Mon
Jun 01 2009

American Leyland

Hilton Holloway
Today, what was once one of the most influential companies on the planet, fell into bankruptcy and its shares were removed from stock exchange listings.

General Motors is now 60 percent owned by the US government. President Obama calls the US state a ‘reluctant shareholder’ which would ‘refrain from making decisions’ about the re-invention of the company. And that’s despite the US government planning to plough another £30bn into restructuring GM.

The US government wants to see a ‘New GM’ rise quickly from the ashes of a global carmaker that currently has $82bn (£50bn) in assets and $172bn (£105bn) in debts.

Despite skepticism from some experts, the government has said that GM’s financing will only go ahead if the transition to ‘New GM’ is completed by 10 July. And there’ll be no more money after the new company is established.

The pain to come will be intense – as Obama made clear in his speech this afternoon. GM could cut its remaining factory worker numbers from 54,000 to just 33,000.

But that’s probably the price of making GM structurally profitable with US new car sales running at 10 million units per year. The recent US new car market peak was 16m annual sales.

It’s amazing to think that GM currently employs around 92,000 people in the US, less than a fifth of the workforce at the company’s 1950s peak.

There has been some disquiet in the US over the Government’s majority stake in GM. Today one website renamed GM ‘Government Motors’.

A few US commentators have also drawn parallels with the British Leyland nightmare – a story relatively well-known on the other side of the Atlantic.

The creation of BLMC from the relatively healthy Leyland-Triumph-Rover combine (Leyland was once the biggest exporter of commercial vehicles in the free world) and the ailing BMC (Austin-Morris-Jaguar) is a well-documented disaster.

When Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Minister of Technology Tony Benn decided, in 1968, that the backbone of the UK car industry should merge into one mega producer, it created a problem that took 21 years for the government untangle itself from.

When BLMC collapsed in 1974, it employed 250,000 workers directly and at least the same again in related jobs. Over UK 40 factories operated under the BLMC banner, as well as extensive holdings overseas, from Italy to Australia and South America.

The government had to nationalize it, creating British Leyland which staggered on, absorbing huge amounts of money. Even in the midst of the early 1980s recession, Sir Michael Edwardes managed to extract nearly £1bn from Mrs Thatcher to keep it on the road.

It wasn’t until 1989 – when the Rover Group rump went (controversially) to BAe – that the taxpayer was finally free of the BL monster.

The US government says it will create the healthy ‘New GM’ in just 40 days, allowing the ‘bad’ assets to be disposed of. If it does manage that, it will in stark contrast to the successive British governments – and taxpayers – that were drained of funds for 15 years.

The potentially disastrous results of Government intervention in trying to run the automotive industry have been burnt into the minds of administrators and managers across the globe.

When Obama said his government was ‘a reluctant’ shareholder and that they would ‘refrain’ from making decisions about New GM’s future, he quite possibly had the global disaster that was British Leyland in mind.

Sign-in or register to add your comments

About Hilton Holloway

Has two product design degrees and used to design mountain bikes. Realised that cars were a lot more interesting in 1990, and has been writing about them ever since.

Comments

hamishl June 1, 2009 11:47 PM

Government ownership of private companies doesn't always have to spell disaster. Early in the 21st century the New Zealand goverment took ownership of Air New Zealand, at the time deperately looking to merge with another airline in order to stay alive. Now, they are managing to turn a profit, something that a lot of airlines in recent years have failed to do.

Whether the same can happen with a company as large as GM, only time will tell, I suppose. I don't believe the government here has been continuing to prop Air New Zealand up, so perhaps if the US administration remains true to its word and leaves GM to its own devices, rather than spend years meddling in its decision making, the car-maker will stand a chance.

Canuck June 2, 2009 1:41 AM

Lets hope the Americans learned from the British experience.

I think GM is in much better shape product wise, than British Leyland ever was.  What was killing GM was all those structural costs like pensions and health care (something in dire need of fixing in the US).

cheers,

HiltonH June 2, 2009 2:45 AM

Canuk

A very good point. GM's engineering standards - with more than a little help from Korea, Germany and Sweden - are world-class.

It took Leyland Cars over five years to produce a hatchback body and updated engine to add to the existing Mini running gear....

Casanova June 2, 2009 9:12 AM

The aberration that was the mismanagement of the British car industry still grates today.  The Americans have a way to fall yet before they reach those depths.

theop June 2, 2009 9:48 AM

Hamish: Your point is very interesting. There are several similar examples of good governance in places like Denmark too. Not sure whether the small country factor counts in anything there... Would be positively surprised if the American gmt can run any company as well as Kiwis or Danes run their nationalised entities...

Canuk: You have a financial point on what ruined GM. Not so sure about the product though, not so much in engineering standards as in "keeping up with trends" and making desirable and fashionable cars (like VAg, BM etc...)...

All about Autocar

Newsfeeds

Subscribe to our news with our RSS feeds

Advertise

To advertise with Autocar contact us

Buy our magazines

Discover our titles at themagazineshop.com

Autocar latest issue - cover 8.2.12

NEW ISSUE OUT NOW

FAST, EASY & SECURE
SUBSCRIBE NOW>>