Rate:
Share
Views: 1995
Text Size:

SolarWorld Makes an Investment in GM

Europe's First True "Green" Auto Company?

By Jeff Siegel
Thursday, November 20th, 2008

You know times have changed when a German solar company is offering to throw General Motors a bone, and shell out $1.26 billion for one of its subsidiaries.

German solar powerhouse SolarWorld (FRA:SWV) issued a press release yesterday, stating that the company plans to bid on four German production facilities and Opel's Ruesselsheim development center and headquarters. (Opel is a German automaker that was acquired by GM in 1929, and continues to operate as a subsidiary.)

SolarWorld wants to make this Europe's first true "green" auto company.

Here's what SolarWorld representatives had to say about their plans:

"With the restructuring of the product pallet, the traditional German auto builder would offer in future especially electric and hybrid automobiles and the newest technology combining extended-range electric and combustion motors highly efficiently."

Had GM just gone this route a decade ago, the company would likely be able to weather today's market meltdown. Even with all those costs attributed to higher wages (in comparison to their Japanese counterparts) and bloated benefits packages the company had to contend with, they still would've had cars to sell - instead of trucks and SUVs sitting on dealership lots, collecting dust.

But instead, the overpaid suits in Detroit sat in their boardrooms, forcing gas guzzlers down our throats, refusing to offer vehicles with better fuel economy. And now they have the stones to ask the taxpayers to shell out $25 billion so they don't go under.

If we truly believe that a free market should dictate winners and losers, than clearly, letting them fail should only be seen as nothing more than survival of the fittest. However, if the US automakers do fail, then we're looking at massive economic devastation, and the loss of roughly 1.4 million jobs. With unemployment already at 6.5 percent, this doesn't help matters.

Advertisement

$90 Billion in Wind Revenue Per Year. Every Year.

The global wind industry grew 482% from 2000 to 2007. It'll grow another 215% between now and 2012.

Best part is, in the next five years, the wind industry will be generating revenues in excess of $90 billion per year. Every year.

It's time you got a good chunk of those profits. The Green Chip team has composed an extensive report on investing in wind energy.

In it, you'll discover just how big the industry will get, and you'll learn about the companies you need to be invested in, in order to starting earning lucrative wind profits.

You can't afford to miss another day of these gains. Read the full report today.


Either choice is a tough pill to swallow. And I certainly don't have the answer. But it does look like Congress is not going to throw Detroit a lifeline.

Of course, nothing is set in stone. And certainly we've seen Detroit get what they've wanted in the past. So, if they somehow pull this off at the last minute - I wouldn't be surprised. Let's just hope that if this does happen, our elected officials have the good sense to attach some teeth to the deal. In fact, if they hand over that money, at least two conditions should absolutely be met:

  1. The automakers have three years to retool their facilities to produce nothing but fuel efficient vehicles with a minimum fuel economy requirement of 60 miles per gallon. Don't care how they do it. Whether its hybrid, plug-in hybrids, lightweight materials, better aerodynamics, etc. - not a single vehicle coming out of those factories should be inefficient. And no exceptions either. If your SUV can't deliver it, then you can't sell it. I guarantee you, the market will find a contender that'll deliver that kind of fuel economy if they can't. Don't kid yourself on that one. That's the beauty of competition. It forces progress.

  2. Every single penny of that $25 billion is paid back to the tax payer.

When I threw this idea out to my colleagues, they laughed at the 60 mpg minimum. But this is not a laughing matter, and 60 mpg is not out of the question. Not when we're already seeing small start-ups pumping out all-electric sport utility trucks and sports cars delivering between 100 to 230 miles on one electric charge. Not when high school students at the 2008 Eco-marathon build a vehicle that can get 2,843 mpg. Yes, you read that correctly - 2,843 mpg.

And definitely not when we continue to send billions overseas to continue our dangerous reliance on oil.

Listen, there can be no more excuses. These automakers need to get their acts together now. Enough with the lobbying efforts, enough with the complacency, enough with the handouts!

