|Bid||0.00 x 2900|
|Ask||37.77 x 1300|
|Day's Range||37.74 - 38.35|
|52 Week Range||30.56 - 41.90|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.25|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||6.02|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||1.52 (3.98%)|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
(Bloomberg) -- The federal bailout of General Motors Co. helped prevent Michigan from sinking deeper after the recession. Now, the strike by its workers is threatening to exert a drag on the state and its local governments amid the record-long economic recovery.General Motors employees stopped working on Sept. 16 as United Auto Workers union leaders negotiate with the car manufacturer over wages and benefits. If the standoff continues to drag on, Michigan officials anticipate that the state could lose as much as $4.6 million a week in tax revenue, according to Moody’s Investors Service.“The work stoppage poses an outsized economic threat to the state of Michigan as well as local governments in the state such as Detroit that have above-average economic exposure to the automotive giant,” Moody’s analyst Ted Hampton wrote in a report.Michigan is the birthplace of the American automobile industry and remains heavily tethered to it. More than 20% of Michigan wages in 2017 came from manufacturing, including more than 5% from car makers, according to Moody’s. That makes it twice as dependent on manufacturing and the auto industry than the overall U.S.If the strike negatively affects the state’s revenue, the record-long economic expansion has left Michigan with a significant cash cushion to weather it: It had $1 billion in its rainy day fund at the end of June 2018, compared with $2.2 million in 2008, according to Moody’s.The bond market has also brushed off the potential impacts of the strike. Debt sold in Michigan has gained 6.5% this year, more than the 6.3% advance for the broader municipal-bond market, according to Bloomberg Barclays indexes.General Motors’ offer to end the strike includes 5,400 new and retained jobs and $7 billion in U.S. investment during the next four years, the Detroit Free Press reported Thursday. The parties resumed talks Thursday morning following negotiations late Wednesday night.To contact the reporter on this story: Michelle Kaske in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Elizabeth Campbell at firstname.lastname@example.org, William Selway, Michael B. MaroisFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
While top U.S. auto giants General Motors (GM) and Ford (F) issue vehicle recalls recently, recreational vehicle manufacturer Winnebago Industries (WGO) inks a deal to buy Newmar.
The Tesla Inc.'s 2019 Model 3 got a top safety award from an insurance group on Thursday. The all-electric sedan joins the Audi e-tron, also electric, and the Hyundai Nexo, a fuel-cell vehicle, that had recently qualified for the award. General Motors Co.'s Chevrolet Bolt did not qualify because its headlights "cause too much glare," the Institute for Highway Safety, or IIHS, said. "Vehicles with alternative powertrains have come into their own," IIHS Chief Research Officer David Zuby said. "There's no need to trade away safety for a lower carbon footprint when choosing a vehicle." Shares of Tesla rose 1% in midday trading and are down 26% for the year, contrasting with gains of 20% for the S&P 500 index .
Tesla's (TSLA) Gigafactory 3 in China is set to begin production in the next few months and ramp up to normal production levels in mid-2020.
(Bloomberg) -- The executives tasked with introducing Seventh Generation’s line of eco-friendly laundry detergents, dish soaps and cleaners to Southeast Asia faced a dilemma earlier this year. If the Unilever NV unit proceeded with the planned product launch before enough recycled plastic could be found for packaging, it could undercut sustainability goals tied to 20% of employee bonuses. Picking a non-recycled material could cost them all a chunk of money. “If you don’t have access to recycled resins, then we just won’t launch,” Seventh Generation Chief Executive Officer Joey Bergstein said the company decided at the time. His team eventually found suitable material from the region’s fledgling recycling infrastructure, and Seventh Generation hit store shelves there without lowering standards—or bonuses. The search paid off for Unilever, too, with the same supplies of recycled resins going into the packaging of the European consumer giant’s other brands in Southeast Asia.Most large companies now set sustainability goals, but few impose consequences on employees who fail to meet them. Around 500 corporations worldwide tie executive pay to environmental, social or governance goals, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Not all of these are related to climate impact—diversity and safety are more prevalent than environment targets among this group.That’s beginning to change. “It’s is coming up more and more, but five years ago this wasn’t part of the conversation,” said Seymour Burchman, a managing director at Semler Brossy, a consultant that advises on compensation plans. With companies creating better data around environmental impact and risks, he said, the case for linking compensation gets stronger. “The board can’t ignore it.”The employers that most often link compensation to environmental impact aren’t crunchy consumer brands like Seventh Generation but gritty miners. Extractive industries need to measure environmental impact to get licenses required to operate in local communities, and Burchman said that incentive pay has been an effective