From The Wilderness Publications
FTW Home Page Search Password Retrieval Free Email Alerts Contact Us Help Join Sign In
Join now for access to all of FTW's latest articles and online newsletters! FTW Online Store

Donate to FTW!

Start Here
How to use this Website
About Michael C. Ruppert
Why Subscribe?
Our Achievements
Our Writers
Upcoming FTW Events
Local Peak Oil Preparedness Events

Since 9/11
Bio Warfare
The Bush Family
Civil Liberties
The Draft
Drugs
Economy
Gov't Corrupt/Complicity
Insider Trading
Investigations
Post Peak Lifestyle
Oil & Energy
(more than 110 original articles!)
Miscellaneous
Osama Bin Laden
Previous Newsletters
PROMIS Software
Timelines
Unscrambled Fighter Jets
Vreeland
Infinite War
Watergate II

Pat Tillman
The Tillman Files

Archives
C.I.A & Drugs
Politics
Regional Conflicts
The Economy
Pandora's Box
Hall of Unsung Heroes

Community
The Forum
Upcoming Events

Shop Online!
Store Main Page
New Products
Packaged Deals
Subscribe to FTW
Videos and DVD's
Audio CD's
Books and Magazines
Renewals
Donations

Watch Lists
Economy Watch

Resources
About Michael C. Ruppert
Recommended Reading
Links
Whistle Blowers

Website
Information

Copyright Policy
Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy
Site Map

FTW
655 Washington St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone:
(541) 201-0090
E-mail:
service@copvcia.com

Quick jump to below stories:
Possibility of Federal Bailout for General Motors, Ford in Response to Increased Health Care Costs, Other Issues
GM Debt Ratings Downgraded by Moody's; Ford Motor Under Review
General Motors, the Stock Market and Gold
GM stock hits 12-year low
US in race to unlock new energy source

Possibility of Federal Bailout for General Motors, Ford in Response to Increased Health Care Costs, Other Issues

Wall Street Journal
28 Apr 2005
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=23529#

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday examined the financial problems faced by US automakers ...General Motors and Ford because of health care costs and other issues and how, "in a sign of a changed political climate, nobody in Washington is talking about bailing them out" (Harwood et al., Wall Street Journal, 4/27). GM last week reported a $1.1 billion first-quarter loss -- the largest quarterly loss for the company in more than ten years -- and cited the cost of health insurance for 1.1 million employees, retirees and their dependants as a large factor (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 4/20). Ford posted a first-quarter profit but has predicted a full-year loss in the North American market. In the past, the federal government has "sprung to action" to help automakers, but currently "there's no sign that the White House or Congress is seriously contemplating any government-led resuscitation," according to the Journal. Neither GM nor Ford to date has requested specific financial bailouts from the federal government. However, GM has supported proposals that would have the federal government assume catastrophic health care cost to help reduce the $5.6 billion that the company spends on health care annually.

Comments
"I don't think the government's going to step in and become a partner with every enterprise," John Engler, a former Republican governor of Michigan and president of the National Association of Manufacturers. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said, "There is no feeling in the halls of Congress that there is a need for a bailout." However, he said that lawmakers have considered proposals to address "a number of unfair, external pressures bearing down" on automakers, such as "establishing a reinsurance pool that would help all businesses reduce health benefit costs." White House spokesperson Trent Duffy said that President Bush favors proposals to make the United States "the best place in the world to do business," such as increased use of health savings accounts that could help reduce health care costs for companies such as GM and Ford (Wall Street Journal, 4/27).

Back To Story List


GM Debt Ratings Downgraded by Moody's; Ford Motor Under Review

By Bill Koenig
Bloomberg News Service
Tuesday, April 5, 2005
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aC47QSISEyUs&refer=home#

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

SOUTHFIELD, Mich. -- General Motors Corp.'s debt ratings were cut one notch to Baa3, the lowest investment grade, by Moody's Investors Service. The ratings company also said it was reviewing Ford Motor Co.'s debt for a possible downgrade.

Moody's said the cut at GM stems from "an uncompetitive fixed-cost structure" and "steadily declining market share." Moody's began reviewing GM's ratings on March 16, when the automaker forecast its biggest quarterly loss since 1992.

The review of Ford's ratings was prompted by "increasing risk." Ford may not meet a 2006 target of $7 billion in pretax profits. Moody's rates Ford debt at Baa1, three levels above non-investment grade.

GM and Ford, the two biggest U.S. automakers, have lost market share to Toyota Motor Corp. and other competitors. GM's market share declined to 25.7 percent in the first quarter from 27 percent a year ago while Ford declined to 19.5 percent during the period from 20.4 percent a year ago.

