Bailout or Bankruptcy: What Will It Take to Get the U.S. Auto Industry Back on Track?
On Dec. 11, U.S. Senate Republicans rejected a government plan to rescue the country’s automobile industry with $14 billion in emergency loans to General Motors and Chrysler. Following the vote, the White House indicated that it would consider using money from the $700 billion financial bailout fund to help the ailing companies meet their operation costs until congress is back in session next month. While the lifeline loans would give the Detroit automakers some breathing room, legislators and auto executives remain under enormous pressure to come up with a plan to resolve the industry’s deep structural and management problems.
The plan's opponents in the Senate say that bankruptcy would be a more suitable outcome; a bailout would generate little motivation for the automakers to change their business models, and would likely lead to similar requests for government handouts down the line, they argue.
Wharton management professor John Paul MacDuffie, who specializes in automotive research, favors government assistance to the industry, with strings firmly attached, over a forced bankruptcy. A negotiated financial package, he notes, could have the same impact as a reorganization accomplished through the bankruptcy court without the expense, delays and uncertainty that might cost the government even more in the long run. In addition, the size and complexity of the three automakers' operations would make it highly unlikely that the industry could pull together all its claimants and get them to swiftly agree to a pre-packaged bankruptcy plan, he says.
He also points out that many of the wage and benefit differentials between U.S. companies and foreign carmakers that could be the subject of bankruptcy reorganization have already been negotiated away by union leaders, substantially narrowing the gap between what the Detroit-based companies pay per vehicle and what foreign firms pay overseas and in U.S. plants. The companies also resolved accelerating pension and retiree medical costs with a 2007 union agreement that shifts costs off the automakers' books in 2011 and into a trust administered by the unions.
紧急援助还是破产：怎样才能让美国的汽车行业回到正轨？
12月11日，美国的参议院否决了政府关于为通用汽车（General Motors）和克莱斯勒（Chrysler）提供140亿美元紧急贷款的计划。在此之后，白宫表示，将考虑从7000亿美元的救市资金中拨款来帮助这些企业。尽管这笔“救命钱”能让底特律的汽车制造商获得喘息的机会，不过立法者和汽车制造企业的总裁们，依然面临要提出解决本行业深层结构问题和管理问题计划的巨大压力。沃顿商学院的教授和其他专家讨论了这一紧急援助提案的价值，同时谈到了其他选择——比如破产——将会意味着什么。
参议院对该项计划持反对态度的人说，破产才是更恰当的结局，他们认为，对汽车制造商来说，一项紧急援助计划并不能刺激他们改变自己的商业模式，而且很可能会导致要求政府彻底救助自己的类似行为。
专攻汽车行业研究的沃顿商学院管理学教授约翰·保罗·麦克杜菲（John Paul MacDuffie）认为，比起让它们被迫破产来，他更赞成政府对这个行业给予附加了若干条件的援助。他谈到，一个经谈判达成的财务一揽子计划，与通过破产法庭完成的重组应该具有同样的效用，从长远来看，如果没有这笔支出，时机的延误和不确定性的变化可能会让政府耗费更多的资金。麦克杜菲还谈到，此外，三大汽车公司运营的规模和复杂性，也不太可能让它们的所有债权人达成一致，并很快接受一个预先制订好的破产计划。
他还指出，美国汽车公司和外国汽车制造商之间的工资和福利差异，是破产重组的一项重要议题，不过这些问题已经和工会领导人协商完毕，从而，就每辆汽车中的工资成本问题，底特律的汽车公司与外国汽车公司以及外国设在美国的汽车公司的差距将会大大缩小。另外，几家公司还根据2007年与工会签署的一项协议，开始加速解决养老金问题和退休人员的医疗费用问题，该协议规定，到2011年，这些费用将从汽车制造商的账面上转入一个由工会管理的信托公司。
麦克杜菲说，另外，任何重建汽车行业的计划，都不应该只是着眼于裁减工人、关闭工厂以及削减品牌，而是应该专注于与供应商构建关系，并学习如何在全球市场中竞争。他认为，对削减成本和短期财务成果的过度关注，已经让本来拥有主动权的底特律多次错失了超越竞争对手的机会，而它们凭借那些主动权，本来是有可能避免目前这场危机的。
