We are now six months into the failed Auto Bailout Era. Looking at the industry's four biggest companies, it has become clear that Ford is on the rise, General Motors continues to slip badly, Chrysler is fading into minor-player status, and Toyota's ongoing struggles continue.
In May, after April's sales results came out, two Associated Press writers noted Ford's ascendancy and uniquely hinted at its likely basis:
Detroit’s Big Three is becoming Ford and the other two.
While its rivals stay afloat with billions in government aid, Ford grabbed a bigger slice of the American car market in April .....
..... Most of ..... (Ford's) gains came at the expense of General Motors and Chrysler, which unlike Ford are dependent on federal help.
Other than that, there has been virtually no press recognition of what has to be seen as the most likely reason for the shift: Enough consumers to matter are continuing to shun the unsuccessfully bailed-out.
In an industry where rivals have traditionally fought tooth and nail to pick up a point or two of market share in a full year, the changes in the industry landscape in the six months since Washington began its failed attempts to bail out now-bankrupt GM and just-emerged, absorbed-by-Fiat Chrysler have been stunning, as seen below in this comparison of the industry's Big Four:

(Source Data: Wall Street Journal monthly Auto Sales Chart for June 2009 and June 2008; USA Today for Dec. 2008 and Dec. 2007; Web-Archived WSJ Auto Sales Chart for June 2007)
Here's what the graphic and the accompanying numbers show:
- GM, for all its considerable cost problems and in spite of steep sales declines, actually improved its market position relative to its three largest competitors from June 2007 through December 2008. That improvement ended and went sharply into reverse when the government began its failed bailout effort, putting the company back to where it was two years ago and trending in the wrong direction.
- During most of 2006, all of 2007, and early 2008, Ford's share of Big 4 unit sales suffered. The company was in the midst of pretending to ignore what I have called "the biggest boycott never reported" by a pro-family group. That boycott began in March 2006, and ended in March 2008. After that and until the end of 2008, Ford's situation relative to the other three companies improved a bit. But in the six months since failed bailout money has freely flowed to GM and Chrysler, Ford has cut GM's Big 4 market share lead from almost 14 points to a mere 5.
- Chrysler, which was sold to a private equity group in March 2007, and suffered terribly at the hands of Bob Nardelli, whose stated mission was to cut costs and dress the company up for sale. With the help of high gas prices in early 2008, he only succeeded in making the company look unappealing. In the last half of 2008, the hemorrhaging of the company's market share at least slowed down. But the decay accelerated again once government's bailout money began to flow. Chrysler is less than 40% of the company it was just two years ago.
- Toyota began having problems of its own in mid-2008 -- its market share loss during the second half of the year appears to have been GM's gain -- until the bailout money began to flow. Toyota still has significant challenges. But while it has seen Ford reclaim second place among U.S. sellers, it has gained overall Big 4 market share thanks to GM's and Chrysler's steep declines.
Not shown in the interest of avoiding over-complication: The rest of the industry has picked up about 5 points of market share at the expense of the Big 4 since the government's failed bailout efforts began. If this development had been incorporated into the graphic and stats above, the results would have shown GM's and Chrysler's situations as even more desperate, Toyota treading water, and Ford making a bit less positive headway.
There's even more to the "shunning of the bailed-out" story the press has ignored since the government's failed efforts began. Part 2 will deal with that.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
→ FORD still standing
July 5, 2009 - 08:31 ET by Cool ArrowWho didn't see this coming?
Who wants to do business with the thieves at Chrysler and GM?
Don't you mean...
July 5, 2009 - 08:54 ET by ontheright...the thieves with the US govt?
I don't think people want
July 5, 2009 - 09:11 ET by ricklailI don't think people want to buy a car or truck not knowing if the local dealship will be open next week. Look how Obama forced many dealerships to close. Folks that bought at those now have to take their vehicles to another dealer for warrantee repairs that could be miles away. Who does wants to buy from the thieves in the White House? Liberal Dems
Semper suprene nitens
Another possible reason these companies are losing...get this!
