General Motors Chief Rick Wagoner Said to Step Down

[enzl]

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.

Whiny bitch?

I think I explained myself...and your reducing this to unoriginal, crass and inaccurate name calling merely strengthens my convictions.

I've worked with GM and GMAC, extensively for almost a decade. The level of disfunction in those 2 organi*tions is astounding and must be seen firsthand to believe.

So, yes, I hold RW accountable--not solely, but I would think that's obvious....I'll remember to go slower for the short-busers next time I dare to blame the boss for his underlings failures..

If caring about the people that put food on my family's table is 'whiny' than guilty as charged. I'll be sure to be as gracious as I can the next time so as not to upset people's delicate constitutions....I guess the words of a 'loser' can really get you riled, huh? Were you RW's gardener or something? I don't get the malice, man.

Have a good night---exchanges like this are exactly why this site holds less interest to those of us who would like to learn something and not feel like someone's about to throw a brick through our window because we dare to disagree.

[evok]

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

Yea - why not.

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.

As I have pointed out in the past - you have missed the big picture and what the company has been up against for the better part of this past decade.

Finally, after waiting decades for GM to get the product right and the org structured correctly - the rug gets pulled from under them last September.

You are blind to the fact that every major auto company in the last quarter lost a substantial amount of money- real cash from their reserves, not paper write downs. With GM being in the middle of a restructuing they were just not in a position to handle it. Daimler just diluted itself 10% to raise capital because they were in worse shape financially than was reported in the press. I have a feeling when Toyota reports their full year in the next few weeks it will be ugly.

GM above all else needed revenue to move foward. That meant GM 900s until 2010. Given the lead time in this business and GM limited resources, that was a smart bet at the time.

Too bad the US government's lack of oversight destabilized commodity prices than the banking sector and having to contend with a Delphi bankruptcy and out of control health care cost.

PS - Sorry enzl - your faulty logic in assessing the situation will not be forgiven because in a prior post you said Wagoner was a scape goat.

[balthazar]

Basically it was called the Oil Crisis, might have heard of it at some point.

Yes, and that was in '72-73. hyper said GM 'hit the iceberg' in the 1960s.

[Camino LS6]

Amazing to see such clarity appear in a thread I had written-off as a lost cause a few pages back.

Nicely done.

[FloydHendershot]

Yes, and that was in '72-73. hyper said GM 'hit the iceberg' in the 1960s.

That's correct and why I followed it with the little anecdote. It became clear there were organizational problems once an outside force such as the Oil crisis presented itself. As soon as it (the crisis) got brushed away things went back to business as usual. It took a second crisis to expose many problems, institutional and otherwise that were and are in dire need of correction. Maybe with the conditions such as they are this can, will and must happen.

For many this was not well hidden and Yes, all manufacturers suffered but I believe it was disproportional.

Just my :twocents:

[hyperv6]

Yes, and that was in '72-73. hyper said GM 'hit the iceberg' in the 1960s.

If GM had prepared in the 60's for the 70's they would have been ready. The Vega was the right idea in 1970 that was so poorly exicuted it did little for GM in 1973. IF anything cars like the Vega, Pinto and Gremlin showed how bad the industry was.

These cars were designed and planed in the 60's.

IF GM had built the Vega like it did the Chevelle in 1968 imagine how well it may have been. But by 1973 the quality was gone.

[enzl]

Yea - why not.

As I have pointed out in the past - you have missed the big picture and what the company has been up against for the better part of this past decade.

Finally, after waiting decades for GM to get the product right and the org structured correctly - the rug gets pulled from under them last September.

You are blind to the fact that every major auto company in the last quarter lost a substantial amount of money- real cash from their reserves, not paper write downs. With GM being in the middle of a restructuing they were just not in a position to handle it. Daimler just diluted itself 10% to raise capital because they were in worse shape financially than was reported in the press. I have a feeling when Toyota reports their full year in the next few weeks it will be ugly.