Back To Story List


General Motors, the Stock Market and Gold

by Nick Barisheff
April 06, 2005
http://www.howestreet.com/story.php?ArticleId=1100

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

If the saying "As goes General Motors so goes America" holds true then it doesn't look very good for America or for the stock market.

In a March 16th profit warning GM announced that significant weakness in the North American automotive business would lead to a loss in the first quarter and full year's earnings would amount to just one fifth on the company's December 2004 expectations.

This stunning revelation caught many people by surprise and prompted investors to drive down GM's share price 10% in that one day. GM's share price is down 44% from a 52-week high of US$50.04 to its current low of $29.37. From it's market high of $93, in May 2000, GM shares have lost 69% of their value. This indicates that GM is in serious trouble and may prove to be an important turning point for the entire stock market.

What does GM's financial vulnerabilities tell us about the future of the stock market and the price of gold?

While most people think of GM as a car company 80% of its 2004 earnings came from GMAC, its financial division. While the auto divisions posted losses the finance division provided all of the profits. GMAC doesn't just do auto financing; in fact the majority comes from consumer credit, insurance and mortgage financing. This division provided GM with most of its profitability. Just as with GM, the financial industry was responsible for 50% of corporate profitability in the US. With rising interest rates and the prospect of increasing defaults by overleveraged consumers this is likely to change dramatically in the near future.

This financing activity is clearly masking the problems plaguing its automotive operations. Apart from competitive market factors for car sales, foreign competition, rising commodity and labour costs, and rising oil prices, the areas of greatest concern are GM's underfunded pension liabilities and corporate debt. In 2003, GM faced the largest pension fund shortfall of any US corporation - $25 billion, requiring it to float an extraordinary $17.6 billion bond issue, bringing its long term debt to over $300 billion. This still left GM with a deficit of over $50 billion in its health care fund. The magnitude of this becomes more apparent when you consider that GM's market capitalization is now just $16.6 billion.

GM's pension woes are not likely to improve. In a report for The Detroit News Auto Insider Ed Garsten states that GM currently provides health and income benefits to 461,500 retirees and their surviving spouses. As of October 2004 GM retirees and their dependents outnumbered the company's active workforce by three-to-one. This imbalance will continue to grow as more and more retirees are supported by fewer and fewer workers.

GM's employment and pension woes are not isolated issues restricted to its corporate boardrooms. GM's problems point to and underscore greater systemic issues that could one day choke the life out of tomorrow's capital markets and cause havoc for the West's financial system.

Pension underfunding is a global problem that is particularly pronounced in the US due to the underfunding of Social Security. In 2004, the US Federal government posted the highest budget deficit in history- $412 billion. However, its total indebtedness rose by $11 trillion to $46 trillion largely due to underfunded social security and Medicaid obligations. The magnitude of this liability comes into focus when one considers that the 2004 annual increase is equal to the entire GDP of the whole country. It translates into $350,000 per worker and since both couples work in most families, this represents a $700,000 liability per family.

In 2003, 70% of US corporate pension plans were underfunded by $278 billion with estimates for 2004 exceeding $400 billion. The Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation, that insures the pensions of over 44 million American workers, incurred a record net loss of $12 billion in 2004 increasing its liabilities to $62 billion on $39 billion in assets, resulting in a deficit of $23.3 billion. The CATO Institute, a policy research group estimates that the agency's shortfall may top $50 billion in the next ten years. If the economy experiences a decline due to rising interest rates or rising oil prices the number of corporate bankruptcies could increase dramatically. Given the precarious financial position of GM, it could be one of them.

During the '90s bull market most pension plans were in surplus. Companies were able to add surpluses to their operating income thereby distorting price/ earnings ratios. After the market decline in 2000 many defined benefits plans became underfunded. Today, the picture is still distorted as pension funding obligations are based on overly optimistic portfolio returns, resulting in a much higher level of underfunding than is being reported.

As an example, prior to its bankruptcy, Bethlehem steel reported that its plan was 84% funded when in fact it was only 45% funded. This resulted in a $4.3 billion liability that the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation had to assume. Robert S. Miller, Chairman and CEO of Bethlehem Steel told Bloomberg News: "I hope other companies are ready for this, because many of them, including some automakers, aren't going to be able to outrun their pension liabilities. At some point, the great sucking sound of pension and health care liabilities just overwhelms your ability to raise capital or invest in new plants or equipment."

