GMH needs funding to stay in OZ

[HamaTime™]

What? So your real name is HamaTime and you've trade marked it?

And no, for the last time I am not being a troll... If my intent was to troll, trust me, you'd know!

The way I present myself over the intent is the same person as you would get if you were to meet me in person. I don't put on fake faces and do stupid **** purely because I'm on the internet.

 

[yZoH]

The way I present myself over the intent is the same person as you would get if you were to meet me in person. I don't put on fake faces and do stupid **** purely because I'm on the internet.

Fkn love this guy ^

 

[Muscular Jesus]

Hell, I spent 6 months digging holes for a fencer when I was out of a job once.

Wow thats hard yakka champ, digging holes for fencing is an absolute nightma.........

 

[dmacey]

I bet many more wouldn't. Auto manufacturing has proven to be a terrible investment for decades now. Even when Holden was making profits 5+ years ago as a ROI they were small. Toyota in Australia have never turned a profit and Fords have been positive one year and a loss the next.

On the broader issue of this thread, unfortunately govco assistance is what drives the car making industries in every single auto making country in the world. There is not one single country with a assembly plant that doesn't have Govco assistance in one form or another. The Australian government provides assistance at the lower end by world standards. The 3 manufacturers in this country and their tier 1 suppliers are the largest single full time employment industry in Australia, not taking into account the 2nd, 3rd tier and other indirect employment that feeds of the industry. I think it's important that government does everything it can to keep the industry in Australia for as long as it can.

Reaper

I Agree with incentives for business to invest in R&D and create jobs and job security, however I would like to see this level of interest across the board.

So many small to medium businesses fail, and before you say it's because they are muppets, I believe that assistance can be provided in other forms other than directing cash to their bottom line.

As for people investing, so many of them already own shares in far more risky investments, Airlines, Emerging Markets, Prospect Mining, Retail, Etc. I think more than enough people will be happy to invest. I know i would.

The retail sector which I am involved in employees 1.2 million Australians, This sector is on the brink of collapse I have never seen a assistance package, Pacific Brands (Bonds,Etc) is considering a take over from a Private equity Firm because of the current retail climate.

All I wanted to say with this thread is, the investments of money are necessary and welcomed but they are not distributed evenly across all sectors.

 

[Reaper]

I Agree with incentives for business to invest in R&D and create jobs and job security, however I would like to see this level of interest across the board.

So many small to medium businesses fail, and before you say it's because they are muppets, I believe that assistance can be provided in other forms other than directing cash to their bottom line.

There are already no end of govco grants and assistance for small and medium business, particularly for training and the like. My business takes advantage of some of them.

As for people investing, so many of them already own shares in far more risky investments, Airlines, Emerging Markets, Prospect Mining, Retail, Etc. I think more than enough people will be happy to invest. I know i would.

I invest in some of the asset classes mentioned above but as a rule Airlines and some areas of Australian retail I wouldn't touch with a barge pole either. Other areas of retail IMO are under valued because it's lumped with the broader category which pulls it down.

The retail sector which I am involved in employees 1.2 million Australians, This sector is on the brink of collapse I have never seen a assistance package, Pacific Brands (Bonds,Etc) is considering a take over from a Private equity Firm because of the current retail climate.

Yeah retail is going thru a real generational change at the moment. Some areas such as your Harvey Norman type retail are very exposed to the internet "mail order" phenomenon that has taken hold over the last few years. Short of changing their business model with the times I don't see any other solutions to their problem. Interestingly "big box" retailing like HN stores started in the early 80's and only really took hold in the 90's. Before that there were traditional (but much smaller in range) Myer type department stores which retailed clothing and homewares, branching into electrical (televisions etc) in the late 70's. For most things you would to to a bed shop for beds, furniture shops for chairs etc and a TV shop for a television (you get the picture). They were often owned by owner operators who were displaced by the larger retail chains mentioned above.

What we are seeing now is just another displacement in a very competitive industry.

All I wanted to say with this thread is, the investments of money are necessary and welcomed but they are not distributed evenly across all sectors.

Legitimate question as I have nfi what retail can do. What should govco (or anybody for that matter) spend money on or do to help the retail sector's plight?? Interestingly the total $ spend in retail as a country is slightly up IIRC, just a ever increasing amount is via direct net sales and overseas mail order and the like.