GM above all else needed revenue to move foward. That meant GM 900s until 2010. Given the lead time in this business and GM limited resources, that was a smart bet at the time.

Too bad the US government's lack of oversight destabilized commodity prices than the banking sector and having to contend with a Delphi bankruptcy and out of control health care cost.

PS - Sorry enzl - your faulty logic in assessing the situation will not be forgiven because in a prior post you said Wagoner was a scape goat.

With all due respect (because I know you know what you're talking about in general), I think you're not understanding my point:

There's no doubt that RW isn't solely to blame AND that the economic meltdown has everything to do with GM's present circumstances---you'd have to be an idiot to contend otherwise.

Where we disagree (as far as I can tell) is that I feel that RW hasn't done a good job, and it seems that you feel he's done the best he can with the hand he was dealt regarding legacy costs and union intransigence and crappy product et al...My contention is that he must go---as a leader of a failed enterprise---regardless of whether you or I are correct.

Accountability requires he falls on the sword. I just think it's well deserved.

GM is irretrievably broken right now. We've agree on this point in the past IIRC. I simply see no evidence that RW could have broken that cycle.

[FloydHendershot]

Whiny bitch?

I think I explained myself...and your reducing this to unoriginal, crass and inaccurate name calling merely strengthens my convictions.

I've worked with GM and GMAC, extensively for almost a decade. The level of disfunction in those 2 organi*tions is astounding and must be seen firsthand to believe.

So, yes, I hold RW accountable--not solely, but I would think that's obvious....I'll remember to go slower for the short-busers next time I dare to blame the boss for his underlings failures..

If caring about the people that put food on my family's table is 'whiny' than guilty as charged. I'll be sure to be as gracious as I can the next time so as not to upset people's delicate constitutions....I guess the words of a 'loser' can really get you riled, huh? Were you RW's gardener or something? I don't get the malice, man.

Have a good night---exchanges like this are exactly why this site holds less interest to those of us who would like to learn something and not feel like someone's about to throw a brick through our window because we dare to disagree.

Sorry you feel that way but you went down faster than a calf at the rodeo and have not dealt with the issues I and others state rather go on about food on a table, employees, and assigning blame. They let him go--a new group of dedicated men and women will take their places and and hopefully continue developing a new vision of GM that remains true to their storied past and doing so in difficult times this country has not faced in years if not decades.

So you can understand the language I used and not feel so badly, properly quoted as stating "sound" like a whiny bitch, not you "are" but that is technical jargon, don't take it to heart.

[enzl]

Sorry you feel that way but you went down faster than a calf at the rodeo and have not dealt with the issues I and others state rather go on about food on a table, employees, and assigning blame. They let him go--a new group of dedicated men and women will take their places and and hopefully continue developing a new vision of GM that remains true to their storied past and doing so in difficult times this country has not faced in years if not decades.

So you can understand the language I used and not feel so badly, properly quoted as stating "sound" like a whiny bitch, not you "are" but that is technical jargon, don't take it to heart.

I simply don't understand your beef.

I think RW should go down with the proverbial ship---you apparently don't share that point of view.

I work with organizations that he headed--for years--so I'm positioned to KNOW exactly what kind of leader he was in regard to the people he led.

If you've got some greater insight that could change my point of view, great. But you haven't articulated those reasons clearly.

I feel qualified to speak about leadership because its what I do on a daily basis...but part of what keeps me in my job is the ability to listen, learn and change course, if necessary. It has also preserved most of the jobs in our organizations when others are closing or cutting drastically--including our domestic stores, all of which have remained open despite what has been an epic crisis--and I'm proud of that. I also understand that if things hadn't gone a certain way, I'd be out on the street with millions of other good employees right now. If feeling that RW should share that same fate is wrong, then so be it.

[FloydHendershot]

I simply don't understand your beef.

I think RW should go down with the proverbial ship---you apparently don't share that point of view.