Like many other members of the S&P 500, GM projects an expected rate of return of 9% on its pension assets. Such exceedingly optimistic assumptions served to increase GM's operating profit by $8.7 billion in 2001 and $8.1 billion in 2002 even though pension assets posted losses of $5.3 billion in 2001 and $5.4 billion in 2002.

These pension liabilities may ultimately cause a decline in the entire stock market. Since 360 of the S&P 500 companies have defined benefits pension plans these obligations will negatively impact earnings as more profits will have to be diverted to pension plans. As lowered profits negatively impact share prices these will, in turn, result in greater pension deficits due to the fact that these company's pension portfolios are invested in each other's stocks. This can become a descending spiral of pension deficits, leading to reduced earnings that in turn lead to lower stock prices, that lead to even greater pension deficits.

With the stock market starting to trend down, long term bonds yielding under 5% and treasury bill yielding 2.7% it is hard to imagine how an assumption for a 9% rate of return can be achieved without adding significant risk. Rather than improve, the situation is likely to get much worse. By 2011 approximately 100 million US workers or roughly the entire population of Japan will have retired from the workforce. Economists agree that this event will have marked consequences for both the US economy and its capital markets. Unfortunately, economists also agree that the effects of this massive retirement wave will be for the most part negative.

In addition to the pension and health care liabilities GM's debt is also of concern and is symptomatic of the high consumer, corporate and government debt levels. US corporate debt grew to new highs of over $9 trillion, representing 84 percent of GDP. These high debt levels are significant when you consider that the Federal Reserve has stated it intends to continue to raise interest rates, and that equity markets are overvalued by all traditional measures. The combination of decreasing consumer spending and increased debt service costs will ultimately translate into slower growth, a contraction in earnings and reduced profit margins. This will all translate into declines in stock prices.

GM's total consolidated debt was $301 billion on December 31, 2004. To put this into perspective this is almost as large as Canada's entire Federal Debt of about $363 billion. It is larger than the value of the US gold reserves of 512 million ounces, worth about $217 billion at $425/ounce gold.

GM is a benchmark bond issuer, being the world's third largest corporate borrower with $114 billion in outstanding bonds. Much of that debt may soon fall below investment grade status among the most influential credit rating agencies, relegating the once venerable GM to "junk bond" status. Since the recent announcement the yield on GM's euro denominated bonds have soared to 9.59%. Fitch Ratings recently lowered its ranking on GM to one step above junk, while Moody's said that it may lower its rating to one step above junk or high yield status. Dominion Bond Rating service had lowered its rating on GM last week to two levels above junk status with a negative bias. What will happen to global bond markets if GM's bonds go into default?

With borrowing costs surging to their highest level in almost two years, increasing pension shortfalls, declining auto sales, reduced credit demand and increasing default risk the earnings picture looks bleak for both the auto and financing divisions. Instead of a $2 billion positive cash flow for 2005 GM now projects a $2 billion cash shortfall.

GM's troubles have immediate ramifications for today's stock markets. This is due to the size of GM, its role in the North American economy and the place it enjoys on its representative index. General Motors Corporation is one of the 30 "blue chip" companies that comprise the Dow Jones industrial Average. These 30 companies represent just two percent of all listings on the stock exchange, but account for 25% of the daily trading volume of the New York Stock Exchange.

The popular belief that a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds will provide long-term capital preservation and growth is simply not true during bear markets or during periods of rising interest rates. For full diversification, portfolios need an allocation to tangible assets, including precious metals in order to provide negative correlation to financial assets, and to offset any declines. While North American investors have participated in the longest and highest equity bull market ever during the past twenty years, it is important to understand that this period was not the norm - nor is it likely to be repeated over the next twenty years. Today, most investment portfolios are not fully diversified and are at risk of capital loss.

A secular bear market could last for a decade and wipe out any gains achieved during the bull market. The 1920s bull market took the Dow from 66 in 1921 to 381 by September 1929, and the ensuing decline took it down 89% to 41. The current bull market started in 1982 at 777 and reached a peak of 11,750 in January 2000. The rally in 2003 is typical of a bear market rally similar to the 1930 rally in the US, and the 1980 rally in the Japanese Nikkei Index. Will this bear market repeat what previous secular bear markets have done? Will the ensuing decline take the Dow below 777?

If a secular bear market is coupled with rising interest rates then GM's pension problems, as well as the pension problems of many of the S&P 500 corporations, could lead to insolvency. GM's pension plan has a traditional split of 55%-60% equities, 30%-35% bonds and 10%-15% other assets. There is no mention of any allocation to precious metals to provide portfolio insurance and to help offset losses that these assets may suffer.

