uh oh, chrysler closing ALL plants for 1 mos

[Gas Man]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

It's normal to close, but they are closing for longer this time around.

Well that is only if the rumors end up being true... rumor is that some of the chrysler plants may stay closed thru Feb. THEN that would be different

Originally Posted by pickle.of.doom

You are getting the auto industry confused with AIG

No shit... those bastards should be guilty of fraud... remember the auto's are asking for a loan... not a handout.

[unknownroad]

Originally Posted by ducati_atx

Yup, its much better to keep paying them not to work while sticking ones hand out asking for more government money. To me, its just postponing them firing all the workers.

Shuttering Chrysler is hardly inevitable.

It was only a year and a half ago that they were bought out by Cerberus. With grand promises-

"Our plan really is to provide patient capital," says Cerberus spokesman Peter Duda; to "free management from quarter-to-quarter results and allow them to focus on a long-term recovery and transformation plan."

In 2007, they had $49 B in revenue, and 72,000 employees
(http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...fortune/4.html)

Or maybe $59 B in revenue

(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aalBEC_fQHRE)

But either way, the consensus is that they lost money- $1.2 B in the Bloomberg article above, or maybe closer to $3 B (http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...54538415_x.htm)

Hey, a few billion here or there. Whatever.

So let's take the most conservative scenario- $49 B revenue, with a $1.2 B loss. Rounding for convenience, that means they managed to lose $50 Billion dollars in a year.

$50,000,000,000

With 72,000 employees, that works out to a bit over $706,000 per person. Which is a damn sight more than even the wild-ass "$72/hour average wage" figure (a hair under $150k/year).

In fact, even if they did pay all 72,000 employees an average of $150K in 2007, that would only account for a fifth of the loss- they'd still be able to give away 1.4 Million cars at $30,000 net loss per vehicle before they hit the big negative $50B! The three domestic manufacturers together only sold 16 Billion cars that year.

So there's plenty of money moving around- far too much for anyone honest to be crying poverty.

The trick is finding anyone honest in a game with numbers that big

[ducati_atx]

Originally Posted by unknownroad

Shuttering Chrysler is hardly inevitable.

It was only a year and a half ago that they were bought out by Cerberus. With grand promises-

If Chrysler was such a great investment - why isnt Cerberus going to private equity to find ways of bringing more people into their glorious investment. Or, why arent they selling off their other investments to help pay for the failed one they already have?

Oh wait! Cerberus refused to invest any more cash into Chrysler... i wonder why?

[ducati_atx]

Originally Posted by unknownroad

So let's take the most conservative scenario- $49 B revenue, with a $1.2 B loss. Rounding for convenience, that means they managed to lose $50 Billion dollars in a year.

This statement is wildly confusing... or you dont understand the diff between what revenue is and what loss is. Their cost of biz was 50.2B and they sold 49B worth of goods.

Re your high 700k+ figure - that isnt unexpected when someone is assembling high priced parts with a small margin. you are throwing around numbers, but do you actually know what they mean? they do have material costs, SG&A, etc.

Your post was some of the sketchiest financial math Ive seen in ages on a messageboard.

[unknownroad]

Originally Posted by ducati_atx

Your post was some of the sketchiest financial math Ive seen in ages on a messageboard.

I'm quite aware that losing $1.2 B on $49 B in revenues requires spending or otherwise eliminating via accounting principles $50.2B. I guess I should have said "spend" rather than "lose".

I obviously did not propose my figures as my reasonable assumption of Chrysler LLC's unpublished 2007 P&L (especially since the mid-year sale makes the whole thing an even bigger fucking mess).

What I was pointing out was that even at this ridiculous $72/hour average, labor costs comprise little more than 20% of COGS.

I draw a number of conclusions from this:

1. Anyone who insists that unions are solely to blame for the downfall of the domestic auto industry is a moron.

2. Claims that "the domestic auto industry is doomed to fail because domestic cars are all crap and nobody buys them" are willfully ignorant.

3. The higher-ups at Cerberus must be very well-connected.

4. If I had to choose between an extra two weeks paid vacation, and getting paid $19 Million to be CEO for a year without even having to make a profit, I know damn well which one I'd choose.

5. I can't remember #5.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by unknownroad

I'm quite aware that losing $1.2 B on $49 B in revenues requires spending or otherwise eliminating via accounting principles $50.2B. I guess I should have said "spend" rather than "lose".

I obviously did not propose my figures as my reasonable assumption of Chrysler LLC's unpublished 2007 P&L (especially since the mid-year sale makes the whole thing an even bigger fucking mess).

What I was pointing out was that even at this ridiculous $72/hour average, labor costs comprise little more than 20% of COGS.

I draw a number of conclusions from this:

1. Anyone who insists that unions are solely to blame for the downfall of the domestic auto industry is a moron.

2. Claims that "the domestic auto industry is doomed to fail because domestic cars are all crap and nobody buys them" are willfully ignorant.

3. The higher-ups at Cerberus must be very well-connected.

4. If I had to choose between an extra two weeks paid vacation, and getting paid $19 Million to be CEO for a year without even having to make a profit, I know damn well which one I'd choose.

5. I can't remember #5.

To start with, you can toss out that $72.00/hr. figure. It's bullshit. Does that make your suppositions seem more reasonable?