Reaper

 

[Aussiecv8]

And they let you teach the next generation/ our kids??????

 

[dmacey]

Grants from the gov that support small to medium operations in my opinion full short in several key areas. The most pressing is the limitations and qualification process.

I'm not suggesting that there are no strings attached to these large payments going to large companies, I do think that the smaller the business the smaller the technical expertise and negotiation power they can bring to the table on obtaining the best potential result in government investment.

As for retail, and all other industry sectors do from time to time, It's going through a cycle and will see a contraction and consolidation, In my opinion each company is responsible for it's own future as such will need to adapt to consumer behaviors.

What I don't understand is the use of funds to assist a profitable company, if CBA, NAB, ANZ etc came out and said that due to increased funding cost (GFC) we will need some money thrown in to keep people employed. I don't recall any package offered only a government deposit cover.

I know a lot of industries receive funding, grants, tax offsets, and so on. But you and I have to be self sufficient, I think companies should share that responsibility and rely upon their products, services and management to carry them through slower times. I don't 100% object as it provides job security to many fellow Australian's and I think we can all say we're happy to contribute to that.

It's a hard situation because without funding the end product will have to increase in price making the product less competitive, this cycle of continued investment can't be changed, for now.

Dave

 

[Jonno]

Edit: just realized there was a second page.

Rufys.....


.. Never mind theres no point even arguing with u...

 

[dmacey]

At the end of the day, I don't have the depth of knowledge to completely validate my view one way or another, its a conflicting argument which needs balance. Good to see some talk about it, get people thinking about local situations for a moment.

Dave

 

[Reaper]

Grants from the gov that support small to medium operations in my opinion full short in several key areas. The most pressing is the limitations and qualification process.

I'm not suggesting that there are no strings attached to these large payments going to large companies, I do think that the smaller the business the smaller the technical expertise and negotiation power they can bring to the table on obtaining the best potential result in government investment.

Plenty of the grants are literally a matter of filling out a form and sending it off or applying on line these days. The tricky bit is knowing the grant is available to begin with.

As for retail, and all other industry sectors do from time to time, It's going through a cycle and will see a contraction and consolidation, In my opinion each company is responsible for it's own future as such will need to adapt to consumer behaviors.

This is more than a cycle. Consumers are making a shift in how they purchase goods. The traditional model of go to a shop and come home with whatever is disappearing. It will effect not only the retailers but indirect players such as westfield for example who's business is based around retail property.

What I don't understand is the use of funds to assist a profitable company, if CBA, NAB, ANZ etc came out and said that due to increased funding cost (GFC) we will need some money thrown in to keep people employed. I don't recall any package offered only a government deposit cover.

The government guarantee was as good as money. The effect was that (say) WBC could borrow money cheaper (or as was the case during the worst of the GFC at all!) on the international wholesale money market. It was cheaper because they were a lower risk than a bank without a government guarantee. Then again - a bank with a Greek gov guarantee would probably cost more . As for the first sentence - in the case of the auto makers will drift to countries that help them in their business. This goes pretty much for any big business. Alcoa is subsidised for several aluminium smelters around Australia along with many other industries too.

I know a lot of industries receive funding, grants, tax offsets, and so on. But you and I have to be self sufficient, I think companies should share that responsibility and rely upon their products, services and management to carry them through slower times. I don't 100% object as it provides job security to many fellow Australian's and I think we can all say we're happy to contribute to that.

I agree with the philosophy but unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't think that. Even with FTA's and the like, everything is not equal. Australia recently signed a FTA with Thailand which means Thailand (and Australia) dropped all import tariffs on cars moving between the two countries. Unfortunately shortly there after Thailand imposed a higher tax on all cars over 3 litre capacity that are sold. It pretty much prices any Australian offering out of the market. The only one that comes close is the Camry which is already produced in Thailand anyway (IIRC) :bang:.

It's a hard situation because without funding the end product will have to increase in price making the product less competitive, this cycle of continued investment can't be changed, for now.

Yeah - exactly. There is a bit of an opportunity though with many sovereign nations essentially broke, such incentives will be harder to come by for big business. The capitalist in me says that Australia should take advantage of the situation and leverage our income from mining and use some of that money to drag as much manufacturing here that we can, taking advantage of the world situation

Reaper