I work with organizations that he headed--for years--so I'm positioned to KNOW exactly what kind of leader he was in regard to the people he led.

If you've got some greater insight that could change my point of view, great. But you haven't articulated those reasons clearly.

I feel qualified to speak about leadership because its what I do on a daily basis...but part of what keeps me in my job is the ability to listen, learn and change course, if necessary. It has also preserved most of the jobs in our organizations when others are closing or cutting drastically--including our domestic stores, all of which have remained open despite what has been an epic crisis--and I'm proud of that. I also understand that if things hadn't gone a certain way, I'd be out on the street with millions of other good employees right now. If feeling that RW should share that same fate is wrong, then so be it.

Any 'beef' I may have was the implication of false hope. Replacement of the CEO at this point is merely gestural as he was not the cause of the laundry list of complaints not only you but many attribute to him. The calling for his head is in the same field of shooting the messenger at this point and has grown somewhat stale.

I am forward looking now over the horizon. The gentleman reaplacing Wagoner has been part of the efforts thus far and also versed in tackling the matters at hand as well as anyone could hope.

Congratulations on your achievements and continued success.

[hyperv6]

With all due respect (because I know you know what you're talking about in general), I think you're not understanding my point:

There's no doubt that RW isn't solely to blame AND that the economic meltdown has everything to do with GM's present circumstances---you'd have to be an idiot to contend otherwise.

Where we disagree (as far as I can tell) is that I feel that RW hasn't done a good job, and it seems that you feel he's done the best he can with the hand he was dealt regarding legacy costs and union intransigence and crappy product et al...My contention is that he must go---as a leader of a failed enterprise---regardless of whether you or I are correct.

Accountability requires he falls on the sword. I just think it's well deserved.

GM is irretrievably broken right now. We've agree on this point in the past IIRC. I simply see no evidence that RW could have broken that cycle.

Try this.

State what Rick should have done at GM that he did not do and how he would have paid for it vs telling us what he did wrong or just that he did a bad job.

Even a list of accomplishments and failures would be from all of us.

But the key part on what he should have done is you must be able to back up why and the important key is what he had to do to make it happen and how GM would pay for your plan.

PS hind sight is twenty twenty so keep this in minds when you make case. Keep it from a persepective as if Rick was moving forward with out the benifit of know what was lying ahead.

This will give us a better look at what your trying to say.

[Croc]

Here's something Rick should have done: knock out the corporate ADD and pick a decision instead of wavering so much. This isn't to say be too stubborn to adapt, but GM wavered, "studying" situations for so long regarding RWD, product replacement, etc. Make up your mind about Saturn and give them good product, not an infusion of hampered, half-assed product with one solid gem. Same with Pontiac. Make strategic decisions and stick to them, but feel free to make minor course corrections as needed; a solid strategy doesn't need constant re-evaluation with every pothole in the road. But RW's strategy involved a lot of gambling, putting all the eggs in one basket hoping for a big enough payoff that GM wouldn't have to worry about REAL change. Look at the emphasis on SUVs instead of a broad range of product, look at betting the farm on the Volt at the expense of a decent stable of hybrid vehicles, look at the reliance on the gasoline engine instead of utilizing diesels. The list goes on and on...

[evok]

I simply see no evidence that RW could have broken that cycle.

There are few people other than Rick Wagoner who could have taken GM as far as he did.

However Henderson with government support will be able to make the structural changes Wagoner could never have dreamed of because of contractual liabilities.

As for those crying about an expansive line up zeta cars - well Chrysler LX cars were fleet queens and GM would never have gotten the volume they need. Second, in light of CAFE and the recession where would zeta be?

Just use the G8 as your guide. Don't let the current numbers fool you there are huge discounts on the vehile. Mathballing zeta was smart business.

[enzl]

Try this.

State what Rick should have done at GM that he did not do and how he would have paid for it vs telling us what he did wrong or just that he did a bad job.

