General Motors Co’s new chief financial officer told analysts the automaker remains committed to the low-debt strategy and discipline on vehicle pricing emphasized by his predecessor. In a dinner meeting with analysts on Thursday, Dan Ammann said GM faced limited impact from the Japan crisis, was increasing its auto credit capabilities, and was reducing its exposure to incentives in the U.S. market, according to research notes from Barclays Capital and J.P. Morgan. “Dan emphasized fundamental continuity around GM’s financial strategy and philosophy with his predecessor,” Barclays analyst Brian Johnson said. “Dan plans to continue the low-debt strategy of his predecessor.” [Reuters]
Related Posts
How Huge Companies Are Dragging Down Our Economy
This story is republished from CFOZone, where you’ll find news, analysis and professional networking tools for finance executives.
There are three pieces in the blogosphere today that touch on the fundamental problem with our economic system and why it will remain in a ditch, or just lurch onward to the next crisis, if it isn’t addressed.
And that is monopoly. I’ll leave aside the politics of that, which is addressed well enough by Thomas Franks over at the Wall Street Journal. In a nutshell, he warns of a return to feudalism, which I’ve done as well before.
What struck me as new was this analysis, which made me realize that the macroeconomic problem with monopolies is that they discourage hiring and capital investment.
After all, if you have a market locked up, your profits are so high that it makes no sense to take any risk on new investment. You just keep doing what you’re doing with the resources you have, hoping to maintain your barrier to entry. Oh sure, you expand, but only by acquiring competitors so as to keep your monopoly intact and your margins high.
Capital investment? Hiring? Forget about it. There’s no need. In fact, you want to reduce those things. That’s called synergy.
So where does expansion in GDP come from in that case? It derives more and more from speculation about where your stock price will go. Multiply that to the nth degree, a process known as financialization that’s been taking place for decades, and everything ultimately becomes geared to asset prices, with the bubbles and busts that inevitably ensue.
Yes, this description is woefully simplistic and won’t pass muster in a traditional macroeconomics course. There’s also plenty of room for argument as to what degree monopolies currently dominate the economy.
But it seems to me that this is the sort of analysis that’s required to restore the economy’s health. How else, after all, can one explain the paltry amount of hiring and capital investment we’ve seen since the late 1990s?
The point of such a discussion, of course, would be to come up with a solution to the problem. As cogent but unfashionable as its description of the problem may be, the Marxist view expressed in the Monthly Review article cited above is that it cannot be solved because of the irreconcilable contradiction at the heart of capitalism, and that political instability of the highest order is thus inevitable. Sorry, but no thanks.
The alternative: Vigorous antitrust enforcement, which, as Simon Johnson of MIT points out, is what the progressive Republicans pursued a century ago when financial trusts threatened to put a stranglehold on the entire system.
Indeed, breaking up monopolies, in banking and elsewhere, strikes me as the only viable means of growing the economy without creating a more dangerous asset bubble in short order.
Yes, you could conceivably do it instead through better regulation, and I’m all for that, but the back and forth we’ve seen in Washington over financial reform shows that better regulation is impossible until the economic power of the banks, and the political influence that goes with it, is sharply curtailed. The Federal Reserve and other bank regulators had all the authority they needed to keep banks in check, but failed to do so. Why? It wasn’t because they were dumb.
Your Suspicions About the Controller Not Liking You Are Well Founded
Editor’s Note: A controller friend of GC — who is clearly in the Holiday spirit — presents their top methods of annoying the hell out of their co-workers. We have kept their identity secret* for their own protection. No one likes tragedy around the holidays.
Top ten ways a Controller can piss off co-workers:
1. Start charging for stamps.
2. Stop reimbursing your #1 sales guy’s T&E and when he calls to ask you where his check is tell him to “get fucked” and hang up.
3. Get up during a company meeting and announce that the new per diem has been reduced to $20 a day and that all employees must stay at La Quinta when traveling for business.
4. March into the CFO’s office and tell him your quitting and the books are fucked. Give him/her about 30 minutes to digest and then send them an email to say “just joshin’ ya, boss”.
5. Siphon off ALL the company’s money to an offshore bank account then parachute out the window into your Ferrari waiting below.
6. Write an all company email on December 25th announcing massive layoffs and your recent promotion to CFO.
7. Cancel the holiday party for “budgeting purposes”.
8. Announce that you need to sublease most of the company’s office space and that all employees will be doubling up in offices.
9. Let your corporate checking account go into the negative so that all your year-end bonus checks bounce.
10. Tell your staff that in order to close the books in three days you’re doubling the staff but and they’re going to have to work in shifts.
By,
Anonymous Controller
*For a price, certain information (read: name, address, usual routine) could be provided.
Apple CFO’s Seemingly Banal Statement Interpreted Quite Differently by The Wall St. Journal
Apple Insider reported yesterday that when Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer was asked about Google’s acquisition of Motorola he reportedly said, “$12.5 billion is a lot of money.” Now, I don’t know anyone that would say, “$12.5 billion is pocket change,” or “I piss on $12.5 billion.” Not even the most ostentatious Russian oligarch would be so bold to laugh in the face of that sum of money.
Having said that, it appears the Wall St. Journal seems to think that Oppenheimer’s statement are akin to fighting words, as illustrated by the headline: “Apple CFO Snipes at Google’s Motorola Bid” which included the following:
Peter Oppenheimer, Apple’s CFO, took a shot at Google when asked about the company’s $12.5 billion bid for Motorola Mobility Holdings during a conference call with investors hosted by Gleacher & Company. Oppenheimer said that companies should invent their own technology rather than buy it from the outside, adding that “$12.5 billion is a lot of money,” according to a report from Apple Insider.
First of all, to look at Peter Oppenheimer you wouldn’t think he’s capable of “sniping.” Secondly, “snipe” is defined as “To make malicious, underhand remarks or attacks” according to Wiktionary. For example, if Oppenheimer had said something like, “Larry Page couldn’t get laid in a monkey whorehouse with a bag of bananas” or “Androids are the Yugos of the smartphone world,” those would qualify as snipes. They are malicious, underhanded and are attacks.
Conversely, “$12.5 billion is a lot of money” is not a snipe. It is a statement of a fact-ish. It is a lot of money. You could argue that it is Oppenheimer’s opinion but as posited above, very few would argue that it isn’t a lot of money. Is Google overpaying for Motorola? That’s the question Michael Hickins ultimately asks in his article but somehow the hook for this was that Apple’s CFO brings the same level of snark as the CEO.