Dealers don't cost a manufacturer...ANYTHING
They buy vehicles.
They own them until they are sold.
They buy parts for inventory.
They service the vehicles
They pay for both sales and service training.
If you have too high an inventory of vehicles you BUILD FEWER, and you sell them off, and it would seem the more outlets you have willing to compete, the better off you are.
But not in Obama's Newamerica, where:
After GM's bondholders last weekend refused to answer the bell for another round with Uncle Sam, the White House put out a statement: "As a result, the President has deemed GM's plan viable and will be making available about $30 billion of additional federal assistance to support GM's restructuring plan."
Read that sentence again, slowly. It holds what look like the keywords of the American future: the president, deems, viable, making available, federal assistance, support, restructuring plan.
When a politician chooses who can stay in business or not, the result WILL BE POLITICAL, not commercial. IPSO FACTO.
This used to be a hell of a country.
We need the Schecter brothers. Come out come out wherever you are.
1 comment:
I've made a similar point on the dealer closing issue from the beginning. WHY? Auto manufacturers don't own dealers. They are not responsible for paying mortgages or rent on delaerships. Dealers have their own bank terms/financing to purchase vehicles from manufacturers. Dealers pay transportation costs on new car deliveries. It makes no difference to Chrysler or GM's financials if they sell 10m cars through 3000 dealers or 10m cars through 1000 dealers. The vehicle cost is the same. The only think I can see is reducing outlets will reduce competition and allow for future price increases. The looser here is the customer who has to now has to travel 50 miles for service.
Post a Comment