Even a list of accomplishments and failures would be from all of us.

But the key part on what he should have done is you must be able to back up why and the important key is what he had to do to make it happen and how GM would pay for your plan.

PS hind sight is twenty twenty so keep this in minds when you make case. Keep it from a persepective as if Rick was moving forward with out the benifit of know what was lying ahead.

This will give us a better look at what your trying to say.

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?

I just wrote the above 2 pages ago in this thread...so, I think it evidences a small bit of thought on the topic...if you'd like, I'll give you some more examples of what should have been done:

--Profound cultural change---can't fire the Union? Fire the mid-level lifers and useless e-suite leaches...actively pursue management level people at successful companies like BMW or Toyota or, god forbid, Google or Apple (just think outside the box) Net cost to GM = Zero or savings if you trim enough fat in the middle.

---Globalization of all vehicle architectures---A, B, C & D segment vehicles span the globe---there wasn't one architecture that could have become dominant in each class? Having Daewoo, Opel & Toyota all have a hand in your global C simply makes no sense. Why wasn't Zeta/Sigma coordinated? Why couldn't Lambdas also spawn new, large FWD Buick sedans? Or vice-versa? I know, it was happening--but at a terrible pace. Look at Ford---Mullaly will be on the job less than 4 years when the Fiesta is here and the Focus is introed...we're still waiting on the Camaro! Net cost should be less--less for parts, less for engineering, less development time.

--Open the books to labor earlier. The Union hired experts to pour over the books before the landmark change agreed to in 07. Why did that take so long?

--Accountants should know accounting. Why was GMAC allowed to expose itself so badly?

These are just spitballs.

Other, lesser examples....Why was Kroymans distributing 'international' product in Europe while perfectly good Opel, Vauxhall & Saab dealers could have easily handled the small volume? Why wasn't Suzuki's success in India piggybacked while partially owned by GM? Why invest in a loser like Saab, continually? Why wasn't Jerry York listened to? Why the SEC problems in a company run by CPA's? Where was the marketing team for just about any initiative attempted? How could GM green light production knowing capacity would be underutilized by design (Kappas, Zeta)?

These and many other questions keep me up at night...

[FloydHendershot]

You just regurgitate the same nonsense over and over. Even after it was rebutted you spin around like the broken record.

You clamor about being a leader and qualifications able to listen (yawn) but fail to prove. Repetition of the same flawed analysis won't be correct the third time when it was not correct the first go around. And again you look towards Ford like the shining beacon in the night. Be prepared my friend, the light will soon be shed upon them as well and you will see they aren't in a position to be envied.

Simply put You do not get it and am quite frankly tired of your injured party routine. How's this? You are correct.

I and others were foolish to disagree with your sadly distorted image of whats happened in the past 30 years and what was able to be accomplished in a reasonable manner notwithstanding super CEO with magical powers.

Heres to GMs future success.

And just so you know, you frequently misuse et al. It does not make you appear any smarter to those that know its proper use in rhetoric.

Good day, Sir.

Edited April 3, 2009 by FloydHendershot

[Intrepidation]

Now now, keep the personal attacks and insults out of the discussion guys.

[Blake Noble]

This thread has become a logical, verbal, and idiotic cesspool.

Rick didn't do all he could have done to save GM. I'll admit that he had a hard-headed bunch of jackasses to go up against to bring about change (with those hard-headed jackasses being the GM Board of Directors), but the fact still remains that he didn't quite cut away all of the gristle and leave the meat. He was THE man in charge, the big cheese, the head honcho. If he was set in what he wanted and wasn't afraid to fire a few buddies on The Board, there would be very little to stop him in getting what he wanted done, done.

That's the fact, get used to it.