And by the way, since we'll require the US automakers to produce nothing but 60 mpg vehicles, we should make this a mandatory requirement for all automakers. You want to do business in this country? Fine. Do it by our rules. They'll have no choice. Without the US hardly any of these automakers could survive. It's time we start making demands instead of excuses.

jeff signature

Jeff

 






Rate this article:
 
     Current Rating:  
Article RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle Rating (48 votes)

Comment on this Article


Comments:

Comment by Patti Mentch on 2008-12-12
Jeff~ excellent read. We have to be tough on that industry and make demands that will force them to comply. Personally, I don't believe we should bail them out....
Let them self destruct and force a restructure and that means those ridiculous salary packages the work force goes away - that means the unions, too. They were once good now they have little to no place in our system. I'd like to see how they would react to working in the real corporate world. You perform or your gone.
Comment by Oz on 2008-12-02
Well stated, Jeff. When are those "Chicago Boys" going to realize they have to accept responsibility for the econimic devastation they have perpetrated.
Another point...you need to address the usage of "then" and "than".
Good luck
Comment by Rod Gruzelier on 2008-11-26
sure these will be great and will fill our streets and create the same ol' jams but I haven't seen any balance of energy costs anywhere. How many nuclear plants are we going to need to recharge our cars and at what cost...per click? How's our electric bill going to be affected when we continue to drive 100 clicks a day?

Rod
Comment by Mike Aimone on 2008-11-23
Jeff, I'm not sure what education backs your smug comments and suggestions for solving GM's issues(obviously not engineering), but you sound like the rest of the self-proclaimed investing newsletter "gurus" and just-awakened politicians crawling out from under the rocks today. How about some comments regarding the legislators (i.e., lawmakers) that let the economy be leveraged to the point of world collapse, all the while blaming the executive branch -- and while everyone is discussing legacy costs, how about the years of steady turnover of those house and senate members, many getting the best pay, endless perks, best insurance, and 100% pay for retirement -- a long shot better than the local GM union guy that's actually trying to do an honest job -- and being paid by your taxes for such a "fine" job. You would do better to avoid the cheap, easy shots and think through your comments. Might end up not needing the endless links to all your sales pitches. A lot of us are looking for more from you (but by some of the comments you are clicking with a few at your level).
Comment by Russ on 2008-11-23
I agree with you with one exception some of us need heavy duty trucks. My business (construction)has two Dodge Ram 2500 Diesels, the 2005 is stock and gets 20 mpg at 6000 lbs and the 2002 is modified with a utilitiy body plus tools it gets 14 to 15 mpg at 9500 lbs both have lumber racks.
Comment by Michael on 2008-11-22
It's about time someone has the guts to say it exactly how we need it to be. Three years is very reasonable to get our vehicles getting 60 miles per gallon.
What a scam $4.00 per gallon is! Hard working Americans deserve more.
Comment by Carol Pipkorn on 2008-11-22
Sixty mpg sounds reasonable to me. However, I don't want to be stuffed into a compact car. Trucks, vans and SUV's are popular for a reason. Families need them, and if vehicles are to remain expensive, which is probably the real reason in this economy that they are sitting in lots collecting dust, then they have to serve many purposes: hauling, pulling and seating four or five people. That's what people want.

It is interesting that Henry Ford wanted to make a car his workers could afford. Obviously, Ford and the others had to pay employees that much more to maintain Henry's legacy.

Carol Pipkorn
Comment by Michael Prosser on 2008-11-21
aS A Small biz owner, I believe in do or die. Earning is better than getting handouts. It was for my kids! If they want to survive then they should do what they can to do so.
Comment by Nate on 2008-11-21
Jeff, you are the man! I wholeheartedly agree with just about every damn thing that comes out of your keyboard. I'm very happy that I found you, and your cohorts. Love the book too!


Comment by Ewan Middlemiss on 2008-11-21
Jeff, I agree 100% with your sentiments and conditions on the bailout. In SA (far from the mess in US and EU, but not far enough) our market is dominated by European and far east auto makers. It becomes obvious to us whenever the US makers are having a tough time or getting to the end of a range. We see systematic dumping of your gas guzzlers onto our market. Fortunately there is little uptake except for a small monority that think conspicous consumption USA style is a laudable goal. I would just like to add to your requirement on the US auto makers. Not only should any bailout be fully repayable, but the US goverment should be issued with as many ordinary shares that represents the value of the bailout. A capitalist system for capital rationing dictates that the last invested dollar, or the dollar that saves the day calls the shots. There is no doubt in my mind that if it is taxpayers money that not only saves the auto makers, but also pushes them into a new and far more sustainable future, that simply re-paying the money is insufficient reward for both the risk and oppertunity. Additionally this would also give the government a few seat at the Board room table to ensure that not only the new policies are properly implemented, but also that they do not slip back into their bad old habits of screwing Joe Public and the environment.