While many retail investors and pension fund managers believe in the buy-and-hold strategy, it does not work during a bear market. Many of the baby-boom generation will not live long enough to even break even on their investments during the coming bear market. Many corporations with underfunded pension liabilities may face bankruptcy long before this strategy delivers the necessary returns to fund their pension obligations. Investors in the Dow of 1929 had to wait 30 years just to break even in inflation-adjusted terms. Japanese investors who held stocks in the Nikkei are still down 71 percent, 15 years after the 1990 high.

Rather than buying and holding, investors need to consider the benefits of reallocating portfolio holdings during cyclical trend changes. Apart from the fundamental vulnerabilities for traditional financial assets, it is important to understand the cyclical nature of markets. As asset classes move through individual bull and bear phases, investors should adjust portfolio allocations in order to maximize long-term growth. A portfolio overweight in a bear-phase asset class can result in huge losses requiring decades to recover from.

With respect to equities and precious metals, an important indicator for portfolio adjustments is the Dow:gold ratio. An increasing ratio, such as that experienced from 1921 to 1929, from 1933 to 1968 and from 1982 to 2000, indicate that portfolios should be overweight in equities. Declining ratios, such as those experienced from 1929 to 1933, 1971 to 1980 and 2000 onward, indicate that portfolios should be overweight in gold. In 1933 and 1980 the ratio came close to 1:1, while in 2000 it reached its highest level of 43:1. Since then, it has declined to 25:1 and is trending lower. This indicator suggests that since March 2000 investors should have been allocating higher percentages to precious metals and smaller percentages to equities. Will this ratio again be 1:1, as the bear market in equities continues and the value of gold increases?

As the outlook for financial assets deteriorates, the importance of a fully diversified portfolio with an overweight position in precious metals will become increasingly more critical. Although no one knows for certain the impact of rising oil prices, the risks posed by derivatives and high debt levels, and the threats posed by overvalued equity and real estate markets, there is more than enough justification to consider an overweight position in bullion. Apart from a portfolio allocation of 5 percent in bullion during all market conditions, an overweight position of at least 10 percent is essential today.

Back To Story List


GM stock hits 12-year low

UAW signals its unwillingness to reopen contract, deal with health costs.

By Eric Mayne
The Detroit News
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0504/18/B01-151349.htm

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

General Motors Corp. stock fell to a 12-year low Thursday after a meeting with the United Auto Workers union failed to produce any strong indications that significant health care cost relief is on the way.

The automaker's stock closed at $26.66, down six percent from Wednesday's closing price. A year ago, GM was trading near $50, its 52-week high.

The soaring cost of providing health care for GM's 307,000 hourly employees was the focus of Thursday's discussion between top company executives and senior UAW officials.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said the meeting he has no plans to reopen the labor agreement that sets out employee benefits.

The contract doesn't expire until 2007, but analysts have warned GM must restructure soon in the face of an anticipated $850 million first-quarter loss and a health care tab expected to increase by $300 million this year to $5.6 billion.

Thursday's uneventful meeting left investors unsettled, said David Healy of Burnham Securities.

"Wall Street has been pinning its expectations or at least its hopes on getting some serious concessions from the union on health care," said Healy, who doesn't own auto stocks.

Burnham Securities has no banking relationship with GM, but it does own GMAC notes, Healy added.

Steve Girsky of Morgan Stanley was not surprised by the decline. "It's not like the stock was going up," Girsky said. "The economy may be weakening and GM is very exposed to a potentially weakening economy."

Last month, GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner spent $1.5 million on GM stock when it was trading at about $29.65. When trading ended Thursday, Wagoner stood to lose $145,000 on this transaction.

Wagoner "obviously has a vested interest in painting a bleak financial picture to the UAW," said J.P. Morgan analyst Himanshu Patel.

You can reach Eric Mayne at (313) 222-2443 or emayne@detnews.com.

Back To Story List

[Methane Hydrates remain a dubious energy source. As a solid, they do not migrate and build up reserves the way oil and natural gas do. And while deep sea research suggests that they are plentiful, there is also evidence to suggest that significant concentrations are rare. Beyond that, they require a sophisticated technology to extract. The energy needed to extract methane hydrates results in a very poor net energy profile.

Beyond this, there is the possibility of methane leakage into the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, atmospheric methane has ten times the effect of carbon dioxide. There is also a rather remote possibility of disturbing ocean floor methane to the point that it comes out of suspension and begins to outgas into the atmosphere. Finally, there is the potential for ecological damage of the oceans themselves.