And I don't have much faith in Henderson. In fact, I don't have any faith in him period. Someone who isn't a lifer needs to sit back in the CEO chair at GM for a while. There's a reason why so many GM faithful and ex-GM faithful are calling for someone like Alan Muallay to take the reigns: you don't see Ford dropping their drawers and bending over for the government to rape them do you? Muallay is seriously trying and getting a lot accomplished. The product that FoMoCo builds is rapidly becoming less and less of a factor as to why they are in the financial shape they are in. Ford holds the most promise and most likely Ford will be around into the next decade.

I'm personally waiting on GM's curtain call at this point. And it really doesn't pain me anymore to say that. If so much money wasn't wasted while Roger Smith was CEO, if 3/4 of what GM built in the 1990s wasn't, for the majority, junk, if someone with real balls, leadership skills, a passion for cars (or at least the product being built), and some accounting know-how was working GM right now ... it would be such a different story.

Farewell GM. Too bad that America is no longer willing to serve you as well as you served it. Too bad that there wasn't anyone that knew $h! about anything to take the driver's seat when you were going through the nine circles of Hell the first time around.

Edited April 3, 2009 by YellowJacket894

[enzl]

You just regurgitate the same nonsense over and over. Even after it was rebutted you spin around like the broken record.

You clamor about being a leader and qualifications able to listen (yawn) but fail to prove. Repetition of the same flawed analysis won't be correct the third time when it was not correct the first go around. And again you look towards Ford like the shining beacon in the night. Be prepared my friend, the light will soon be shed upon them as well and you will see they aren't in a position to be envied.

Simply put You do not get it and am quite frankly tired of your injured party routine. How's this? You are correct.

I and others were foolish to disagree with your sadly distorted image of whats happened in the past 30 years and what was able to be accomplished in a reasonable manner notwithstanding super CEO with magical powers.

Heres to GMs future success.

And just so you know, you frequently misuse et al. It does not make you appear any smarter to those that know its proper use in rhetoric.

Good day, Sir.

Hey...you can go f yourself for all I care...I wasn't answering your questions, I was responding to another (much more polite) post.

I'm not looking for your approval or respect. You clearly have an issue with me or my views, but guess what? I could care less. I get the feeling you're simply jealous of what I might have or who I might be--I was once mopping floors too, buddy. It'll work out.

How are you so 'right' and I'm so wrong? GM is f*ed beyond belief and the guy in the driver's seat for the last 8 years is shouldn't be fired? There are many articles from reputable media (including this link just today in Fortune (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/20/8369111/index.htm) that indicates that some journalist reached the conclusion that GM would end up in bankruptcy in 06....did she have a crystal ball or simply common sense? Was Fortune magazine verbotten at the tubes? Please.

You're the one adding nothing but insults to this discussion. Perhaps you should reassess before casting stones in your glass house, brother?

*Please be sure not to respond or comment on my posts anymore. I'm simply going to ignore you.

[enzl]

This thread has become a logical, verbal, and idiotic cesspool.

Rick didn't do all he could have done to save GM. I'll admit that he had a hard-headed bunch of jackasses to go up against to bring about change (with those hard-headed jackasses being the GM Board of Directors), but the fact still remains that he didn't quite cut away all of the gristle and leave the meat. He was THE man in charge, the big cheese, the head honcho. If he was set in what he wanted and wasn't afraid to fire a few buddies on The Board, there would be very little to stop him in getting what he wanted done, done.

That's the fact, get used to it.

And I don't have much faith in Henderson. In fact, I don't have any faith in him period. Someone who isn't a lifer needs to sit back in the CEO chair at GM for a while. There's a reason why so many GM faithful and ex-GM faithful are calling for someone like Alan Muallay to take the reigns: you don't see Ford dropping their drawers and bending over for the government to rape them do you? Muallay is seriously trying and getting a lot accomplished. The product that FoMoCo builds is rapidly becoming less and less of a factor as to why they are in the financial shape they are in. Ford holds the most promise and most likely Ford will be around into the next decade.

