Determination of Viability Summary for Chrysler and GM

The Wall Street Journal (among others) posted links to the Determination of Viability Summary for Chrysler and GM. (Link to the summaries here.)

I looked for two words - work rules - and found them in the summaries for both companies as an issue that must be addressed. While they aren't THE critical component of the viability of either company, the absence of those two words would have indicated a bias in my mind.

From my reading of the summaries, I am in general agreement with the government's conclusions. First a word about the structure of the summary documents. It would appear that they built a boilerplate document and changed items as required for the specific company's summary. Given that there are significant overlapping concerns for both companies, that's a minor quibble.

Their assessment of Chrysler's inviability as a standalone company tracks with my thinking. Chrysler does not have the current product or the resources to develop the product (R&D) it needs to be competitive.

GM, on the other hand, has the potential to survive - only if a more realistic reorganization plan is submitted - and one that reduces financial risk to the company and suppliers (sorry bondholders and share owners ; -).

Of note is that bankruptcy proceedings may be required to resolve debt issues with both companies. And if Chrysler can't swing some sort of meaningful accommodation with Fiat, they are as good as history - they will be done as a manufacturer, bankruptcy would be useful only to dissolve Chrysler at that point.

Only one thing caused me to smirk in reading the summaries and that was a reference to Consumer Reports in the Chrysler summary. Personally I'm not that hip on CR as the final arbiter of things automotive. I'm still waiting for their article/expose on rollover testing for adult undergarments. ; -)