way for miners to improve these results.Cameco Corp. links 40% of annual bonuses to safety, environment and community measures. Vale SA started linking emission reductions to annual bonuses in 2018. Rio Tinto Plc said in April it was considering how to link greenhouse gas cuts to short-term incentive plans. BHP Group—the world's largest miner—said Tuesday it will increase the amount of short-term incentives CEO Andrew Mackenzie has tied to carbon emissions reductions and climate metrics in 2020 from 4% currently. As more companies reckon with their carbon footprints and face pressure to embrace renewable energy, links between climate-related targets and compensation are spreading. General Motors Co. CEO Mary Barra had seven sustainability objectives last year, including reaching 200,000 electric vehicle sales in the U.S. GM’s proxy statement denoted each one with a little green leaf, alongside other traditional financial goals for CEO pay like revenue, dividends and share repurchases. There are other executives at the Detroit automaker with sustainability goals included in their compensation, although a GM spokeswoman didn’t say how far these targets extend down the line.Climate goals for executive pay are more common in Europe, where companies like Novozymes A/S, the Copenhagen-based maker of industrial enzymes, gives each employee his or her own incentives for meeting financial, social and environmental targets. Food and beverage maker Danone SA bases about 10% of CEO Emmanuel Faber’s pay on meeting climate commitments and creating a sustainable supply chain.Sustainability is increasingly creeping into traditional financial incentives for companies — and even their suppliers. Walmart, for example, has pledged to cut a gigaton of greenhouse gases out of its business by 2030, extending all the way into its supply chain. Earlier this year, in an effort to spur suppliers to do better, Walmart offered better financial terms to anyone who delivered on green goals. Walmart specifically links diversity and culture to 15% of executive incentive pay and 10% of pay for associates, but doesn’t break out environmental goals in its proxy. In the credit markets, nearly $70 billion of green- and sustainability-linked loans were issued this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The loans let companies lower the cost of their debt if they meet specific sustainability targets. At Seventh Generation, the entire workforce sees pay change along with company-wide sustainability metrics. That puts the unit on the far end of adoption, which makes sense for an environmentally-minded consumer brand. “When you bake it into the incentive system people really feel compelled to go after it,” said Bergstein, the chief executive.Meeting goals on packaging and greenhouse-gas reduction prompted the launch of an ultra concentrated laundry detergent in 2018. The detergent weighs less, which the company claims will cut emissions from shipping by about 70%.Scientists working for Seventh Generation, however, have concluded that 92% of the company’s greenhouse-gas footprint stems from people washing and drying clothes at home—something very difficult for executives to change. Working with manufacturers to design washing machines that are more efficient didn’t seem like it would address that problem fast enough. So the company took an unorthodox approach.Seventh Generation set a target that 100 U.S. cities would need to pledge to shift to clean energy by 2030. If they didn’t, employees would lose out on incentive pay. Bergstein will admit that it sounds crazy: “What kind of control do we have over 100 cities across America to make that kind of commitment?” he said. “But we looked at each other and said if we’re really serious about cleaning up the energy grid, then we’ve got to do something like this.”Seventh Generation spent $1 million on lobbying efforts and worked with the Sierra Club and other groups to sway local officials. It worked — and its 160 employees got to keep their bonuses. “It would have been a lot easier to take that $1 million and spend it elsewhere,” Bergstein said. “But it really keeps your feet to the fire.”This story is part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 250 news outlets to highlight climate change.To contact the author of this story: Emily Chasan in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Aaron Rutkoff at firstname.lastname@example.org, Tim QuinsonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- America’s automakers hit rock bottom with the public when their executives went to Washington in 2008 to beg for a bailout — in corporate jets.Now it’s the German car industry’s turn to suffer an image crisis and, as with General Motors Co. and Chrysler a decade ago, it couldn’t be happening at a less auspicious moment. Amid trade wars and plunging China sales, the number of cars rolling off Germany’s production lines has dropped by 12% this year and exports by 14%. European auto sales fell 3% in the first eight months of 2019.(1) With demand expected to remain weak for a couple of years, the German parts supplier Continental AG isn’t ruling out cuts to working hours and jobs.It’s a bad time to be having a public relations crisis too, but that is what’s happening in the country that invented the internal combustion engine. This month’s Frankfurt Motor Show was meant to give Germany’s mighty auto industry a platform to show off its expensive plans to build more electric vehicles.Instead, many international carmakers chose to stay away (some to save money) and Karl-Thomas Neumann, the ex-boss of Opel/Vauxhall, declared the event a “huge fail.” Compounding the misery, Daimler AG’s Mercedes, BMW AG and Volkswagen AG were upstaged by climate protesters who accused them of not doing enough to end their addiction to diesel and gasoline engines.Things had already got off to an ugly start. On the eve of the show four pedestrians were struck and killed by a sport utility vehicle in Berlin, prompting a fierce debate about the “social utility” of these gas-guzzling, tank-like cars. Featuring a picture of a Porsche SUV on its cover this week, Der Spiegel magazine declared a “new object of hate.” I’ve written before about the industry’s dependence on very profitable SUVs and the risk of a backlash.Meanwhile, the organization that one might usually expect to defend the German car giants — the VDA lobby group — was preoccupied with the abrupt resignation of its president, Bernhard Mattes. This fueled speculation that the industry was unhappy about its loss of political influence and increasing stigmatization.The German car industry provides more than 800,000 jobs in the country and it accounts for a big chunk of its manufacturing production and exports. Past governments fought hard to protect their industry crown jewel from troublesome regulations. That’s no longer always the case.First, the Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal made it unwise for politicians to go easy on companies that put profits above public health. And second, Germans have become alarmed by climate change and the industry’s role in that. The average emissions of new vehicles sold(3) climbed for the second year in a row last year, in part because of SUV sales. That’s one reason why Germany is set to miss its 2020 carbon pollution reduction targets. Passenger cars account for about 11% of its greenhouse gas emissions.(2)Stringent European Union emission targets, and massive fines for non-compliance, have been put in place already. A German federal government led by the Greens (not unimaginable given the party’s poll surge) would be tougher still. After the deadly accident in Berlin, there were calls to ban SUVs from cities.The average age of a new car buyer in Germany has climbed to 53, suggesting that the industry may be looking at a difficult future. Yet claims that Germans have fallen out of love with the automobile feel overblown. They still bought about 3.4 million new vehicles last year, pretty decent by historic standards. About 95% of them had a combustion engine. More than one-quarter were SUVs. Nor does the government have any desire to kill its golden goose. Earlier this year officials rejected attempts by campaigners to mandate a speed limit on the autobahn.With this contradiction between the public’s anxiety about climate change and its fondness for big vehicles, it’s not surprising that the government and carmakers are struggling to keep everyone happy. Riding a bike and car-sharing have become a genuine alternative in cities such as Berlin. But for those who still feel they need a car, electric vehicles tend to be more expensive and their driving range can be limited (for now, at least). The climate package the German government is due to announce on Friday will doubtless try to address this by including more incentives for electric vehicles and infrastructure.As the industry wrestles with such epochal challenges, it helps that Germany’s automakers have all recently appointed new bosses. They’re far from united, however, on how aggressively to abandon the combustion engine. Volkswagen is going “all-in” on battery cars (it’s targeting 40% of electric sales by 2030), while BMW is more cautious. The latter thinks hydrogen fuel-cells might have a future, though VW isn’t a fan.Yet even VW plans to use the profit from selling large SUVs such as its three-row “Atlas” to fund investments in green alternatives.At last week’s show in Frankfurt, electric vehicles like the Porsche Taycan and Volkswagen ID3 sat alongside gas-guzzling monsters like the BMW X6 and Mercedes AMG GLE Coupe. With the climate crisis intensifying, the industry’s split personality is getting more incongruous and indefensible by the day.(1) It's not all bad - the German market has actually expanded slightly so far this year.(2) In terms of grams of CO2 per km(3) See hereTo contact the senior editor responsible for Bloomberg Opinion’s editorials: David Shipley at email@example.com, .Chris Bryant is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies. He previously worked for the Financial Times.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Google is up against a lot of scrutiny from U.S. regulators, which overshadows its legal win in Germany, self-driving prowess and strategic wins at traditional automakers.
The strike against General Motors Co's U.S. operations has led to a parts shortage, the automaker said on Wednesday, and as a result it announced the temporary lay-offs of 1,200 workers at its Oshawa assembly plant in Canada. The lay-off announcement came three days after about 48,000 hourly workers went on strike across GM facilities in the United States. Contract talks began early on Wednesday and were continuing into the evening aimed at reaching a deal, but no agreement was expected immediately.
"The plant is doing everything it can, and trying to be as proactive as possible to mitigate this," said GM Canada spokesperson Jacqueline Thomson. Thomson could not provide details about the affected parts, but said GM was looking for alternative sources.
With around 48,000 workers picketing at General Motors' factories, this marks the first major stoppage at the company in the last 12 years.