I'm personally waiting on GM's curtain call at this point. And it really doesn't pain me anymore to say that. If so much money wasn't wasted while Roger Smith was CEO, if 3/4 of what GM built in the 1990s wasn't, for the majority, junk, if someone with real balls, leadership skills, a passion for cars (or at least the product being built), and some accounting know-how was working GM right now ... it would be such a different story.

Farewell GM. Too bad that America is no longer willing to serve you as well as you served it. Too bad that there wasn't anyone that knew $h! about anything to take the driver's seat when you were going through the nine circles of Hell the first time around.

I apologize for my part in dragging this thread in the gutter. I fear (for GM's sake) that your post is pretty spot on.

[hyperv6]

You just regurgitate the same nonsense over and over. Even after it was rebutted you spin around like the broken record.

You clamor about being a leader and qualifications able to listen (yawn) but fail to prove. Repetition of the same flawed analysis won't be correct the third time when it was not correct the first go around. And again you look towards Ford like the shining beacon in the night. Be prepared my friend, the light will soon be shed upon them as well and you will see they aren't in a position to be envied.

Simply put You do not get it and am quite frankly tired of your injured party routine. How's this? You are correct.

I and others were foolish to disagree with your sadly distorted image of whats happened in the past 30 years and what was able to be accomplished in a reasonable manner notwithstanding super CEO with magical powers.

Heres to GMs future success.

And just so you know, you frequently misuse et al. It does not make you appear any smarter to those that know its proper use in rhetoric.

Good day, Sir.

Ok he has laid out his reasons all in one spot. Please address each point on where this is either right or wrong in one spot. At that point it is time to agree to disagree.

Don't just make fun of his Ideas, give us your reasons why he is wrong. A nonsense reply like this will make you wrong even if your answers are correct. He showed us his ideas so address these in a proper way and you will make a valid point most of us will agree with.

I don't agree on his answers to this but I do agree with how he laid out his reply.

He gave 6 points that are easy to address, Reply to these clearly and politely and you may not change his mind but teach others what really happened.

[FloydHendershot]

Ok he has laid out his reasons all in one spot. Please address each point on where this is either right or wrong in one spot. At that point it is time to agree to disagree.

Don't just make fun of his Ideas, give us your reasons why he is wrong. A nonsense reply like this will make you wrong even if your answers are correct. He showed us his ideas so address these in a proper way and you will make a valid point most of us will agree with.

I don't agree on his answers to this but I do agree with how he laid out his reply.

He gave 6 points that are easy to address, Reply to these clearly and politely and you may not change his mind but teach others what really happened.

I appreciate what you are trying to do, and is commendable. There is a page select to anyone who cares to wade through the muck and see how Enzl is misinformed.

The response I received was nothing short of babble indicating I was wrong and he knows better by making himself sound accomplisged and in a position of authority which I seriously question him getting there on his own merits if this thread alone speaks of his self proclaimed ability.

Something else comes to mind.

This was front page stuff and inevitably they will come out the cracks. Frankly am bored with it and come Monday I will be back on the road and this will be

a distant memory.

[FloydHendershot]

Hey...you can go f yourself for all I care...I wasn't answering your questions, I was responding to another (much more polite) post.

I'm not looking for your approval or respect. You clearly have an issue with me or my views, but guess what? I could care less. I get the feeling you're simply jealous of what I might have or who I might be--I was once mopping floors too, buddy. It'll work out.

How are you so 'right' and I'm so wrong? GM is f*ed beyond belief and the guy in the driver's seat for the last 8 years is shouldn't be fired? There are many articles from reputable media (including this link just today in Fortune (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/20/8369111/index.htm) that indicates that some journalist reached the conclusion that GM would end up in bankruptcy in 06....did she have a crystal ball or simply common sense? Was Fortune magazine verbotten at the tubes? Please.

You're the one adding nothing but insults to this discussion. Perhaps you should reassess before casting stones in your glass house, brother?

