Daniel Howes

Daniel Howes: Business as usual is dead in Detroit

http://vh10924.moc.gbahn.net/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Date=20060915&Category=AUTO02&ArtNo=609160316&Ref=V2&Profile=1148Q=100&MaxW=500
Ford brass realizes the ailing automaker has to update its old way of doing business, which included producing too many vehicles that ended up sitting on the lot and selling at a loss. The company's crisis could be the wake-up call that steers it -- and rest of the Big 3 -- toward meaningful change.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060915/AUTO02/609160316/1148

* Ford to shed 44,000 jobs, close plants, cut costs by $5 billion


Detroit's way of doing business received its death sentence Friday, a generation later than it should have.

If there's a message in Ford Motor Co.'s accelerated restructuring, painful and speedy as it is likely to be over the next year, it's that the Dearborn automaker existed in a fantasy world rooted in another century. There, market share was more important than profitability, capital was routinely destroyed and the Detroit way thumbed its collective nose at accepted business practices.

Only in Detroit do they pay people not to work.

Only in Detroit do they build too many cars and trucks and sell them at a loss just so they can keep the plants running.

Only in Detroit do they ignore clear signs that gas prices are headed higher, build their business around V8-powered pickups and big SUVs, and then panic when American consumers bail on them.

"The simple fact is the business model that served us for decades in North America no longer works," said Mark Fields, president of Ford's Americas unit. "In line with the new reality, we will re-size our business. We're dealing with the world as it is, not as it was 10 years ago."

General Motors Corp. Chairman Rick Wagoner could utter the exact same words and they would be just as apt for the turnaround he's in the process of leading. Same for Chrysler, on track to lose $1.5 billion in the third quarter. Whether any will succeed in the measurable, sustainable business sense of the word remains to be seen.

Good ol' days gone

By itself, Fields' correct assessment of Ford's discredited business model is a dramatic switch for a company -- and a domestic industry -- maddeningly prone to looking in the rearview mirror and hoping the good ol' days are just around the corner, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Ford's second cut at its "way forward" workout plan for North America is a clear statement that the good ol' days are history; that the Detroit way of chasing market share over profits to appease labor, fatten exec bonuses and avoid hard choices doesn't work; that employees and products must serve the needs of customers and shareholders, not the other way around.

Not that any of that has been a secret to anyone paying attention to the inevitable collapse of the Detroit Auto way. It was built over the postwar years on the three-legged stool of cheap gas, big vehicles and a labor-management relationship that proved ill-suited to the flexibility demanded by new competitive pressures in a global world.

"That set of conditions has permeated everything Detroit has done for the past 50 years," said John Casesa, managing director of Casesa Strategic Advisors in New York.

"The reality is there's no longer growth in the United States and there are good alternatives for consumers. And the domestic companies have struggled to globalize their business to fend off the superior alternatives that the Japanese and the Koreans, in particular, have offered."

Dearborn imports revolution?

Ford's brass, its back to the proverbial wall, is saying the right things. The business is broken. Spending on product programs, the seed corn of the car and truck business, won't be sacrificed to hit numbers sooner. Production capacity will be closely aligned with consumer demand, a contention that more than a few Wall Street sharpies didn't see reflected in Ford's Friday numbers.

Enter Chairman Bill Ford Jr.'s replacement as CEO, Alan Mulally, the Boeing Co. lifer and undeniable "outsider" getting paid megabucks to essentially lead Ford from the 1970s into the second decade of the 21st century.

If the goal is transforming Ford's business model from Detroit's hopelessly broken one to one that works, why wouldn't an outsider be a better choice? It's not as if the Detroit Auto veterans at GM, Ford and Chrysler are exactly burning up the industry.

Mulally's early mantra, according to people who have met with him, calls for matching production to customer demand, establishing clear objectives, regularly tracking progress toward them and insisting that profitability drive decision-making. In the conservative culture of Ford, with its aversion to upsetting the United Auto Workers, that's nothing short of revolutionary.

The goal, one executive involved in the process tells me, is "profitable growth that works for everybody, and that includes … suppliers, dealers, communities and, eventually, employees."

Makes perfect sense. The only problem is that it takes an existential crisis only just beginning, a leadership change and the elimination of tens of thousands of jobs to reach that conclusion.