Thanks for many great hard hitting truths and insights.

Kind regards

Ewan
Comment by Gayle Henry on 2008-11-21
Jeff, you said exactly what needs to be said. Your 2 points are at the top of my list.
The car manufacturers have not retooled their manu. plants since before Regan. US manu. have been making Gas Guzzlers for the last 30 years! What were they thinking?
My 12 year old 850-Volva Station Wagon gets 32 miles/gallon on I-5, And 27-30 on the BACK roads.
And while we'er at it, why not CAP the CEOs' salaries @ $350,000?
That would be a start.
Comment by Robert Mailhot on 2008-11-21
I'm an avid reader of your green chip report and I'm also a GM employee and I kind of take offense in what you wrote. I'm all for going green and the sooner the better, but let's be realistic. Just 8 months ago, We had 4 plants running 3 shifts + week-ends building pick-up trucks and we couldn't make enough of them. That's what americans wanted, as well as SUVs. Then came the $150/barrel oil, followed by the credit crunch. What should our CEO have done 8 months ago, quit building what our customers wanted and retool those plants for making small cars? Nobody could have predicted what was to come, oh yes, we could have guessed that the price of oil was going to go up, and GM was preparing for it: the new line-up is a testament to that, we have more vehicles making 30mpg than anybody else and when it comes to making big vehicles more efficient, we are the leaders.
I work in a plant that makes the chevy Impala and even today, at the worst of the economic slump, wer'e producing them on 3 shifts, all sold. People simply won't go from a truck to a small car and since our Impala is a big car that does close to 30mpg, it's an obvious choice. And if someone gives GM a chance to continue on, it's future looks bright with lots of innovations coming, realistic ones that is. It's something to build a prototype that will do 60mpg, it's something else to mass build them, at a reasonable price, with the power requirements that people force on us.
By the way, the bail-out money is not for the top executives flying in their private jets, it's for the workers, retirees, spouses, children and all the other people who we buy from, people making a living building or selling houses, boats, fishing gear, golf equipment, vacations, air line tickets, theatre tickets, and of course, the tax collectors.
Robert
Comment by Robert Ellis on 2008-11-21
Who is forcing gas guzzeling SUVs down our throats? I see a myriad of economical shit boxes on the roads of America made by domestic automakers (the "Big Three") as well as foreign crap purveyors. I've owned my first and last foreign car...you can have them. Give me good solid American craftsmanship every time. You want to drive Jap crap, move to Japan.
Comment by Goodgojuice on 2008-11-21
Well, I have finally read an article from your organization that is closer to a sound solution to achieving independence from foreign oil. The time horizon for mass produced vehicles is nearly three years if the technology is ready for mass production. Otherwise, development time is necessary. But you got to remember, the government spared no expense on the Manhattan project, and we only had two bombs. It took the government sparing no expense to get a man on the moon in eight years. I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't help cutting off foreign oil and getting green cars on the road. Private "free market" companies aren't and can't take it on by themselves. They build what customers want. They don't force anybody to buy their products. There are more choices in the market place today, than at anytime since the 1920's. When people have a choice, they choose!
Comment by Joseph Runsdorf on 2008-11-21
It is easy to agree with an idea and this one is not bad. These dinosaurs have had ample opportunity to do the "right thing". Being married to or in cahoots with Big Oil forever, has also allowed them to shove SUV's down our throats; all the while lobbying Washington so that they don't have to improve; not only fuel efficiency but the quality of the vehicles they produce, as well (see Toyota and Honda). They need to be treated as the airlines were. Allowed to file for bankruptcy protection, thereby enabling the ability to renegotiate the horrible union contracts and pension plans they have bound themselves with because of ineptitude in their current and former management teams.
