really So Capitalist?

This week saw the sad spectacle of Automotive CEOs trudging sheepishly up the steps of the Capitol to ask for money to save themselves. I recall a similar scene in 1980 when Chrysler did the same. Now they are all there.

In retrospect, Chrysler then was different. Lee Iaccoca had big ideas and was hugely successful with a new and popular car lineup and later, the debut of the minivan. That things have gone so awry for Chrysler is a round condemnation of the management post-Lee.

Of the others, let's start with Ford. As I have stated in the past, I think of the not-so-big three, they have the best chance to survive. They are strong abroad, and are moving quickly to shake up their product line in the US to make it appealing in a $4 a gallon/recessionary world. Gas prices are down temporarily but they will go back up, and in a recession, people that do buy cars are going to be looking for economy, safety and flair. Ford offers all three in droves.

GM is another story. In a typically dysfunctional move, they announced that they are cutting back drastically in new model development. Perhaps they think their current lineup has been so very successful that they can afford to take a rest. They are going down the road of no return, winding down the shop, disconnecting the utilities, well, you get the picture.

Chrysler, if I were a betting man, could maybe recover with another bailout. They have some attractive new trucks, they have finally realized that quality and comfort matter, and they have always had a pretty good design shop (since 1980 anyway). They own Jeep, which despite having diluted its brand with the introduction of "soft roaders" could survive as a smaller brand.

However, they too have precious little in the pipeline and need an injection of cash, pronto.

But the real question, the 600 pound gorilla in the room, is should we bail out companies that have been so mismanaged? The argument that Detroit is too important to let die, is a fallacy. In a market economy someone will still need to make and sell cars to and in the US. There will be huge pain in the short term, but maybe the economy needs a reshaping. America will have to prove again that it can make cars and supply quality parts to do so. But to keep bailing out companies that insist on failing is to waste money on a truly titanic scale.

Kerkorian and Ford: The Gambler Takes a Hit.

In the last 24 hours, much has been made about Mr. Kerkorian selling Ford shares. Why? He is a big investor. Note I did not say a savvy investor, however. And I did not say a huge investor. This week he cut his owners hip from 6.43% to (gasp!) 6.09%. It represents a huge sum of money and he took a bath, but it does not mean he is selling anywhere near a majority stake in the company.

So what makes his exit from Ford a harbinger of doom? I have no idea. Remember this was the man who donned his cheer leading sweater and megaphone and pushed for the Chrysler / Daimler deal when he had a large stake in Chrysler. Then he bought into GM and pushed for GM to merge with Nissan/Renault. He failed to get the GM management to see his point of view and went into a huff and walked away. Now he is walking away from Ford, because....who knows? Clearly he is no success story when it comes to investing in Detroit - perhaps it is a good thing that he is walking away now so that Ford executives can keep their focus (pun intended).

Mr. Kerkorian made his millions in the gambling industry and he is now having to dig into that fortune in order to dig himself out of an automotive hole. There is a lesson for all of us in this: Stick to what you know unless you are willing to give yourself a very expensive education.

Why Ford may Make It

In all this turmoil we are currently suffering, and government backed loans not withstanding, there are real concerns about the future of the big three. The private equity company that purchased Chrysler is fast finding out that running a car company is pretty complex and difficult. They also should have done their homework regarding the product pipeline and the consumer perception of Chrysler vehicles. It is fixable, but not any time in the next 12 months.(Chrysler will be the subject of a future blog).

Ford, however, is different. They are currently doing well outside of the US, which indicates that they have some pretty good, market-specific vehicles in other countries. Ford is planning on bringing some of those vehicles here in short order. The 2010 Ford Focus is a fine car, and the Focus line in Europe has been selling briskly. The other vehicle to appear soon is the Turkish-made Ford Transit van.

Ford is making itself a very interesting niche in the market. Young people will love the 2010 Focus (some of the features on this vehicle - such as Sync, a Ford/Microsoft developed mobile entertainment and communications software - are already available on the current US Focus, and are a hit with young consumers). It will not be seen as "so 20Th century" to be seen in a Ford product. With the weakness of the US Dollar, imported vehicles from Europe are still cool but increasingly out of reach for this demographic. Chalk one up for Ford.

The Ford Transit is a vehicle whose time has come. Small businesses will simply have to wean themselves off full size vans that get 10-15MPG in the city (the same goes for pick-up trucks by the way). The vast majority of small businesses will be able to get by with a stylish, small and fuel efficient van. They will have to - current decreases in oil prices are still making for comparatively expensive gas, and the business owners will soon discover the advantages of smaller engines in a recessionary economy.

The basic question facing the big three is do they have enough cash to last until their new vehicles are available? Ford has a good chance. They have some profitable operations overseas which makes them, in theory at least, a good candidate for outside investment. Ford however, is doing something very clever. They are getting out of the commodity business. By introducing niche, different vehicles popular elsewhere, they are going after a clientele of savvy consumers who want something different that is cool, and in the case of the Transit will save them substantial amounts of increasingly scarce money. They are, in short, betting that there are educated, savvy and cool consumers out there who will buy a product that is good value for money, cool and has a certain flair. If you want a vehicle that answers that description stop by a Ford dealership - next year.