Which is the most insidious part of the Detroit Auto way: Its legacy of unchallenged success, now a fading memory for those working there today, struggles mightily to process change and the eclipse of American exceptionalism, let alone accept any of it.

It takes crisis to change

To change, Detroit too often needs the kind of crisis that culminates in waves of buyouts, plant closings, asset sales and ritual denunciations on Wall Street. Too often, the losers are the average people and their communities, not the execs who failed to heed the warning signs or the union bosses who blocked change.

It took the rumor of bankruptcy to get the UAW focused on health care concessions and buyouts at GM. It took the bankruptcy of Delphi Corp., the former GM parts unit, to drive home the point that Delphi plants in the United States are not competitive now and, unless they change, will not be in the future.

It took $3-a-gallon gas and an unforeseen exodus from big trucks and SUVs to expose Ford's over-reliance on big pickups and SUVs and under-investment in cars, an open secret in the industry that Bill Ford acknowledged to me years ago.

"We really knew this was coming," said David Cole, president of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. "None of it was a surprise. What's unfortunate is you can't get people to react without a crisis."

With so much bad news coming from Detroit these days, the overwhelming temptation is to conclude that the only future in the American auto industry is one of decline, but that's not true -- certainly not for Detroit's foreign-owned rivals and it doesn't need to be for Detroit, either.

"One of the messages here," Cole said, "is you've got a crisis. Use it well."

DAY OF RECKONING

Ford's latest plan pushes job cuts over 45,000

Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News

http://vh10924.moc.gbahn.net/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Date=20060915&Category=AUTO01&ArtNo=609150384&Ref=V2&Profile=1148Q=100&MaxW=500
As Alan Mulally takes over as Ford's president and CEO from Bill Ford Jr., more executives are expected to leave the automaker.


Latest news
# All U.S. hourly workers to be offered buyouts
# Hourly cuts will be done by Sept. 1, 2007, not 2012
# Execs Anne Stevens and David Szczupak resign



DEARBORN -- Ford Motor Co. and the United Auto Workers agreed Thursday to extend buyouts to all of the company's U.S. hourly workers as the automaker prepares to announce the deepest restructuring in its 103-year history.

With the future of the storied company on the line, Ford was to outline a turnaround plan this morning that's expected to include drastic job cuts, accelerated plant closings and a retooled product strategy.

One person familiar with the plan said Ford expects to cut more than 45,000 hourly and salaried jobs -- most of those within the next year. This would be an expansion and acceleration of Ford's "Way Forward" plan announced in January, which called for 30,000 blue-collar job cuts by 2012 in addition to 4,000 white-collar positions. The new cuts would leave Ford with less than 80,000 hourly and salaried U.S. workers, down from 130,000 in 2003.

Ford hopes to shrink its ranks through voluntary buyouts and retirement incentives, but salaried layoffs may be necessary. A Ford spokesman declined to comment Thursday.

Ford said in January it plans to close 14 manufacturing facilities, including seven assembly plants. It's unclear whether Ford will add plants to that list. One analyst, Catherine Madden of Global Insight Inc., said Thursday the massive Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne could be vulnerable.

Ford is not expected to eliminate any domestic brands. The company, however, is exploring the sale of assets and is considering whether it should sell a stake in Ford Credit down the road, a Ford source familiar with the discussions said Thursday.

Also on Thursday, Ford announced the retirement of Anne Stevens, 57, chief operating officer of Ford's Americas group, and David Szczupak, 51, the group's vice president of manufacturing. The Detroit News reported Saturday that Stevens was poised to leave the company this week.

Additional executive departures could come as Ford's new president and CEO, Alan Mulally, takes the reins in Dearborn.

Mulally, hired last week from Boeing Co. to replace Bill Ford Jr. as CEO, was not deeply involved in Ford's new restructuring, but reviewed the plan.

The intensified turnaround bid comes as Ford is veering toward huge losses in 2006, burning through cash reserves and losing U.S. market share.

Wall Street pummeled Ford's shares early Thursday after The Detroit News reported the company's 2006 pretax losses could reach as high as $9 billion, including restructuring costs.

Ford's worldwide automotive operations are expected to lose between $5.6 billion and $5.9 billion before taxes and one-time charges this year, according to a senior Ford source with direct knowledge of an internal forecast dated Sept. 6.

Shares of Ford, which lost $1.44 billion in the first half of the year, dropped sharply in morning trading, but rallied on news of the buyout plan. Ford's stock closed down 10 cents a share Thursday at $9.09 after a day of intense trading.

Buyouts open to all workers

That UAW buyout agreement, announced after a two-day meeting of Ford's Board of Directors, will extend buyouts to all of Ford's 75,500 U.S. hourly employees. According to a UAW summary, workers will have until Nov. 27 to sign up for the buyouts and employees will leave the company no later than Sept. 1, 2007.

The deal includes UAW-represented workers at former Visteon Corp. factories that were returned to Ford as part of an agreement with its former parts subsidiary last year. Those factories are grouped in a Ford-owned company called Automotive Components Holdings LLC.

ACH workers who don't take buyouts will have the right to return to Ford plants.

The UAW accord comes one year to the day before the current master labor agreement with the union is set to expire and is likely to trigger an exodus from Ford's factories unprecedented in the company's history.

"We are pleased to have reached this agreement with the UAW. It is another example of the way we are working together on business issues to address the needs of our employees and the needs of the company," said Marty Mulloy, Ford's head of labor affairs.

It was a deal embraced reluctantly by the union, which stands to lose a significant portion of its membership. "Once again, our members are stepping up to make hard choices under difficult circumstances," said UAW President Ron Gettelfinger.

While Ford has offered limited buyouts to workers at some factories, Wall Street had been calling on the company to match General Motors Corp.'s companywide buyout offer. GM extended that deal to all of its 113,000 U.S. hourly workers this spring, and 35,000 of those workers have already left the company as a result.

By comparison, only about 6,500 Ford workers have left the company since it began offering targeted buyouts in February.

UAW officials briefed local union officials on the details of the buyout plan at a meeting in Detroit on Thursday. While some expressed concern that the expanded buyouts would hurt their locals financially, most seemed to agree that the deal negotiated by their leaders made sense in light of the dire situation at Ford.

"Nobody goes into (the jobs bank). Nobody gets laid off," said one local union officer, who did not wish to be identified. "They've done a pretty good job of giving people options."

In addition to the five buyout packages already being offered to workers at select Ford factories, the company will offer workers three new packages -- including one that offers workers who leave the company $100,000 to help pay for their children's, grandchildren's or spouse's education.

More salaried cuts expected

Ford is also expected to offer more limited buyout packages to its approximately 35,000 white-collar workers in the United States.

The automaker has already cut 4,000 salaried positions this year. A source familiar with the new plan said Ford plans even deeper white-collar cuts as part of the restructuring to be announced today. That person said layoffs may be necessary if Ford cannot meet its salaried headcount reduction goals with voluntary buyouts.

Mark Fields, president of Ford's Americas group, told employees Thursday that the restructuring will affect all levels of the company.

"Although these actions primarily will center on our North American operations, they will ultimately impact every Ford employee worldwide," Fields said in the message, a copy of which was obtained by The News.

Fields said the company will organize briefings for employees starting in early October to discuss the details of the new plan.

New vehicles confirmed

Today's news is not just about job cuts and plant closings. Ford also was expected to discuss its product strategy and will announce plans to build a new class of "people movers" to replace minivans.

Essentially large crossover utility vehicles, the new model will be based on the Fairlane concept Ford unveiled at the Detroit auto show in 2005. Ford plans to produce Ford and Lincoln versions of the vehicle at its factory in Ontario.

The three-row crossovers are aimed at one of the fastest-growing segments of the domestic vehicle market and will fill the void left by the Mercury Monterey and Ford Freestar minivans. Production of the Monterey stopped last month and Ford is slated to halt production of the Freestar next spring.

Ford may also announce plans to discontinue the Ranger small pickup, some industry experts predict.

Wall Street waits

Wall Street will be closely watching today to see how far the new restructuring plan goes. While analysts were mostly underwhelmed with the "Way Forward" plan announced in January, the companywide buyout plan announced Thursday should help address their concerns.

"The feeling (at Ford) is that this has to be big. It cannot under-deliver on the expectations. It's a very serious crisis and they know it," said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. "They know they are rolling the dice and betting the company on this."

DCX forecasts bigger 3Q operating loss due to Chrysler Group

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060915/UPDATE/609150421

BERLIN -- Automaker DaimlerChrysler AG lowered its 2006 operating profit forecast Friday, saying its Chrysler Group expects a $1.52 billion loss in the third quarter, more than double the amount anticipated.

The German-American automaker said the Chrysler Group will make additional production cuts in the third and fourth quarters to reduce dealer inventories.

The Stuttgart-based company lowered its operating profit forecast for the full year to about 5 billion euros ($6.34 billion), based on an expected full-year loss for the Chrysler Group of 1 billion euros ($1.27 billion).

That includes an operating loss of 1.2 billion euros for the Chrysler Group in the third quarter, wider than the anticipated loss of up to 500 million euros ($633.75 million).

"The Chrysler Group is facing a difficult market environment in the United States with excess inventory, noncompetitive legacy costs for employees and retirees, continuing high fuel prices and a stronger shift in demand toward smaller vehicles," DaimlerChrysler said in a statement.

The parent company said it was examining several possibilities to improve the earnings situation of the Chrysler Group "as quickly, comprehensively and sustainably as possible."

It said these includes ways to boost sales and cut costs as well as making structural changes.

DaimlerChrysler shares fell 3.2 percent to 40.18 euros ($50.93) in Frankfurt trading.

* Ford to shed 44,000 jobs, close plants, cut costs by $5 billion
[/B]

Detroit's way of doing business received its death sentence Friday, a generation later than it should have.

Only in Detroit do they pay people not to work.

Only in Detroit do they build too many cars and trucks and sell them at a loss just so they can keep the plants running.

Only in Detroit do they ignore clear signs that gas prices are headed higher, build their business around V8-powered pickups and big SUVs, and then panic when American consumers bail on them.

"The simple fact is the business model that served us for decades in North America no longer works," said Mark Fields, president of Ford's Americas unit. "In line with the new reality, we will re-size our business. We're dealing with the world as it is, not as it was 10 years ago."


It takes crisis to change

To change, Detroit too often needs the kind of crisis that culminates in waves of buyouts, plant closings, asset sales and ritual denunciations on Wall Street. Too often, the losers are the average people and their communities, not the execs who failed to heed the warning signs or the union bosses who blocked change.

It took $3-a-gallon gas and an unforeseen exodus from big trucks and SUVs to expose Ford's over-reliance on big pickups and SUVs and under-investment in cars, an open secret in the industry that Bill Ford acknowledged to me years ago.

"We really knew this was coming," said David Cole, president of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. "None of it was a surprise. What's unfortunate is you can't get people to react without a crisis."


"One of the messages here," Cole said, "is you've got a crisis. Use it well."[/QUOTE]


"It takes crisis to change" An unfortunate but true statement. A sad commentary on the country as we focus on minutiae, the things that divide us and fail to make the hard choices that must be made in business and government.

Planned obsolescence actually works! The company that once put grit in their transmission fluid so that transmission would wear out in a timely manner, that made gasoline sensors that would burn out if you got below half full, that invented the exploding gas tank, and other novelties until it's intials were said to mean Found On Road Dead, finally is handing out pink slips and they still don't know why??? But now they want to team with Mazda! Poor Mazda, Poor Poor Mazda!

The weed of crimes bears bitter fruit - the Shadow Knows....

Regardless of how we all feel about what is happening, let me ask this:

If U.S. manufacturing is weakened, and we evolve (maybe devolve?), and America turns into a service sector economy...

...are we better or worse off?

England went through this process, where all domestic automotive manufacturers were taken over (Rover, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Mini, etc.) and is now worse off economically, in real dollar terms than it was before.

Assume, for the sake of the question, that we are losing manufacturing as a base of employment (I believe we are, but some will debate this).

When the twin towers fell - it was not only because planes hit them, but the collapse was partially due to how the towers were built and engineered.

If America falls, or Ford falls, it will not be because of an outside enemy, it will be because, it falls from the inside out. We built it light and hollow, took away the classic supports, and let the outside frame carry the weight that once the inner walls did.

We take character development and respect for law away from school children - the old foundations, included words we can hardly use, legally, today like "Christian Principals", the "Ten Commandments", "The Rule of Law", "Constitutional Government", "Marriage Contract", "A square deal" have been replaced by light weight "Diversity", "Evolving Document", "Many shades of Gray", "A matter of Interpretation" and "Right to Choose".

The structures that looked so strong outside: the towering ENRONs, massive Dot Coms, the glittering cities that spent their levee improvement money on building deeper harbors and better gambling palaces; have all melted down.

It wasn't gas prices that killed Ford it was the decision years and years ago to build weaker, breakable, time limited vehicles when other countries were trying to do something better. If you dispise and steal from your own customers they will go where they are better treated -

And gas prices, whoes upward spiral contributed to Fords demise - which are now falling and taking investors down with them, were stacked high in part because some one wanted to legally steal the wealth of 10 million people, regardless of the cost and chaos. A stockmarket and Bank collapse 70 years ago has been forgotten - those who ignore history may be condemed to repeat it.

The willingness to cheat, to lie, to chase that intern, to steal from your own stockholders, has violated laws so solid and ancient they were engraved in stone!

And if you remove that stone from the foundation, the industry, the building, the country, will sink as surely as using cheaper, below spec, rivets to cheat the owners, sank the unsinkable Titanic!

The path of England's industrial failure was more than out sourcing - it was a slippery slope involving the loss of English moral character, and American is sliding in the same direction.

Winfree I agree but only partially. Part of Fords problem was yes the SUV reliance and that heavy and we do mean HEAVY reliance on it showed when people started to trade them in and not buy them over a year ago. Thier main problem was letting the Unions walk all over them. Yes I do know Unions are good but at times they are. When Ford is forced to pay out so much and keep people on for so long they are losing money. Its why Toyota Plants and other Forgien Automakers with plants in the states arent cutting back production (atleast not to the degree to make it news worthy) they hire non-union workers. Those workers who are now probably cussing out Ford and GM have no one to blame but themselves for part of their demise.

Sure Ford should of seen how well car makers like Toyota and Honda where doing with smaller cars like the Civic and Corolla but chose not to. But oddest thing is they sold cars similar to those other car makers but either never brought them here or didnt advertise them correctly. The Focus is prime example, in Europe is the "other civic" over here in the good ol' USA its the "your gay right?" car. Next year they are bringing over the Smart car which has been over in Europe for a few years but they only now brought it over once gas hit $3 a gallon. Sure its small as hell but damn look how well the Mini sold and the Scion xA and xB's are doing. Sure to a point they are nitch cars but when your putting out 40mpg people young and old if need be will buy the car.

I have no real pitty for Ford or GM they are a victim of their own lack of vision and unwillingness to make the moves nesicarry to be and remain profitable. Thankfully GM is making some changes to be like it was back in the 50-60's which is making each brand stand out differently from each other. Pontiac I read is going to be all rear wheel drive performance cars in a few years by pretty much raping Holdens designs hehe but I can live with that, just hope they dont drudge up old muscle car names and slap them on cars that just dont resemble the old name. Shutting up now tired me need sleep

When a giant like Ford falls the shockwaves reach all the way to our little towns-

On a local level, there are three major automobile dealerships in Paso Robles. A Chevy dealer, a Chrysler, and a Ford. The Ford probably employs 4 or 5 mechanics 4 to 6 sales personnel, a secretary or two, maybe a 2 man parts department, some car wash and detail guys and a custodian or two, plus an exec. There are at least a dozen direct jobs.

There is a used car lot or two – Fords are an item that is bought, sold, traded, on a regular basis. Loss of the mothership will effect the way that people selected their used cars and dispose of existing cars. There are maintenance issues and social status issues, that will influence the sales. Some cars will become collectors items others with have a big drop in value.

Now Paso has at least 5 auto parts stores, they carry a full line of Ford products. So does Walmart. See where I am going with this - There all small towns and factory centers that make ford parts and after market items, all over the country that will feel the impact.

The only bright spot on the horizon is that when people lose jobs, are forced to move, get under stress, they drink more. For a brief time, there may be a little up-turn in wine sales.

When people lose Jobs or have to move they can get sick and some will even die. There will be divorces, and families messed up!

This is such a downer I am going back to the Granny Blog to recover!

Regardless of how we all feel about what is happening, let me ask this:

If U.S. manufacturing is weakened, and we evolve (maybe devolve?), and America turns into a service sector economy...

...are we better or worse off?

England went through this process, where all domestic automotive manufacturers were taken over (Rover, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Mini, etc.) and is now worse off economically, in real dollar terms than it was before.

Assume, for the sake of the question, that we are losing manufacturing as a base of employment (I believe we are, but some will debate this).

The US will be Stronger and More Competitve. We are not losing manufacturing base. We are losing manufacturing base in the low-tech sector and that is okay.

Please refrain from comparing UK to US too much. In the UK, the government owned all the manufacturing for a long time, which is not the case in the US. Even after "privatization" in the 80's all the companies has what was called "Golden Shares" which meant that private companies had the government as a major shareholder. This meant that companies like Jaguar could not move operations overseas to the US where most of their customers was because the British politicians were more interested in saving jobs than operational and financial efficiencies. The British plants were unproductive and uncompetitive and would require an ungodly amount of money to fix it. Why do you think Ford was bleeding red with their UK purhases (Aston, Jag, Land Rover) for more than 10 years?!!

The UK has a much healthier economy than it had two decades ago. It is one of the few shining stars in Europe.

Its unfortunate that it came this for Ford and GM to change, but its change that is a long time coming. Get rid of the overcapacitiy and improve product development, and if the companies survive, which they will, then they will emerge much more competitive.

So pretty much the old factory towns are slowly going to go the way of the even older mining towns. They'll slowly fade away, but thing is as I pointed out, most of them have no one to blame but themselves. They continued to leech off of Ford and continued to bleed them dry for years if not decades with no real concern for the actual company they were working for.

Then you have Ford who are just now realizing they need to revamp their styling. The Taurus was supposed to be "The Car of the Future", well it was for future grandmothers and for kids first cars that got passed down BY their grandmothers. They now just finaly split the Taurus segment into the 500 and the Fusion, the 500 was aimed for higher end while the Fusion was aimed at the youth market. Yet again Ford failed since they introduced the new Mustang it killed any hype the Fusion could of had. Typing up the Mustang name just reminded me, the 'stang has been the only thing Ford hasnt really messed up they had a few fumbles through the years but never officaly dropped it and smashed it to bits.

I hope Ford doesnt collapse so much that it stops making cars since I do like the Mustang and the F150's are good trucks (plus a friend of mine does work for Ford as a Mechanic) but again they have no one to blame but themselves.

Don't believe the hype about Chrysler. They are fine. Daimler moves money around between the companies when it is time to negotiate with the unions. They did this a couple of years ago when the German contracts were up, and guess what... It is time to negotiate the UAW contracts at Chrysler now.

Regardless of how we all feel about what is happening, let me ask this:

If U.S. manufacturing is weakened, and we evolve (maybe devolve?), and America turns into a service sector economy...

...are we better or worse off?

England went through this process, where all domestic automotive manufacturers were taken over (Rover, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Mini, etc.) and is now worse off economically, in real dollar terms than it was before.

Assume, for the sake of the question, that we are losing manufacturing as a base of employment (I believe we are, but some will debate this).

Whoops sorry Roto missed your post to answer your question, for me I think we are worse off. But again it all relates to greed, Ford wants to keep its money to actualy *gasp* make a profit, the unions want money to line their pockets. I know some say "well they dont make that much" well if ford is bleeding as much money as it claims and is in current junk bond status where is all this money going to?

Ford see's what it needs to do but the Unions seem to not realize this and are staunch on their stance of "pay up!". 10 years ago or more both sides should of came together and admitted "We are screwd here guys", and come up with a plan to make sure both sides survive.

And yes this carries across to all forms of labor, especially in union types of job fields. The Companies say "screw it" and behind the backs of the unions start looking over sea's or to Mexico to save money. Is it wrong yes but again its greed. The days of a kid saying as a child/teen of "I want to work at the Plant like daddy" are replaced with "I can't wait to get out of here!". Can we save this.. yes we can but it would involve tax breaks for those companies wishing to stay here with stipulations of course.