Let us forget, for the moment, the complete lapse in judgement of these executives; by flying "Business as Usual" to their hearing in DC. They went there without a plan!! The CEO of GM couldn't even tell the panel how much money he needed! "Hey boys, just give us the dough to keep us afloat or we will have to lay off many thousands of employees! If a small business practiced this lack of knowledge about his/her business, they would be closing their doors in a matter of months. Me thinketh, that they should have thought about this a bit more succinctly 3 decades ago when they had a real opportunity and the capital to move in the right direction.
Vaya con Dios, me amigos and do svedonya! Change, Mr.President Elect? Yes, the wholesale variety! I know Christmas and Chanukah are fast approaching, but stop the gift giving NOW!
Comment by Pete Borgerding on 2008-11-21
In 1947, John Abbott patented a variable compression piston, had Janss make them, and put them in a 1937 Buick straight-eight.The old Buick usually got 8-10 MPG, but with the V/C pistons the car got over 30 MPG. Union Oil quickly bought the patent and the technology disappeared. I've seen that piston; this really happened!
The oil interest buried the technology that would have benefitted the automakers,not to mention the rest of us.
Has greed reached the status of a religion?????????
Comment by Brian on 2008-11-20
Jeff,
I don't know what your background is, but I am guessing you haven't spent any time in the business world. To require that within 3 years, GM or any other company accepting government aid, to only sell cars that run on better than 60 mpg, would cost much more capital than GMs share of the $25 billion, expected to be around $10-12 Billion. GM currently spends $8 Billion/year on R&D. Retooling factories to enable them to produce 5 Million cars per year for the US market, their current sales volume, at 60 mpg, which would require plug-ins like their Chevy Volt, would likely require about $100 M in capital. To do it in three years, would require human resources, in addition to capital, that they don't have. The basis of your argument I agree with but don't expect the rules of capitalism to be bypassed just because GM gets a loan from the public.
Comment by Tina Spradlin on 2008-11-20
Right-on!!
You said it just right. It's time we set the standards for efficiency instead of the lobbyists, instead of trailing behind other nations. We should take the lead or get out of the way. No more whiney baby boo hoo bull hockey! If it's not efficient, scrap it. The same goes for all products. Get rid of the old grey haried gas bags and the less than impressive engineers and hire smarter engineers.
Comment by Bill Woolman on 2008-11-20
At age 85 I seem to remember that some years ago, since WW II, there have been carbuerators(sp) invented by some individuals who said they would give 60 to 80 mpg.
Also it was suspected that the major car mfg. companies quickly bought it and that was the last heard about it.
Why not dig some of those up & produce them today. I think they were rated using gasoline.
Comment by Paul Vidlak on 2008-11-20
Couldn't agree with your article more. You should send it to your congressman. Just hope the idiots, read politicians, up here in Canada dont't waste any of my money on these dinosaurs. The overpaid and underworked employees of these companies, both management and union types, should face the music. Everyone else has to....
Comment by Bill S on 2008-11-20
For two years we were bombarded with political talk about the coming green revolution. Soaring oil prices meant pain at the pump and people were ready to give green a listen. Everybody was complaining about the $50 to $100 dollar trips to the gas station. It was crazy. Something had to be done. And suddenly people started to drive less. They were doing the little things like combining trips to the market and dry cleaner. People were being green without trying. They were conserving. Cut to the market crash over the last several months and the huge drop in gas prices. Talk about a tax cut. Going from 4 and change a gallon of gas to 2 is money in your pocket.