July 5, 2009 - 10:13 ET by political mavenA disproportionate percentage of people with bad credit are Dems. Lower income, inner city drones who rely on Gov't.
Now that lending has tightened up for high risk borrowers, who is left who can actually buy new cars?
People who didn't get in over their head, and acted responsibly. These are the very people who detest Gov't bailouts , and are well read enough to know to walk away from GM and Chrysler.
This may account for some of this...just a theory I have no proof for!
Free market
July 5, 2009 - 09:12 ET by doug1950Free market forces still work, in spite of government interferences. I believe it was 10th grade Economics where many of us learned about supply and demand principles. Watch now how the Administration will try to micro manage this some more and make matters even worse.
The problem is not that the
July 5, 2009 - 10:01 ET by motherbeltThe problem is not that the government helped them out, but that they didn't help them enough!!
Isn't that the usual cause of failure, according to liberals?
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Ford is also the only 1 of
July 5, 2009 - 10:27 ET by nadadhimmiFord is also the only 1 of the Big 1 and the small 2, to not record on the vehicle computer things like top speed and other parameters which can be retrieved at a moments notice by plugging into the black box. I think Obama will dictate that the boxes must be scanned monthly for milage driven, top speed, gas mileage etc, and you will receive a MONTHLY AUTO TAX BILL in the mail. This Usurper will tax any and everything.
If the govt owns GM and
July 5, 2009 - 10:38 ET by nadadhimmiIf the govt owns GM and Crashler, they can abrogate the warranties on the signature of "THE ONE" without notice. What would be better as a stop loss measure? The new GM cars are nice, super in fact, but so are Fords. Crashlers suck and I've owned a bunch of them, foolishly. I can hear it now: "Well the mandatory monthly computer scan indicates that you exceeded the national speed limit(soon to be re-instituted), so your warranty is null and void. I'm sorry sir, but you did it to yourself". Or how about this: "The monthly mandatory computer scan indicates that your monthly mileage average is below the norm for your car. Therefore, your monthly national road tax will be raised and your license revoked unless you show significant improvement the next monitoring interval." It's coming unless we stop these Oligarchs, NOW. DON'T BUY GOVERNMENT MOTORS or CRASHLER.
Just Say No To Government Motors
July 5, 2009 - 10:38 ET by BigSpoon65I would never support Government Motors! The bailouts and the takeover were payoffs to the UAW. They can all rot in hell as far as I'm concerned. Most of the people I work with feel the same way. Can't make us buy the Obamamobiles. I will walk before ever buying a vehicle from them again. Those who support the statists takeover of private industry reject the freedoms this country was founded on. Government is not the solution but the problem.
Winston Churchill ~ "Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."
Like Massachussets health
July 5, 2009 - 10:55 ET by ThisnThatLike Massachussets health care, or the soon-to-come-Universal Health Care, the Government will likely mandate that you purchase a GM vehicle, and then renew the purchase every 24 months. When you do, though, prepare to wait in line for up to 7 months per the usual Govt Efficiency Standards.
___________________________________
An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be
Re GM's Predicament
July 5, 2009 - 11:17 ET by slickwillie2001Many of us have posted about the problem Government Motors (including Chrysler) will have. The problem is that those most likely to buy domestic cars and trucks are conservatives and Republicans; those most likely to boycott Government Motors are also conservatives and Republicans. The liberals that are in favor of socialism will stay with their Volvos, VW's, Saabs, Mercedes and BMW's, and are not going to change. The Washtimes pointed this out:
Political Leanings Drive Car Choice: http://washingtontimes.com
Another good article on Ford's problem dealing with the UAW goons that now have a clear conflict-of-interest: A Union Divided Against Itself: http://blog.heritage.org
I've not seen any legal opinions on Ford's options. Is there anything in the decades of labor law accumulated that forbids a union from owning the competition of the company that they are bargaining with? Of course, even if there was, the Bamster cabal doesn't follow the law anyway.
But, but,
July 5, 2009 - 14:43 ET by sic721It's 'un-American' not to buy GM or Chrysler.
Ed"my face caught fire and I put it out with an icepick"Schultz says so!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmMxLKImsXA
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within."-Cicero