In a none too shocking move, the present administration has determined that it will not appoint a car czar.  Recall that such and appointment was a part of the previously passed bail out in which GM and Chrysler took part.  Ford did not choose to participate as it had sold many of its assets, like Jaguar and Land Rover, and had enough cash to allow it to forego the bail out money – for the time being.   The very idea of a car czar was flawed from inception as it assumed that “if only some fresh face could get in there, he/she could turn those car companies around.”  Well, all of the major car companies have been working to restructure themselves for at least a year, if not more.  Moreover, all of the companies have brought in “new blood” to do just that.  The most obvious example is Chrysler, which is owned by a hedge fund…think about what they do.  Hedge funds buy distressed companies and they make changes to turn the company around – changes in management are always on the table for the new owners.  The new hedge fund owner does not have any loyalty to present management nor are they stuck in the “we’ve always done it this way” mindset, so change is easily accomplished.  Again, does Congress think that the new owners of Chrysler have not been trying hard enough to turn it around?  Or does it think that there is some magic bullet which a car czar can force upon these companies which current management could not?  If so, why hasn’t someone mentioned it to date? 

 There are other problems with either a car czar or a panel of Treasury Department officers: What exactly is the panel supposed to do?  How does it implement its edicts? Can it void contracts, break laws?  How are parties who are damaged by these edicts compensated?  What guides them as they does this job?  What rules apply to the car panel?  Is this yet another in the ever changing approach to the economic meltdown that will morph as it goes along?  Someone is going to win and someone will lose on all of these decisions.  So, who arbitrates these fights?  The US Congress?  If so, what rules do they follow when deciding whether a health benefit promised to retirees can be reduced?  Only in the federal Bankruptcy Court can these things be dealt with in a public, open way where there are rules, Judges to enforce those rules and everyone affected has the opportunity to object to the proposed action.

The problem of confidentiality: it is normal for GM and Chrysler to compete.  (Duh.)  These companies have been in direct competition since their inception. So, whose side is the panel on?  Assuming the panel sits in on the board meetings of the companies they are there to “assist,” they will no doubt hear many corporate secrets.  So, when they leave the GM board meeting with heads full of that secret stuff, do they share that with Chrysler’s board?  If GM has done something so right that it is pulling ahead in the race to survive, can they say something to Chrysler then? 

 What to do: The federal government should provide a small bridge loan to tide these two companies over until they file for bankruptcy. It should perhaps guarantee DIP financing, if that is necessary to get the companies through the reorganizations. 

In a chapter 11 bankruptcy, a company can make huge changes in its operations and management.  Every aspect of the company is “on the table.”  However, unlike the current bailout plan, the process is public; there are pre-established rules which must be followed; and all affected parties (and some that are not affected like the US Trustee) get a voice in the process; a Judge who is expert in the laws then makes a decision and that decision may be appealed.  This would apply to all major decisions which would take place in a bankruptcy case, like if someone wanted to change the terms of a contract, for example. 

 Here is a link on the decision not to appoint a car czar: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/business/economy/16auto.html?_r=1&ref=business

 Michael