But what I woke up to this morning really gave me a chill. With lower gas prices people were driving more. Yes, that cheap gas has given them a new lease to drive their SUVs or low mileage cars and trucks. The talk about alternative energy has been replaced with the crashing stock market, deflation, dropping housing markets, etc. The solar market that had been going strong is now in turmoil. Nobody wants to part with their cash or take out loans to pay for electricity, even if they can save money in the long run. It doesn’t make sense, but when people are scared about losing their jobs and the balance in their checking accounts, sense never adds up.

If Americans revert back to their old ways — consume and consume some more — then we all deserve what we get which will be cheap gas and its affects…more coal burning power plants and lots of pollution. If ever there was a time for the government to put a big fat tax on gas, this is it. We need to stabilize what gas costs us and use that tax money on research and development for alternative fuels. Believe it or not, cheap gas is the worst possible thing for us and our economy, but most of all, our future.

Comment by Tom Wadzinski on 2008-11-20
Exactly my sentiments. I think you read my thoughts.
The conditions you presented are reasonable.
I would add: Dismiss all the current CEO's, etc, They have always been the problem. Not the unions. The unions took what they could. The stupid CEO's gave them what they wanted!
Comment by Susan A on 2008-11-20
"It's time we start making demands instead of excuses." You got that right, Jeff. We better get our act together or America's best days will be just history.
Comment by Mordechai Ben-Menachem on 2008-11-20
Jeff,
Your comment with the two 'conditions' for bailing out those crooks from Detroit -- finally someone says something that makes sense.

I can state, as a sceintist with several hundred published papers, and one working in energy, that 60MPG autos are ENTIRELY possible in a 3-year time frame, but they have every incentive to fail, once again. What you said is absolutely correct. Make it an ironclad requirement for survival.
Comment by joni on 2008-11-20
I cant agree more. We has a nation of individuals need to yell & scream our demands. We have been politely asking for change for years now and the auto industry has ignored the american people and listened only to the oil companies. Why doesnt the oil companies bail out the auto industry. They have been instrumental in helping them record bilions in profits. Where is the dam justice.
Comment by on 2008-11-20
This would certainly force us retired RV'ers to quit.I don't know of any kind of vehicle that can get that kind of fuel economy towing anything.All of the related businesses,campgrounds,state and federal campgrounds would have to change their business model or go out of business.I could agree with certain vehicles required to get that kind of mileage but not across the board
Comment by Rob Wolf on 2008-11-20
Excellent. The issue is fundamentally on 2 fronts: the pragmatic "how should government play in the private sector" question and the "sustainable/renewable energy issue." On the first, the government can be a market player whenever situations are beyond the capacity of any one individual or business sector. Examples include traditional infrastructure concepts like roads, police, schools, etc. The government has a duty to participate when no other actor has the ability. On that second point, it is a straight-forward public-policy initiative question in which the government and society has had a long-standing obligation and power. For example, we allow homeowners the right to offset income for the interest cost of their home mortgage because we want, as a public policy, to encourage and reward home ownership. This same concept and rule applies to our public policy need to encourage fuel efficient transportation. If the auto manufacturers want to borrow government funds, they need to comply with rules pursuant to the "government market player" and "public policy" concepts.
No need to reinvent the wheel to get this done. We are facing new technologies but have the tools to manage them from decades of prior history.
Comment by Rob Wolf on 2008-11-20
Excellent. The issue is fundamentally on 2 fronts: the pragmatic "how should government play in the private sector" question and the "sustainable/renewable energy issue." On the first, the government can be a market player whenever situations are beyond the capacity of any one individual or business sector. Examples include traditional infrastructure concepts like roads, police, schools, etc. The government has a duty to participate when no other actor has the ability. On that second point, it is a straight-forward public-policy initiative question in which the government and society has had a long-standing obligation and power. For example, we allow homeowners the right to offset income for the interest cost of their home mortgage because we want, as a public policy, to encourage and reward home ownership. This same concept and rule applies to our public policy need to encourage fuel efficient transportation. If the auto manufacturers want to borrow government funds, they need to comply with rules pursuant to the "government market player" and "public policy" concepts.
No need to reinvent the wheel to get this done. We are facing new technologies but have the tools to manage them from decades of prior history.
Comment by ChuckL on 2008-11-20
Jeff, you are simply wrong in your "no exceptions" idea.

A Ford F-450 towing a 24,500 pound trailer is not going to meet your requirements. Nor will any other tow vehicle. among other things, this means that there will be no deliveries of food to grocery stores.

Fuel efficiency is important, but reason must be retained.

You are displaying a pig-headded lack of reason.

You could try to get the federal government to accept European safety standards though. Ford already sells a Fiesta over there that meets your requirements for efficiency but it can not be imported because it only meets the equally successful European safety standards.
Comment by Luis Colmenarez on 2008-11-20
I thought this was a great news item and had to made me chuckle. I couldn't agree with you more. Oil prices will continue to rise, even though there is a temporary lull in prices.

How many hybrid vehicles do the big three currently have on the market? I asked a local Chrysler dealer if a hybrid model was available and the answer was no.
Comment by Randy Lee on 2008-11-20
If GM goes bankrupt, then its assets will be sold. The highest bidder will be investors who think that they can do a better job than the current execs of running the business, and that is exactly what they will do: run the business! How does this translate into massive unemployment, (except of course for a bunch of deadwood execs)? Why does everyone parrot the same line - "if GM goes under they deserve it, but there will be massive unemployment"? WTF?
Comment by John L. Hagerty on 2008-11-20
Love the article, agree with it 100%. Won't happen any time soon though. I hope we as a nation do get our act together soon.
Comment by spike on 2008-11-20
I was astounded at the comments and attitude in the article. Without an announcement he totally did away with the free market and then had the audacity to call it competition. To state that all vehicles should get 60 mpg or NOT be built or SOlD is so shortsighted as to be totally ignorant. For example I drive an armored car for a security firm, my brother drives an ambulance. What the hell would lead anyone to believe that 60mpg takes priority over security or mediacal attention? This guy shouldn't even be allowed to own a pencil let alone publish his idiotic thoughts.
Comment by Laurie Pembroke on 2008-11-20
That was rough and tough Mr Siegel. I have just read your book in England and I understand and agree with your frustrations.
The way forward maybe to stand back and let Detroit self destruct but in the meantime put a lot of effort into getting many acedemics, politicians and money men to agree a way forward.
This present situation needs a high level of skillful diplomacy to make a difference.
Comment by Sterling Douglass on 2008-11-20
Damn right!I couldn't agree with you more!Just wish what you say would actually take place!Only thing is with fuel economy like that we need to also maintain a level of quality that is on par with the Japs now.However congrats on a great article! Is a saver! SLD
Comment by Shane Lilly on 2008-11-20
Jeff:

You made a comment in your article that GM has been forcing gas guzzlers down our throats. You also stated that you believe that the government should attach a requirement to any loan that is offered requiring future vehicles to get a minimum of 60 mpg.

First, they haven't been forcing anything down our throats. America loves big vehicles and we have been buying them by choice. The big three were simply giving America what it wanted. If people wanted tiny, fuel efficient vehicles, they would simply buy them from foreign manufacturers. Some have done that, but most have not.

Second, even in our current condition, the majority of Americans are not yet looking for cars that get 60 mpg. So manufacturing such a vehicle would not help GM's bottom line. Most of the cars on the road today are still medium to large vehicles (including SUVs). This is likely because people still enjoy the comfort and safety of a large vehicle, and don't understand our global oil situation.

I will say that the American manufacturers should have been planning for the future by desiging and building the next generation vehicle (smaller and more fuel efficient) while they were selling SUVs. They certainly had the capital to do both simultaneously. There is currently a small market for these vehicles and they could have been taking advantage of that before our economy tanked. However, that is not why they are facing bankrupsy. Rather, it's because of poor overall management of their companies, an extremely over compensated union workforce, and a crumbling economy.

Thanks for letting me add my two cents.
Comment by Jon Prato on 2008-11-20
Interesting info on German company making offer for Opel. This rest of article just hype and more like a rant.
Comment by Vincent on 2008-11-20
I agree completely with yourarticle regarding the position GM now finds itself in and what should be done about it.
To take any more government bailouts the company must be accountable for dramatic effeciency improvements and these should be legislated. It also goes for my country Australia, where a bail out package occuring.
Comment by p. rudolph on 2008-11-20
I agree, it's time for the tax payer to say how our money is being used, instead of our elected officials voting for their interests. VOTE THEM OUT!!!
Comment by Phil on 2008-11-20
I couldn't agree more - a handout to the auto industry without the kinds of "strings" attached you indicated is absolutely useless. The only way to ensure that taxpayers see a "recovery" of their kind contributions is through a locked in repayment program. These guy's took their corporate jets to Washington for pete's sake - they don't need money - they're just greedy.