It is doubtful that we will ever see more than minor extraction of methane hydrates. Yet, in our desperation to keep our economic apparatus operating at full tilt, we will reach for anything that might fuel the machinery of consumer culture, and damn the costs. --DAP]

US in race to unlock new energy source

Green groups warn against moving methane hydrates from beneath seabed

David Adam, science correspondent
The Guardian
Monday April 4, 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1451542,00.html

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

More than a mile below the choppy Gulf of Mexico waters lies a vast, untapped source of energy. Locked in mysterious crystals, the sediment beneath the seabed holds enough natural gas to fuel America's energy-guzzling society for decades, or to bring about sufficient climate change to melt the planet's glaciers and cause catastrophic flooding, depending on whom you talk to.

No prizes for guessing the US government's preferred line. This week it will dispatch a drilling vessel to the region, on a mission to bring this virtually inexhaustible new supply of fossil fuel to power stations within a decade.

The ship will hunt for methane hydrates, a weird combination of gas and water produced in the crushing pressures deep within the earth - literally, ice that burns.

The stakes could not be higher: scientists reckon there could be more valuable carbon fuel stored in the vast methane hydrate deposits scattered under the world's seabed and Arctic permafrost than in all of the known reserves of coal, oil and gas put together.

"The amount of energy there is just too big to ignore," said Bahman Tohidi, head of the centre for gas hydrate research at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh. "It's not easy, but it's not something we can say we can't do so let's forget about it."

Britain may miss out on any future methane hydrate boom - the North Sea is too shallow and no deposits have been found in the deeper waters further north - but other countries have recognised their potential. Japan, India and Korea, as well as the United States, are investing millions of pounds in hydrate research.

Ray Boswell, who heads the hydrate programme at the US department of energy's national energy technology laboratory, said the US was determined to be the first to mine the resource.

"Commercially viable production is definitely realistic within a decade. The world is investing in hydrates, and one reason for us to do this is to maintain our leadership position in this emerging technology."

Its new project will see the drilling vessel Uncle John spend about a month in the Gulf of Mexico, where it will bore down to two of the largest expected methane hydrate deposits in the region. Scientists on the ship will collect samples for experiments to see how the methane might be freed and transported to the surface.

This is harder than it sounds. In some deposits the crystals occur in thick layers, in others they are found as smaller nuggets. Puncture one hydrate reservoir and the giant release of gas can disrupt drilling, pierce another and getting the methane out is like sucking porridge through a straw.

This unpredictable nature means energy companies traditionally view hydrates as a nuisance. This gives them a joint interest with the US government as both sides want to know where the crystals are - one to avoid them and the other to exploit them.

Mr Boswell said: "We have a marriage of near-term industry interests and longer-term government interests. If they develop the ability to detect hydrates for the purpose of avoiding them, that's useful for people who want to do the exact same thing for the purpose of finding them."

Devinder Mahajan, a chemist at the US department of energy's laboratory in Brookhaven, is looking for ways to encourage subsea hydrate deposits to release their methane. He has developed a pressurised tank that allows scientists to study hydrate formation. "You fill the vessel with water and sediment, put in methane gas and cool it down under high pressure. After a few hours, the hydrates form, you can actually see it. They look like ice, but they're not," he said. "This is a very important issue, tied to our future national energy security."

Hydrates on land are easier to get at, and in 2003 a team of oil companies and scientists from Canada, Japan, India, Germany and the US showed it was possible to produce methane from the icy deposits below Canada's Northwest Territories. BP and the US government are carrying out similar experiments in Alaska.

Environmental groups oppose attempts to extract methane from hydrate reserves.

Roger Higman, a climate change campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said: "The Americans are desperately looking around trying to boost their fossil fuels because they think the oil is going to run out or there's going to be a scarcity. The actual scarcity is in the space the atmosphere has for taking the carbon dioxide that burning methane produces."

He added: "We already have enough fossil fuel in the world that, if burnt, will ruin the world's climate. Rather than look for more, we need to keep the oil, gas and coal we already know about underground and develop alternative sources of energy, principally renewables."

Paul Johnston, a scientist in the Greenpeace laboratory at Exeter University, warned that disturbing hydrate deposits under the seabed was a risky strategy.

"There are legitimate concerns that attempts to tap into these reserves could cause very widespread destabilisation of the seabed and damage to ecosystems," he said.

Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, he said, and any released during production would make global warming worse.

Mr Boswell said methane was more environmentally friendly than oil and coal, because it produced less carbon dioxide when burnt.

"The prudent approach is to address all the avenues for supplying future energy," he said. "People who say it has to be one or the other, I think, are putting too many eggs in one basket."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

Back To Story List


 


Please Note
This function has been disabled.

FROM email:
Your name:
TO email: