General Motors Chief Rick Wagoner Said to Step Down

[enzl]

calm down. why would president care for power with GM? they're not that big a deal, especially with wall street. they've been the black sheep for years, arguably the step child looked over by everyone because of all the bad things dragging business profitability down, and yet they employed enough and sold enough to stay relevant and necessary. I repeat, why the heck would president care about a power grab. he's one of the most popular presidents we've ever had, he's consistently most watched, his opinions sway public polls, the people are on his side. he could take over citi and that would be good with the people if he explained it was necessary. why would he care about GM?

Because people NEED to believe all the 'conspiracy' theories to justify their irrational fear of Obama.

Usually, I give them a break....They're the same people still catching up on reality since they suffer from the cognitive dissonance necessary to have voted for Bush. Twice.

[BuddyP]

>>"Everything this gov't and Congress has recently done is absolutly out of control."<<

I don't think this could be over-expressed.

>>"Kiss your GM goodbye folks"<<

Afraid this is getting more & more likely everyday. Only good thing for me is that 'my' GM has been gone a long while ('57-65), but there will always be examples to own & love & drive.

-- -- -- -- --

>>"I repeat, why the heck would president care about a power grab."<<

Not the power grab of controlling GM; the picture is far wider than that.

>>"he's one of the most popular presidents we've ever had, he's consistently most watched, his opinions sway public polls, the people are on his side."<<

Calm down- he only won 52% of the vote. A number of presidents since WWII had greater vote percentages AND margins of victory than BHO. And his approval ratings have been dropping... The peak was the $170M Party You Weren't Invited To, on Inauguration Day. Every day since... the hangover keeps getting worse.

>>"why would he care about GM?"<<

If they weren't unionized, GM would have already been thru Cha 11...

If that's not clear; I've not seen anything believable that suggests he does care.

Nicly summed up!

Because people NEED to believe all the 'conspiracy' theories to justify their irrational fear of Obama.

Usually, I give them a break....They're the same people still catching up on reality since they suffer from the cognitive dissonance necessary to have voted for Bush. Twice.

So you must be against Obama's way of foriegn military policies since he's now turning right back to the Bush policies.

Edited March 31, 2009 by BuddyP

[turbo200]

Because people NEED to believe all the 'conspiracy' theories to justify their irrational fear of Obama.

Usually, I give them a break....They're the same people still catching up on reality since they suffer from the cognitive dissonance necessary to have voted for Bush. Twice.

thanks for reminding me they're acting our of fear and confusion. i thought i was going crazy for a second.

[cletus8269]

im not saying he is particularly infatuated with it as so much someone in washington could be.

i heard a story once. put water on the stove and bring it to a boil. if you take a frog and drop him in, he jumps right out quick... but say you put the frog in the pot with the water and slowly turn the heat up. well, you'll have frog stew my friend because the way the frog works is that slow gradual change in the temp doesnt register as immediate change. in the end the frog cooks. start out small where things dont matter as much and do a good job and the complacency begins, before you know it, its too late. think about it. GM's the frog right now, the stove was on low in 1973.

Edited March 31, 2009 by cletus8269

[enzl]

>>"Everything this gov't and Congress has recently done is absolutly out of control."<<

I don't think this could be over-expressed.

>>"Kiss your GM goodbye folks"<<

Afraid this is getting more & more likely everyday. Only good thing for me is that 'my' GM has been gone a long while ('57-65), but there will always be examples to own & love & drive.

-- -- -- -- --

>>"I repeat, why the heck would president care about a power grab."<<

Not the power grab of controlling GM; the picture is far wider than that.

>>"he's one of the most popular presidents we've ever had, he's consistently most watched, his opinions sway public polls, the people are on his side."<<

Calm down- he only won 52% of the vote. A number of presidents since WWII had greater vote percentages AND margins of victory than BHO. And his approval ratings have been dropping... The peak was the $170M Party You Weren't Invited To, on Inauguration Day. Every day since... the hangover keeps getting worse.

>>"why would he care about GM?"<<

If they weren't unionized, GM would have already been thru Cha 11...

If that's not clear; I've not seen anything believable that suggests he does care.

Get out the tin foil hats!

It's the obligatory "I've given this guy 100 days to fix everything the last guys screwed up...he sux" from the peanut gallery.

He's helping GM...who cares how. Whenever you guys veer into politics, you reveal a streak of ignorance that tells me you should stick to your obsession with true hardtops....

[Newbiewar]

its probably about time... he's a bean counter, hopefully we'll get someone else up there who has more operational and manufacturing experience.

[Camino LS6]

Easy folks, let's just stick to the content and skip the partisanship.

There is more than enough blame to place at the feet of both parties.

Government interaction with the industry has been a net negative since the end of WW2.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Because people NEED to believe all the 'conspiracy' theories to justify their irrational fear of Obama.

Usually, I give them a break....They're the same people still catching up on reality since they suffer from the cognitive dissonance necessary to have voted for Bush. Twice.

LOL... Wow, a sheep calling someone else a sheep...

"Don't fear my shepard simply because you believed blindly in your shepard."

(I just thought it was funny that we're now reduced to insulting people for the very same loyalty that we display, except on the opposite side of the argument)

I'll take this, FTW, thank you.

Edited March 31, 2009 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[BuddyP]

There you can all calm down now...

"Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM."

The Obama administration weighs splitting GM into two companies. Cerberus Capital Management will reportedly lose its stake in Chrysler.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Inves...hes-033109.aspx

So much for that......

Edited March 31, 2009 by BuddyP

[SAmadei]

The Obama administration weighs splitting GM into two companies. Cerberus Capital Management will reportedly lose its stake in Chrysler.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Inves...hes-033109.aspx

So much for that......

Splitting the company would have worked in 1935. The brands are too interdependent now. Under the skin, they share virtually everything... factories, parts, etc. Selling off a "brand" today would be little more than selling off the name and the dealer agreements. If you're going to do that, you should start by selling the Oldsmobile "brand"... if the Packard name still has some value, Oldsmobile must have more. Getting anything for it is better than leaving it on the shelf. Hell, sell off LaSalle and Oakland, too. ;-)

That said, selling off Pontiac could garner more money than selling Buick. At least Pontiac (in the near future) has the Kappa platform all to itself. And GM could bunch in a Holden import exclusive on the Commodore variants.

[enzl]

LOL... Wow, a sheep calling someone else a sheep...

"Don't fear my shepard simply because you believed blindly in your shepard."

(I just thought it was funny that we're now reduced to insulting people for the very same loyalty that we display, except on the opposite side of the argument)

I'll take this, FTW, thank you.

I'm not a sheep for anyone...I actually think for myself, thanx.

Just commenting on the idea of conspiracies...didn't subscribe to Bush-bashing, only hazarded a pretty good guess as to the source of the absurd thought process & just commenting on the fact that some can't seem to look past rhetoric to actually think about what they're saying.

I mean, who the f&^k would need GM to control anything in this country? You'd be better served nationalizing Starbucks.....

(I've been up front and out front on all of this, boys. If that ruffles some feathers, so be it. I may be out on my ass in 60+ days--I'm just a front line a$$hole with his livelihood on the line--as far as I'm concerned, the President has been the only one with balls enough to kick RW to the curb--far too late for many of my co-workers &, perhaps, me as well.)

Edited March 31, 2009 by enzl

[BuddyP]

I mean, who the f&^k would need GM to control anything in this country? You'd be better served nationalizing Starbucks.....

Well let's see, if you have a drastic green enviromental plan, and can have control/leverage in a car company (or two), wouldn't you now be able to tell them what type of car will be built? And with not agreeing with the last 2 business plans they had (not green enough) that pretty much spells it all out.

[Croc]

Well let's see, if you have a drastic green enviromental plan, and can have control/leverage in a car company (or two), wouldn't you now be able to tell them what type of car will be built? And with not agreeing with the last 2 business plans they had (not green enough) that pretty much spells it all out.

HUH? This makes no coherent sense. And "not green enough" may have been part of the rejection of the viability plan, but I promise you the part where GM's "Viability Plan" included barely breaking even and even then only under the best of circumstances is what doomed that plan.

[CaddyXLR-V]

HUH? This makes no coherent sense. And "not green enough" may have been part of the rejection of the viability plan, but I promise you the part where GM's "Viability Plan" included barely breaking even and even then only under the best of circumstances is what doomed that plan.

And GM's contractictions that they would only lose .3% marketshare even though they would be cutting brands, and increase prices, even though the market is shifting from trucks to cars, and still only break even by 2014.

After submitting that plan, Wagoner had but no choice but to leave. It proved he just really had no clue what to do.

[hyperv6]

Sheep calling Sheep...... That is Baaaaaad

As painful as Chapter 11 is I think the sooner the better at this point. With the market staying down and not likley to return soon GM needs to take action and remove the govement in their affairs as soon as possible.

I am more interested in the G20 goings on right now.

Might be interesting.

Edited March 31, 2009 by hyperv6

[FloydHendershot]

as far as I'm concerned, the President has been the only one with balls enough to kick RW to the curb--far too late for many of my co-workers &, perhaps, me as well.)

t's the obligatory "I've given this guy 100 days to fix everything the last guys screwed up...he sux" from the peanut gallery.

Do how long is good enough for Obama. If I subscribe to your logic the same could be said about Wagoner. The ship was taking on water when he took the helm.

And keep in mind this was before the market took a dump. That was just the sugary frosting on top.

I'm relatively indifferent regarding his tenure and especially but not only because it was a token firing. If you or anyone can't realize that this was not performance based you are probably not only dumb enough to sell a car but dumb enough to drive one either.

This isn't tv programming where you change a time slot and expect results next week. If youre accurate in stating your livelihood depends on it you should know this to be true.

He was elected chairman 2003 or thereabouts, hardly one product cycle. What did he do in that time otherwise?

And maybe not you or your 'co-workers' but many more people would haven't been so lucky had he done what apparently seems to be the only thing to save this beast.

Looking back maybe he should have just declared bankruptcy but in turn it may have meant you not working for 3 or 4 extra years. This lineup right now has to be one of the best most alluring in quite a while. Personally, I can think of 5 or 6 vehicles off the top my head I'd purchase from GM, othr than the one I already have now.

Possibly the first time I can say that in 10 maybe 20 years.

t's the obligatory "I've given this guy 100 days to fix everything the last guys screwed up...he sux" from the peanut gallery.

For good measure. Maybe they should dig up Smith and remind all of us how grand the General was from 92-2000. Get real.

I wish all the best to the new guys and hope they continue the plans that are probably laid out already.

Edited March 31, 2009 by FloydHendershot

[BuddyP]

HUH? This makes no coherent sense. And "not green enough" may have been part of the rejection of the viability plan, but I promise you the part where GM's "Viability Plan" included barely breaking even and even then only under the best of circumstances is what doomed that plan.

We're talking about a guy that doesn't want an abundance of trucks "dumped" in the market and doens't want to drill offshore or inland, now he's got ahold of a huge auto company that will have to follow what HE wants... Think about that for awhile.

Edited April 1, 2009 by BuddyP

[enzl]

We're talking about a guy that doesn't want an abundance of trucks "dumped" in the market and doens't want to drill offshore or inland, now he's got ahold of a huge auto company that will have to follow what HE wants... Think about that for awhile.

GM alone couldn't dictate the market for cars & trucks people actually can buy and afford today.

The government merely needs to mandate things (like CAFE, CO2, et al...) not throw $50Billion down a black hole!

Like I said above, more thinking, less posting would do many here wonders.

[enzl]

Do how long is good enough for Obama. If I subscribe to your logic the same could be said about Wagoner. The ship was taking on water when he took the helm.

And keep in mind this was before the market took a dump. That was just the sugary frosting on top.

I'm relatively indifferent regarding his tenure and especially but not only because it was a token firing. If you or anyone can't realize that this was not performance based you are probably not only dumb enough to sell a car but dumb enough to drive one either.

This isn't tv programming where you change a time slot and expect results next week. If youre accurate in stating your livelihood depends on it you should know this to be true.

He was elected chairman 2003 or thereabouts, hardly one product cycle. What did he do in that time otherwise?

And maybe not you or your 'co-workers' but many more people would haven't been so lucky had he done what apparently seems to be the only thing to save this beast.

Looking back maybe he should have just declared bankruptcy but in turn it may have meant you not working for 3 or 4 extra years. This lineup right now has to be one of the best most alluring in quite a while. Personally, I can think of 5 or 6 vehicles off the top my head I'd purchase from GM, othr than the one I already have now.

Possibly the first time I can say that in 10 maybe 20 years.

For good measure. Maybe they should dig up Smith and remind all of us how grand the General was from 92-2000. Get real.

I wish all the best to the new guys and hope they continue the plans that are probably laid out already.

Firstly, RW is a GM lifer....he's worked in an Exec-level position for the last 15 years or so...quite enough time to have guided the ship into the rocks, my friend.

I'm not defending Obama or his plans, merely statinmg that 100 days is a little short a period to judge the man.

And, I couldn't discuss my position if I wanted to...and I don't. Suffice it to say I'm not actually selling cars---but I do have about 900 or so people that depend upon my abilities to run things---and I take that very seriously and blame RW for part of the current problem.

He shoud've been done in 06, at best. Anyone delievering the performance he has would lose their jobs. Not my fault GM's Board couldn't man-up and boot him sooner.

[FloydHendershot]

Firstly, RW is a GM lifer....he's worked in an Exec-level position for the last 15 years or so...quite enough time to have guided the ship into the rocks, my friend.

I'm not defending Obama or his plans, merely statinmg that 100 days is a little short a period to judge the man.

And, I couldn't discuss my position if I wanted to...and I don't. Suffice it to say I'm not actually selling cars---but I do have about 900 or so people that depend upon my abilities to run things---and I take that very seriously and blame RW for part of the current problem.

He shoud've been done in 06, at best. Anyone delievering the performance he has would lose their jobs. Not my fault GM's Board couldn't man-up and boot him sooner.

You sound like a salesman and then what? After 100 days or whatever arbitrary time is long enough then what? It's his "fault" and a new guy will come in and do the job in his "100" days. That's horse&#036;h&#33; and things rarely if ever work like that. And to drive the point home when they do it will involve cataclysmic change that no one ever EVER wants to sign off on unless absolutely necessary.

Had the market not dropped below half a different tune we'd all be humming along.

You call "RW" a lifer and think that put him in a position to make things all hunky dory. BS! You tell the guy working on the line for 40 years he can call the shots just because. And dont get me wrong--- he may just have some brilliant ideas but the Indians always outnumber the Chiefs.

Edited April 1, 2009 by FloydHendershot

[BuddyP]

GM alone couldn't dictate the market for cars & trucks people actually can buy and afford today.

But people wanted trucks and SUV's and GM built what the people wanted. But yes we all know they have been slow in area's they shouldn't have been.

The government merely needs to mandate things (like CAFE, CO2, et al...) not throw $50Billion down a black hole!

Agree 100%, like I stated earlier.. let em go Bankrupt and get it done and over with so they can come out fresh, lean and mean. But the existing Gov't won't let the unions die.

[turbo200]

starting in '92, wagoner was named CFO, in '94 he became president of NA operations; in 2000 he became CEO. 17 years as an exec compared to ~60 days in office for obama, that comparison makes sense in every world but the real one. though i understand the list of issues at GM is long; number one should have been product development and approval. with the number of platforms and resources available to them, with the distribution channel, with the engineering dept they have; there's no excuse for the number of missed opportunities and neglected brand channels, and repeat offending SUV/pickups. as croc said above, his sense of instinct seems so far off, he needed to go.

[turbo200]

But people wanted trucks and SUV's and GM built what the people wanted. But yes we all know they have been slow in area's they shouldn't have been.

what about the 800k buyers a year for Camry/Accord...or 600k buyers yearly for Civic/Corolla.....people didn't want efficient sophisticated well-designed cars?

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

You dont think that ole Rick woulda gotten the boot had GM been forced into Ch 11 as it should have?

[enzl]

You dont think that ole Rick woulda gotten the boot had GM been forced into Ch 11 as it should have?

Absolutely.

While I agree that RW was a victim of politics, it doesn't change the fact that he has presided over the failure of what was once the largest, proudest, most bad ass industrial giant on the planet.

The Board, RW & his minions have done an awful job. The economy might have pushed GM over the edge, but management failure left them in that precarious position to begin with. One only has to look across Detroit at what Mullaly has done at Ford to see what a realistic plan looks like.

Unfortunately, its Chap 11 or a gov't sponsored 'Chap 11 - lite' that will result now.

GM will never look the same again. Somebody has to provide a vision to reinvent GM. RW was clearly not the man to do it.

[BuddyP]

what about the 800k buyers a year for Camry/Accord...or 600k buyers yearly for Civic/Corolla.....people didn't want efficient sophisticated well-designed cars?

I'm not saying people didn't want cars but with roughly 1 million GM truck buyers and 1 million Ford truck buyers yearly (and none of this includes SUV's or Dodge truck and SUV numbers) they were selling what the market wanted. But yes GM needed a good small car, they have one now (Malibu/Aura) but is a few years too late. But Toyota also saw the light with the trucks, but came into the market right at the wrong time. But since trucks get worse milage and GM had most of em.. they get the bashing.

You also gotta admit the media helped Toyota/Honda car sales. I still can't get over how anybody could buy the early/mid '00 Camry's, never seen such an awful looking car.

Edited April 1, 2009 by BuddyP

[FloydHendershot]

Pardon me for "harping" on this but I think this nails it. Rarely do I agree with this guy but he puts the proper perspective on this one.

Contrary to the horde of instant pundit-experts out there who don't have the first clue as to what this industry is all about - or what it's like to actually work in this industry - Rick Wagoner was by no means the evil architect of GM's current predicament. Yes, Wagoner made some mistakes, and I have documented them long before the "Rick Wagoner Must Go" train left the pundit station. The Fiat adventure was disastrous, and Wagoner's initial reluctance to wrestle with GM's bloated structure proved costly. But Mr. Wagoner's most glaring failing really wasn't his at all, but rather it was that he was a product of GM's long corroded and obsolete cultural ideal that the people who run the company should only come from the financial office. This is nothing new it should be pointed out, because it has been part of the GM raison d'etre since the Alfred Sloan era. But it was Rick Wagoner's - and GM's - reality.

But there was another side to Rick Wagoner's tenure that the instant pundits out there either refuse to acknowledge - out of their out and out hatred for anything to do with GM and Detroit - or that they simply couldn't fathom because of their abject lack of experience or what is probably closer to the truth, their complete lack of understanding of how this business actually operates. And that is that if Rick Wagoner hadn't taken the aggressively decisive actions that he did take, GM would have been out of business years ago.

Wagoner's move into the Chinese market (a continuation of the doctrine laid out by his predecessor, Jack Smith) proved to be pivotal in providing a road map for the company's future. And Wagoner's insistence on utilizing and exploiting the global capabilities of GM's far reaching corporate empire, with forays into Korea, Brazil, Mexico and Eastern Europe, laid the groundwork for a completely modernized and globally competitive endeavor.

But Wagoner's most impressive move during his tenure was to recognize his own limitations as a financially-oriented leader, while at the same time setting his own ego aside in order to bring Bob Lutz into the company. Wagoner handed Lutz the keys to GM's woefully moribund product development system and said "Fix it," while giving Lutz carte blanche to do it. And the results were magnificent. During Wagoner's tenure - while benefiting from the vision, passion and sheer will to succeed that Lutz brought to the table - GM saw its greatest design, engineering and product era since its glory days of the 60s.

Down the road, long after the lynch mob hysteria subsides - and this administration's pitchforks have been hopefully melted down into brand spanking new American-made automobiles - Rick Wagoner's tenure will be judged more fairly and with the proper perspective.

http://www.autoextremist.com/current/?currentPage=2

To Mr. Enzl, surely you jest about Ford.

[turbo200]

since no one is arguing he didn't do anything good, I think we are going in circles at this point. the core argument is there are plenty of things we armchair critics can point to that look like he didn't do enough. he had plenty of time to change the huge titanic and not enough was changed. of course he made plenty of right decisions, but a normal company would look at the several billions of dollars lost in the fiat deal along with the subsequent mismanagement of the technology agreements resulted from that deal, and heads would roll. not GM. another company would look at the still falling market share and eroding customer base, losing repeat customers, and heads would roll. not GM. the four years of repeat losses. heads would roll. not GM. the gigantic annual and quarterly losses. you get the picture.

no, wagoner isn't responsible for the fall of GM; he's responsible for some of the biggest successes, like reworking the production approval system, revitalizing a design department, refocusing development on the creative side, entering new market ambitiously and with a good strategy......but there was too much on his plate and he neglected the results coming in from the home market, as well as the product end. there are plenty of missed opportunities i can point to that would be a product planner's dream in terms of all the potential profit that's out there.

[enzl]

Pardon me for "harping" on this but I think this nails it. Rarely do I agree with this guy but he puts the proper perspective on this one.

Contrary to the horde of instant pundit-experts out there who don't have the first clue as to what this industry is all about - or what it's like to actually work in this industry - Rick Wagoner was by no means the evil architect of GM's current predicament. Yes, Wagoner made some mistakes, and I have documented them long before the "Rick Wagoner Must Go" train left the pundit station. The Fiat adventure was disastrous, and Wagoner's initial reluctance to wrestle with GM's bloated structure proved costly. But Mr. Wagoner's most glaring failing really wasn't his at all, but rather it was that he was a product of GM's long corroded and obsolete cultural ideal that the people who run the company should only come from the financial office. This is nothing new it should be pointed out, because it has been part of the GM raison d'etre since the Alfred Sloan era. But it was Rick Wagoner's - and GM's - reality.

But there was another side to Rick Wagoner's tenure that the instant pundits out there either refuse to acknowledge - out of their out and out hatred for anything to do with GM and Detroit - or that they simply couldn't fathom because of their abject lack of experience or what is probably closer to the truth, their complete lack of understanding of how this business actually operates. And that is that if Rick Wagoner hadn't taken the aggressively decisive actions that he did take, GM would have been out of business years ago.

Wagoner's move into the Chinese market (a continuation of the doctrine laid out by his predecessor, Jack Smith) proved to be pivotal in providing a road map for the company's future. And Wagoner's insistence on utilizing and exploiting the global capabilities of GM's far reaching corporate empire, with forays into Korea, Brazil, Mexico and Eastern Europe, laid the groundwork for a completely modernized and globally competitive endeavor.

But Wagoner's most impressive move during his tenure was to recognize his own limitations as a financially-oriented leader, while at the same time setting his own ego aside in order to bring Bob Lutz into the company. Wagoner handed Lutz the keys to GM's woefully moribund product development system and said "Fix it," while giving Lutz carte blanche to do it. And the results were magnificent. During Wagoner's tenure - while benefiting from the vision, passion and sheer will to succeed that Lutz brought to the table - GM saw its greatest design, engineering and product era since its glory days of the 60s.

Down the road, long after the lynch mob hysteria subsides - and this administration's pitchforks have been hopefully melted down into brand spanking new American-made automobiles - Rick Wagoner's tenure will be judged more fairly and with the proper perspective.

http://www.autoextremist.com/current/?currentPage=2

To Mr. Enzl, surely you jest about Ford.

You've certainly enlisted the good stuff about the Rickster...now how about the bad?

1. GM's cost structure has been unmanageable for years. RW is an accountant, so I'm assuming he knew this. Why was little action taken to address this? (Incremental stuff didn't work, now did it?)

2. Jerry York, a Bd. member for Kerkorian, had recommended selling off Hummer and Saab years ago. He was told to STFU. GM is currently looking for buyers for Saab, Hummer & Saturn in the worst financial crisis in modern times. When might have been a better time to sell?

3. RW brought in Lutz after the Aztek fiasco. Not because he wanted to, but because this error revealed the desperate need to. Lutz then went ahead and improved much product development, but you've conveniently left out that the GMT900 pull-ahead, Soltice/Sky debacle and GTO joke also occurred under Maximum Bob's watch. Bob couldn't sell full line-up of Zeta to the board, despite ChyCo's success with the LXs. Somebody's got to answer to that product planning failure (although the interiors have gotten nicer!)

4. Fiat, Saab, Isuzu & Subaru distractions all have cost billions--all were either underway or signed while RW was a CFO or CEO except Saab, which has simply been a huge black hole for 19 of GM's 20 years involved.

5. China has been a success, but the groundwork for that idea was pioneered by VW & Chrysler--RW simply followed other's gameplan. If you couldn't figure out that a growing middle class in a country of 1.2 billion people might be a good market to get into, well....

6. And there's the small matter of GM losing $80+billion in the last 4 years -- 3 of which were record sales years in the US. What job could any of us hold when the bottom line results were that awful?

RW is a nice man. I've only heard good things about him personally. But please do not try to convince me that he's done a good job or all he could do. There's a profound culture problem at GM (I should know, I deal with them constantly). RW NEVER took steps necessary to fix it. That's why they were in the awful position they were in when the economic meltdown occurred.

If you're going to get paid like he did, you MUST accept the accolades or negativity when the ship does down. I cannot accept that more or better could have been done. It's obvious that Mullaly had some good ideas, as his vision has resulted in a number of positives, including the sale of Jag/LR, borrowing $ when Ford could & NOT begging the gov't to save Ford because no lender in their right minds would.

Ford has been positioned to succeed. GM will go Chap 11, either by force or quasi-gov't involvement. You can't defend the indefensible since these are simply the facts!

[Chris_Doane]

The Obama administration weighs splitting GM into two companies. Cerberus Capital Management will reportedly lose its stake in Chrysler.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Inves...hes-033109.aspx

So much for that......

You do realize that the whole "splitting GM into two companies" idea is something that would be explored if GM can not fix things on their own they have to file Chapt 11?

[enzl]

Oops, and I almost forgot the biggest disaster of all:

GMAC. A wholly owned subsidiary of GM (and a pillar of their company for 75+years) was allowed to leverage itself with bad bets (leasing, sub-prime mortgages) that it had to be sold off, leaving GM subservient to Cerberus...when that gravy train stopped, it nearly brough GM to its knees. Most GM dealers floorplan with GMAC, a huge share of retail financing was done by GMAC--the spigot being shut off by GMAC a few months ago has placed many of GM's remaining dealers in peril---those that have not already succumbed to the economic environment are being told to find other floorplan lenders...which will not happen.

Letting the goons from GMAC kill the golden goose alone would justify his dismissal, BTW.

[FloydHendershot]

You've certainly enlisted the good stuff about the Rickster...now how about the bad?

I did not write that, Peter Delorenzo did and I gave credit where it was due.

1. GM's cost structure has been unmanageable for years. RW is an accountant, so I'm assuming he knew this. Why was little action taken to address this? (Incremental stuff didn't work, now did it?)

Incremental? He cut billions, closed factories, slashed workforce but didn't close enough dealerships. Lucky you. Perhaps he was too nice a guy and didn't act a little sooner.

Maybe his crystal ball was out for repair. Not a fanboy but come on!

2. Jerry York, a Bd. member for Kerkorian, had recommended selling off Hummer and Saab years ago. He was told to STFU. GM is currently looking for buyers for Saab, Hummer & Saturn in the worst financial crisis in modern times. When might have been a better time to sell?

Yes, when would have been a better time to sell?

3. RW brought in Lutz after the Aztek fiasco. Not because he wanted to, but because this error revealed the desperate need to. Lutz then went ahead and improved much product development, but you've conveniently left out that the GMT900 pull-ahead, Soltice/Sky debacle and GTO joke also occurred under Maximum Bob's watch. Bob couldn't sell full line-up of Zeta to the board, despite ChyCo's success with the LXs. Somebody's got to answer to that product planning failure (although the interiors have gotten nicer!)

Not sure what Lutz has to do with this but few argue he didn't do a half bad job when he was working. The GTO joke? The Lx's success? Okey dokey.

4. Fiat, Saab, Isuzu & Subaru distractions all have cost billions--all were either underway or signed while RW was a CFO or CEO except Saab, which has simply been a huge black hole for 19 of GM's 20 years involved.

Wasn't that bad a deal. It cut costs and the buyout was for a 1/5th what they could have paid and not to mention a protracted period of legal dispute that was avoided. On the pus tt hepled the Euro market and saved billions. There were more gains than losses in the long run.

5. China has been a success, but the groundwork for that idea was pioneered by VW & Chrysler--RW simply followed other's gameplan. If you couldn't figure out that a growing middle class in a country of 1.2 billion people might be a good market to get into, well....

So he can be blamed for the losses because he happened to be there but the pros well a chimp could have seen that one, in hindsight of course.

Not sure of the agenda you represent but that's a partiality I won't foray.

6. And there's the small matter of GM losing $80+billion in the last 4 years -- 3 of which were record sales years in the US. What job could any of us hold when the bottom line results were that awful?

The one time tax credit losses? Thats 40 billion right there. Much of the shortfall was linked to subprime home loan losses at GMAC. Was non cash too IIR.

RW is a nice man. I've only heard good things about him personally. But please do not try to convince me that he's done a good job or all he could do. There's a profound culture problem at GM (I should know, I deal with them constantly). RW NEVER took steps necessary to fix it. That's why they were in the awful position they were in when the economic meltdown occurred.

Being nice was possibly what hurt him the most. I don't know him personally, and you will be happy to know he's on his way out with 23 million or so dollars.

If you're going to get paid like he did, you MUST accept the accolades or negativity when the ship does down. I cannot accept that more or better could have been done. It's obvious that Mullaly had some good ideas, as his vision has resulted in a number of positives, including the sale of Jag/LR, borrowing $ when Ford could & NOT begging the gov't to save Ford because no lender in their right minds would.

They could have sold Jag a long time ago. When do you think it would have been better?

Ford has been positioned to succeed. GM will go Chap 11, either by force or quasi-gov't involvement. You can't defend the indefensible since these are simply the facts!

I would not hold my breath on Ford. Defend the indefensible? That sounds like a poor debating tactic from a position of ill preparedness, ignorance or weakness.

[Johnny Quest]

Okay...here's my take on RW's departure... (Opinions are like a**holes - everyone's got one, myself included).

Metaphorically, GM is like the Titanic. (I left about a year ago, having seen the iceberg gashing its way down the side.) Unfortunately, the captain goes down with the ship, notwithstanding that he didn't build or design it. It doesn't matter. He can be a great guy, it doesn't matter. Send flowers to his wife.

RW clearly had all the right intentions and not all decisions are good. Some are bad. The key is to recognize the good from the bad. Fiat, for example, was a bad one - a very bad one - but not as bad as keeping Saab alive year after year. Not so sure about Suzuki or Subaru. Daewoo was a very good one. He did recognize the importance of bringing in a car guy like Lutz and the product improved big time. (Interesting aside, I remember a bunch of execs criticizing the Aztec and Zarella getting all pissed off that we had the nerve to criticize our own product... There was no issue with the concept - it's the reality that was ugly.) The recent focus was on getting cost down, quality up, and great products out the door. In any event, directionally, GM was moving the right way. Unfortunately, the perfect storm hit - legacy costs, product reputation and market collapse was devastating because of the speed.

If RW had more time, GM would survive and thrive. Reality, however, bites.

Having said that, my criticism is two-fold. First, the culture. Excluding RW and some, very few, others, the Detroit team were self-interested empire builders who did not want to make the hard decisions. Everyone had an attitued of self-preservation, empire-building, and "I don't want to put myself out of a job" - politicians... Honesty was not rewarded and, worse, it was dismissed as being inappropriate.

Second, RW, I think, knew what had to be done, but couldn't get it done. In this respect, this is his burden to bear. If his people weren't willing to do what had to be done (back to the culture issue), he should have cleaned house. If he was being misled about the reality, well, again, back to him because he should have implemented better checks and balances.

In fairness, hands were tied. The current UAW / CAW is not responsible for its history no more than RW and his team were responsible for GM Management history. However, the UAW/CAW were just as guilty as the management team - a sense of self-interested entitlement. The UAW was not willing to give up much. While I'm on a rant, blame the US government for saddling the auto industry with health-care costs...

By the way, Fritz shouldn't be running the ship any more than RW. New blood is needed. (My view is that Obama made RW a scapegoat, which is wrong, but the result - RW leaving is right.) That said - new leadership is required - someone who is willing to hold the folks accountable and challenge all assumptions. I'd even say that the leader should not be an American (I know I'm a heretic) - maybe someone from Asia. No more voluntary buyouts. No more incentives to leave. Keep the talent - get rid of the deadwood - but start at the senior level and go down. The last ones out should be the low-level salaried folks.

As for Ford being in a better position...please spare me. It's all about product, product, product. What product has Ford got that will save Ford. It's a matter of time. As for Chrysler - they're done.

Now...what's my recommendation... Bankruptcy - not because of the bondholders, but because of the dealer body. The roadblock to rapid downsizing of GM is not the UAW. The UAW is one entity GM can negotiate with. It's easy to say, kill Hummer, Pontiac, Saturn, etc. Stopping the engineering and manufacturing is the easy part. Solving the liabilities to the dealers is another story... Let Obama deal with that one - killing thousands of retail enterprises in one fell swoop - maybe they can convert their dealerships to AIG outlets...

Finally, there are lots who blame GM and Ford and Chrysler for building large trucks and, as such, dying by their own swords. I have to call B.S. on this one. The big three only built what the customers wanted. If the Japanese had a decent truck, they would have been there too. From a product quality, no one built/builds better full-size trucks than the domestics. The big three were just the suppliers. They were not market makers...

Cheers and Tears.

[enzl]

I did not write that, Peter Delorenzo did and I gave credit where it was due.

Incremental? He cut billions, closed factories, slashed workforce but didn't close enough dealerships. Lucky you. Perhaps he was too nice a guy and didn't act a little sooner.

Maybe his crystal ball was out for repair. Not a fanboy but come on!

Yes, when would have been a better time to sell?

Not sure what Lutz has to do with this but few argue he didn't do a half bad job when he was working. The GTO joke? The Lx's success? Okey dokey.

Wasn't that bad a deal. It cut costs and the buyout was for a 1/5th what they could have paid and not to mention a protracted period of legal dispute that was avoided. On the pus tt hepled the Euro market and saved billions. There were more gains than losses in the long run.

So he can be blamed for the losses because he happened to be there but the pros well a chimp could have seen that one, in hindsight of course.

Not sure of the agenda you represent but that's a partiality I won't foray.

The one time tax credit losses? Thats 40 billion right there. Much of the shortfall was linked to subprime home loan losses at GMAC. Was non cash too IIR.

Being nice was possibly what hurt him the most. I don't know him personally, and you will be happy to know he's on his way out with 23 million or so dollars.

They could have sold Jag a long time ago. When do you think it would have been better?

I would not hold my breath on Ford. Defend the indefensible? That sounds like a poor debating tactic from a position of ill preparedness, ignorance or weakness.

You're simply wrong. Cherry picking the good stuff and ignoring the bad does not an argument make.

I'm well-prepared for any debate you'd like to have....but I do work for a living, so my answers may not be the dissertation you require to change your mind.

Here's my suggestion....read any of my historic posts....many, if not all, will support the fact that I've been suggesting a good many things that now MUST come to pass---only I would have done them when they actually made sense to do so. (I've also been quoted in reputable biz mags as far back as 2005 saying the exact same thing).

When you've got 900 lives or your own personal stuff at stake, call me. Until then, I simply can't agree with you.

[FloydHendershot]

You're simply wrong. Cherry picking the good stuff and ignoring the bad does not an argument make.

I'm well-prepared for any debate you'd like to have....but I do work for a living, so my answers may not be the dissertation you require to change your mind.

Here's my suggestion....read any of my historic posts....many, if not all, will support the fact that I've been suggesting a good many things that now MUST come to pass---only I would have done them when they actually made sense to do so. (I've also been quoted in reputable biz mags as far back as 2005 saying the exact same thing).

When you've got 900 lives or your own personal stuff at stake, call me. Until then, I simply can't agree with you.

With the state of the economy, auto industry and your chosen profession I will venture to guess you have plenty of time to create another historic post with a complete dissertation and and a verbatim transcript from the next 6 hours of c-span.

Claiming I'm defending the indefensible does not automatically make your opinion correct. What I take issue with is the facts that YOU chose and demonstrated how you distorted them to claim support falsely for your argument. You cherry picked them, not me.

I'm not trying to make this personal but please don't make me laugh.

I do not care where or what your position is that does not make you correct either.

Give a holla when you come up with different facts I am not privy to that correctly support

yur argument such as it is and perhaps I will agree. Until then, Here's my suggestion, You are simply wrong

Now we're getting somewhere!

[SAmadei]

But yes GM needed a good small car, they have one now (Malibu/Aura) but is a few years too late.

The Malibu and Aura are not small cars (by modern comparison). The Aura is Saturn's largest sedan, and if the rumors of the Impala's demise are true, the Malibu will be the largest Chevy... its only slightly smaller than the Impala, anyway.

[cletus8269]

aatBLOKE's back

[enzl]

With the state of the economy, auto industry and your chosen profession I will venture to guess you have plenty of time to create another historic post with a complete dissertation and and a verbatim transcript from the next 6 hours of c-span.

Claiming I'm defending the indefensible does not automatically make your opinion correct. What I take issue with is the facts that YOU chose and demonstrated how you distorted them to claim support falsely for your argument. You cherry picked them, not me.

I'm not trying to make this personal but please don't make me laugh.

I do not care where or what your position is that does not make you correct either.

Give a holla when you come up with different facts I am not privy to that correctly support

yur argument such as it is and perhaps I will agree. Until then, Here's my suggestion, You are simply wrong

Now we're getting somewhere!

It's nothing personal.

You're defending a man who rode the world's greatest corporation into the dustbin of history as if he were a defenseless child and a pure victim of circumstance.

If the product side is mediocre and the finance side was terrible, where is there to go in defending RW? I mean, what else is GM about if not making cars and the loans that go with them?

Perhaps we're talking past each other, but I find any defense of RW absurd, given the facts....not my opinion, simply the facts. There's noone (other than RW himself) that has benefited from his years at the top. (With the possible exception of the bankruptcy attorneys)

[hyperv6]

Ok I understand this is all RW fault. I glad that has set me striaght now.

I was mistaken that the Sloan model that had run GM as decentralized for many years and that the many other CEO's did not fix what was wrong was part of the problem. You know like 20 purchasing operations for 7 MFG units with as many or more engineering units. I see now that that was not part of the problem.

Here is the example from the Federal Mogal rep that sold parts to GM in the 80's.

"They have many purchasing departmentand so many various groups that buy engine parts that that we sell thew same ball bearing sets to 11 different organizations at GM under 17 different part numbers under prices that vary widely and nobody in GM knows sombody else in GM is getting the same exact part for vastly less money than they are paying.

That is a picture of utter diysfuntion." Not good when vendors see this years ago.

GM also when told how Toyota did things in their plants they planted their heads in the sand and refused to believe their own peoples accounts. Even when NUMMI came GM failed to learn from the new ways of MFG.

Roger Smith took a ship that had hit the iceberg and turned the radio off and just called for full ahead with programs that really did not address GM's probems wioth in their systems.

Jack Smith did a little better and recongnized things needed to change but was just one man fighting a system and did not have enough balls to do all he needed to do. At least he understood some of GM needed to go and killed Olds.

RW came in and made many of the changes needed to consolidate many of the problem areas but there is more that is need, By then he had little money to do it. It takes money to make a company smaller. It take cooperation form the UAW that was very reluctant. Most times they agreed onlty when forced with a plant closing. GM needed to revamp lines of cars but had no money to pay for it. The 900 program was moved up to bring in the profits it needed to pay for cars like the Cruze etc. Gas prices spiked and killed the sales they needed badly.

It takes even more money to buy out emplyees, close plants that are not needed and buy out dealers you don't need. You just can't come in and lock the doors.

The GM system and lack of adjustments to the Sloan model over the has killed GM. Also the fact GM untill the last 5 years really has not operated as a single company 90+ years. GM has been more a 7 headed beast with each head with 7 minds of its own.

To think if one man would come in and fix everything in only a few years even with out the economy tanking and gas price spikes is crazy. Even the most respected people in the industry would still take years to fix GM under the present conditions let alone when RW took over.

Rick is not without sin. The Fiat deal was a mess and several others but in the long run he did more good than bad and has done more to change GM than most CEO's have done for years.

My great uncle was a hot shot at GM years ago. He was of the old school of though having been there from 1927-1962. I am sad to say the way he thought and the things he told me about how GM worked today are a lot of the reasons they are in this trouble. He knew and hated John Delorean because he worked against the system. Anyone who tried to bring changes was scorned. That is why so many just played the system and reitred.

Books from people over the years have warned us of GM's flawed ways and why they would not or at times could not be changed. On a Clear Day You Can See GM is a prime example.

In the end GM condition today was a group effort over years and not the work of one man in only 7 years.

Today get the book Why GM Matters by William j Holestein and you will get a good perspective of the where this started, where it has been and where this is going. This book gives the good and the bad on this whole situation.

I am not so much a RW fan as he was not perfrct but I will not throw him under the buse either since this was not all of his doing. It takes a Dysfunctional Corperation years to make a mess this big with a very flawed system. Then it takes time and a lot of money to repair it when it goes on uncorrected for so many years.

The truth is GM was so dysfuntinal and money was so easy to come by I am sure many with in the walls of GM for years never realized they hit the Iceberg in the 60's and just kept on sleeping only to find most of the life boats are gone now.

Edited April 1, 2009 by hyperv6

[Robert Hall]

I started reading 'Why GM Matters' this past weekend..pretty good read so far. I read 'On a Clear Day..' years ago, need to re-read it. 'The Rekoning' by David Halberstam was another good auto industry book.

[FloydHendershot]

I am not so much a RW fan as he was not perfrct but I will not throw him under the buse either since this was not all of his doing. It takes a Dysfunctional Corperation years to make a mess this big with a very flawed system. Then it takes time and a lot of money to repair it when it goes on uncorrected for so many years.

Yes! And that has been the point all along. Some people need a face to go along with this and they got it. Some want to blame others at all behest of common sense and logic and they have it as well. Fritz Hendrson will continue with the same goals and focus and after him, if GM is still operating there will be someone anew to work with what has been given to them. It's my fervent hope it will be enough and when the time comes we can once again place Wagoner under the microscope with a different lens. It is about the facts and the facts alone.

Excellent post!

Edited April 1, 2009 by FloydHendershot

[hyperv6]

Yes! And that has been the point all along. Some people need a face to go along with this and they got it. Some want to blame others at all behest of common sense and logic and they have it as well. Fritz Hendrson will continue with the same goals and focus and after him, if GM is still operating there will be someone anew to work with what has been given to them. It's my fervent hope it will be enough and when the time comes we can once again place Wagoner under the microscope with a different lens. It is about the facts and the facts alone.

Excellent post!

Yes the general public as a whole and even many smart buisness and political folks miro read this as a one person issue. The real issues it he system that GM has lived on for years. At one time it could support the waste but today times are too compeitive and GM did not react or change their ways to compete efficently in a global manner.

The new technology has permited countries like Indiam Korea and others to compete with us on a even if not advantaged level.

GM and much of the American MFG did not react nor did the general public want to adjust to compete with others. THis would hav ment working for less many times. In a capitalistic world the one whio can be efficent and do it cheaper is going to win. That is how our country competed internally and now we have to do it on a global scale.

It is time for those in our country to step and adapt or get left behind. Our countries system is nealry in the same condition GM is in. Again it was brought on by many years and failed changes. While Obama will make mistakes it is not also fair to blaime him for everything nor Bush or Clinton etc. There were many who contributed to the problems we face today. The key to day is for us to compete globally but not give up our Sovereignty.

GM is the same they need to compete globally and regain their Sovereignty.

GM will survive but it will be a much changed company. It will be sad in some ways as traditions and heritage are always hard to give up on. But on the other hand a company that agian will be smaller, better managed and faster to react will be fun to watch.

I am tired of seeing GM lose and if they only end up with Caddy and Chevy but again be a leader to me it is worth it. I still have some American pride and I am proud to be an American. I want GM, Ford and Chrysler to become relevent again.

[hyperv6]

I started reading 'Why GM Matters' this past weekend..pretty good read so far. I read 'On a Clear Day..' years ago, need to re-read it. 'The Rekoning' by David Halberstam was another good auto industry book.

There is as lot to learn. Both books should be required reading for those in GM [reread for most] and the Obama's staff.

A few people here need to read and learn the truth on how things back when we though it was great the problems were just masked by the size of GM.

[evok]

aatBLOKE's back

I hope that is true. He seemed to call BS when he saw it with a number of posters. He made for entertaining as well as educational reading.

As for enzl - he is wrong and I have said it numerous times before. He does not get it and is looking for a scape goat.

Too bad, years ago I used to enjoy reading his posts.

Why is enzl wrong. Because GM was broke way before Wagoner officially took over. When GM is paying more for health care than steel, and your labor union will not make the hard cuts, there is not much else Wagoner could have done over the years without triggering a restructuring in the courts.

Factor in Black September 2009 - and really I am at a loss. Under normal circumstance and market GM should be very strong today.

But when the carpet is pulled from you because Bush euthanize Lehman brothers you hope and pray.

I can nit pick Wagoner and he should have looked for money earlier and raised flags but that is small. Any body with half a brain that follows this business should have seen this train wrecking coming and as soon as the credit markets froze in August 2007, recognized GM was done for.

At that point Wagoner only had the government and the Good Book - praying that the coming economic down turn was not what we are seeing right now.

At least he stopped blaming Cerberus and the conspiracy plotted by them to hold back credit at GMAC inorder for GM to take Chrysler off their hands . I found those post by him in October pretty amusing.

[evok]

I started reading 'Why GM Matters' this past weekend..pretty good read so far. I read 'On a Clear Day..' years ago, need to re-read it. 'The Rekoning' by David Halberstam was another good auto industry book.

In need to get GM Matters - as for the other two, just reread both last year and Mary Ann Keller's Rude Awakening.

GM is a shadow of the company it was years ago and from what I read about Why GM Matter, I would probably agree with much of it.

[hyperv6]

In need to get GM Matters - as for the other two, just reread both last year and Mary Ann Keller's Rude Awakening.

GM is a shadow of the company it was years ago and from what I read about Why GM Matter, I would probably agree with much of it.

I think you would approve of 80-90% of what is presented.

[enzl]

I hope that is true. He seemed to call BS when he saw it with a number of posters. He made for entertaining as well as educational reading.

As for enzl - he is wrong and I have said it numerous times before. He does not get it and is looking for a scape goat.

Too bad, years ago I used to enjoy reading his posts.

Why is enzl wrong. Because GM was broke way before Wagoner officially took over. When GM is paying more for health care than steel, and your labor union will not make the hard cuts, there is not much else Wagoner could have done over the years without triggering a restructuring in the courts.

Factor in Black September 2009 - and really I am at a loss. Under normal circumstance and market GM should be very strong today.

But when the carpet is pulled from you because Bush euthanize Lehman brothers you hope and pray.

I can nit pick Wagoner and he should have looked for money earlier and raised flags but that is small. Any body with half a brain that follows this business should have seen this train wrecking coming and as soon as the credit markets froze in August 2007, recognized GM was done for.

At that point Wagoner only had the government and the Good Book - praying that the coming economic down turn was not what we are seeing right now.

At least he stopped blaming Cerberus and the conspiracy plotted by them to hold back credit at GMAC inorder for GM to take Chrysler off their hands . I found those post by him in October pretty amusing.

Oy vey...making a guest appearance to annoy me?

I'm just calling it as I see it...I also admitted in a few recent posts that RW has been scapegoated--guess you were too busy jumping down my throat to notice those...

Bottom line is the bottom line. This isn't grade school where everyone wins and gets a medal because we're too timid to pronounce or define winning or losing...its Fortune 500 biz and you MUST succeed or be branded a failure.

True Leadership would have halted the slide, not caved to its inevitability.

[balthazar]

>>"The GM system and lack of adjustments to the Sloan model over the {years} has killed GM. Also the fact GM -untill the last 5 years- really has not operated as a single company {for} 90+ years. GM has been more a 7 headed beast with each head with 7 minds of its own."<<

This is, on the surface, WAY off.

Firstly- the 'Sloan Model' died off in the late '50s - it was based on product pricing hierarchy, and that eroded at that point in time. I would say 'abandonment' certainly is an 'adjustment'.

GM operated as a centralized policy / decentralized operational holding Co. thru the '60s and into the '70s, but consolidation primarily beginning in the '80s centralized operations, too. Decentralized manufacturing in 2004 ??? You've got to be kidding.

>>"I am sure many with in the walls of GM for years never realized they hit the Iceberg in the 60's"<<

Do tell, please....

[FloydHendershot]

Oy vey...making a guest appearance to annoy me?

I'm just calling it as I see it...I also admitted in a few recent posts that RW has been scapegoated--guess you were too busy jumping down my throat to notice those...

Bottom line is the bottom line. This isn't grade school where everyone wins and gets a medal because we're too timid to pronounce or define winning or losing...its Fortune 500 biz and you MUST succeed or be branded a failure.

True Leadership would have halted the slide, not caved to its inevitability.

You are seeing it wrongly and thus calling it wrongly. The bottom line is you did not witness water turning to wine and that is your problem. You just do not get it and and am confident in saying regardless of your belief you have little understanding of how this system works and are more comfortable shifting the blame like a loser might in the same situation.

Perhaps if you were a true leader or not a failure you would not be concerned with what you were given and would not have to worry so much about the xxamount of people you say you worry about.

But again, that is if you aren't a loser. That is how you put it, no?

Still for some reason, perhaps morbid curiosity await some facts or at least a relevant and coherent rebuttal as to why you still think you are right other than because you say so. Pardon the colloquialism , but you sound like a whiny little bitch.

[FloydHendershot]

>>"The GM system and lack of adjustments to the Sloan model over the {years} has killed GM. Also the fact GM -untill the last 5 years- really has not operated as a single company {for} 90+ years. GM has been more a 7 headed beast with each head with 7 minds of its own."<<

This is, on the surface, WAY off.

Firstly- the 'Sloan Model' died off in the late '50s - it was based on product pricing hierarchy, and that eroded at that point in time. I would say 'abandonment' certainly is an 'adjustment'.

GM operated as a centralized policy / decentralized operational holding Co. thru the '60s and into the '70s, but consolidation primarily beginning in the '80s centralized operations, too. Decentralized manufacturing in 2004 ??? You've got to be kidding.

>>"I am sure many with in the walls of GM for years never realized they hit the Iceberg in the 60's"<<

Do tell, please....

Basically it was called the Oil Crisis, might have heard of it at some point. That's what dotted and crossed. And quite bluntly that was the precipice for the impending failure which are still trying to recover.

Liken it to AIDS or cancer. Those aren't cause of death, neither one of those is what kills you, it's what they open yourselves up to that does the task.

Of course that's overly simplified as there are many levels that have been touched upon ad nauseum here alone.