U.S. President Donald Trump and the state of California went to war on Wednesday over who should set the standards in the United States for vehicle emissions and electric cars, foreshadowing a legal battle over environmental policy issues that will affect the auto industry and consumers. Trump confirmed he would revoke California's authority to require automakers to build cleaner vehicles than federal requirements demand. Trump tweeted that vehicles would be "far less expensive" and "substantially SAFER" - claims California officials rejected.
Shares of General Motors are down Wednesday after the company announced it is furloughing 1,300 employees at its Oshawa, Canada assembly plant as it deals with the fallout from the current United Auto Workers strike. Production of GM pickup trucks is being cut in half at the plant amid the strike, leading GM Canada to announce that it is cutting its workforce. The current impasse is the first time the UAW has called for a strike against GM since 2007.
Automaker stocks have seen mixed performances in September. While Ford, General Motors, Tesla, and Fiat Chrysler have risen, Ferrari has declined.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- For the past few decades, the U.S. economy has benefited from more immigration, more trade, lower taxes and increased domestic oil production, especially because of fracking. These trends coincided with declining inflation and favorable conditions for consumers, investors and companies (although a downside was rising inequality and stagnant wages for workers). I like to refer to these as positive supply shocks — some of them the result of policy choices, some the result of random events.The election of President Donald Trump suggested that a reversal of many of those trends was in the making, with negative supply shocks more likely given his views on trade and immigration. Now it looks like 2019 is shaping up as the year the reversals are starting to become visible — at least in the random-event department. During the past week, the attack on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities knocked millions of barrels of production offline, and a nationwide strike by the United Auto Workers has temporarily halted production of General Motors vehicles. More broadly, the political backdrop that produced decades of positive supply shocks was one where both parties generally favored less regulation of markets and more globalization. The expansion of immigration after the Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1965 increased the productive capacity of the U.S. and ensured that businesses rarely faced labor shortages. Increased trade served two purposes: It gave U.S. consumers access to cheap imported goods, which helped hold down inflation, and it opened foreign markets to goods produced by American companies, increasing their profits. Lower taxes were in part a response to a perceived capital shortage during the high inflation of the 1970s and stimulated investment and hence economic growth. In more recent years, fracking benefited oil-producing communities while also making the U.S. less vulnerable to sudden, sharp reductions in the oil supply, as we just saw in Saudi Arabia.But as partisan polarization has intensified, particularly in the aftermath of the Great Recession, the old consensus has broken down, with each party prioritizing issues that lead them to accept the impact of negative supply shocks in pursuit of policy goals.As Trump has shifted the Republican Party's base toward rural and post-industrial white voters, trade and immigration have fallen out of favor. Although xenophobia is part of it, the economic rationale is that by cutting immigration and reducing imports via higher tariffs, domestic sources of production will take up the slack. Rather than companies hiring immigrants, they'll hire Americans instead. If labor shortages arise, companies will have to raise wages and work harder to find employees; with the U.S. labor force participation rate lower than it's been in the past, and lower than it is in other countries, this might lead to more hiring of workers who have dropped out of the labor force.Trade is similar — importing less from foreign manufacturers, in theory, means buying more from domestic companies. To the extent domestic producers don't exist, it creates incentives for business formation. This should lead to more investment, hiring and ultimately economic growth. But the result could also be just the opposite.As we're seeing on the campaign trail, Democrats have their own priorities that could lead to negative supply shocks. Climate change has become a signature issue for Democrats, and it's not unreasonable to expect Democrats to fight a war on carbon in the 2020s. Earlier this month, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren said that on her first day as president, she would ban fracking. Ambitious policy proposals like the Green New Deal would seek to transition the U.S. away from carbon-based energy sources as soon as possible.Leading Democrats also see unions and increased labor activism as an important tool to fight for workers' fair share of economic output versus their employers. Warren, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden have all given public pledges of support to the striking UAW workers. The next Democratic president might not have the votes in the Senate to enact parts of their labor and income-inequality agenda, but they could see encouraging strikes as one way to achieve the same goals outside of the legislative process. This could mean disruptions to production and supply shortages of the kind that Americans haven't seen in decades.It remains to be seen how successful the parties will be in pursuing these policies and what kind of economic pain it would take for them to change course or for the public to turn against them. But it is political risks like these will be the biggest headwinds for the economy in the near future.To contact the author of this story: Conor Sen at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Conor Sen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a portfolio manager for New River Investments in Atlanta and has been a contributor to the Atlantic and Business Insider.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Contract talks between the United Auto Workers and General Motors showed some signs of progress Tuesday as a strike by more than 49,000 employees extended into a second day.
The news is all over the financial front pages: General Motors (GM) is facing its first large-scale strike since 2007, and shareholders aren’t too pleased.