*Please be sure not to respond or comment on my posts anymore. I'm simply going to ignore you.

[enzl]

Ok he has laid out his reasons all in one spot. Please address each point on where this is either right or wrong in one spot. At that point it is time to agree to disagree.

Don't just make fun of his Ideas, give us your reasons why he is wrong. A nonsense reply like this will make you wrong even if your answers are correct. He showed us his ideas so address these in a proper way and you will make a valid point most of us will agree with.

I don't agree on his answers to this but I do agree with how he laid out his reply.

He gave 6 points that are easy to address, Reply to these clearly and politely and you may not change his mind but teach others what really happened.

Bold prediction: You'll never get an answer out of him.

I'd actually be interested in hearing your point of view---I fully realize that I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but there's a nagging feeling about GM (in my experience) that noone outside of the building & culture could ever get an idea to blossom

[Intrepidation]

One thing that no one can deny is that if you look at Ford VS GM, Ford has managed to get a hell of a lot more done in the four years Mullally's been in than GM (or Chrysler).

• Ford has a plan
• Mullally has shown leadership and the ability to make decisive action
• Commitment to utilizing Ford Europe's resources and creating truly excellent, global products
• Taking the existing product, and working with what they've got to make them excellent (Mustang, Fusion)
• Setting themselves up so they don't need to be begging for government aid

I could elaborate more but you get the general idea. While I certainly don't blame Rick for all of the companies problem,s you just have to look at Ford to see how much they've changed and improved since Mullally took them hell to see that much more could have been done at GM.

--

Second warning though, keep it civil guys. Heated discussion is fine, but not personal attacks.

[evok]

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?)

http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/news/govt/docs/plan.pdf

Page 24 - GM is on pace to take $10 billion of structural cost out of the company by the end of the year. That is data I had at my finger tips.

Give me a break. Unlike you I took the time to show data. With a little digging I am sure I can fine how much cost was removed since 2000 and I am sure it is a big number.

A big chunk of GM's long term debt right now was assumed because the accountants did the math and saw GM's pension plan was unfunded - well unfunded. At least right now it is about 90% funded - down about 20% since Sept.. Not bad given the market and the added liability GM took on by assuming more Delphi workers.

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?

It is a small percent and a fraction of GMs problems - systemically and financially. It is doubfull history books will show GM failed because they kept SAAB, HUMMER and Saturn too long. Case in point, if GM sold all of them when York requested it, GM might have recieved $1.5 billion. Maybe, as I think that is optimistic. Last I looked GM was looking for an additional $20 billion from the government.

Things need to be put into perspective.

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!)

Again you make little sense in light of the facts.

GMT900 pull-ahead - revenue, revenue, revenue

Soltice/Sky debacle - this one beats me. It was a management exercise for Lutz to get product design moving. Both did fairly well in the market with limited incentives that I saw. All but tripled the entry level 2 seat market.

GTO joke - Kept Holden busy. GM is global you know. Again this was an exercise in leveraging GM's global resources. 10,000 sales a year is not bad considering little was invested. Better to have a product than none at all. As I said in an earlier post the LX cars are a joke with sales inflated almost 50% by fleet sales not to mention steep discounts.

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.

Jack Smith?? Fiat is misunderstood. You need to dig into that one a bit.

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....

GM was the first to step in with a Chinese partner and build modern vehicles with a serious plan for growth. Everyone else followed GM. Plus that was Jack Smith and a mid 1990s decision.

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?

Much of that was write downs. In 1991 or 1992 GM wrote down on the order of $20 billion during a restructuring.

When you close plants you have to take the write down.

BTW actually record sales were in 2000-2001.

Wow - I think I wrote these same points to you before probably word for word.

enzl - Do some research. Thinking for yourself as you claim you do requires information, knowledge and understanding.

Edited April 3, 2009 by evok

[evok]

One thing that no one can deny is that if you look at Ford VS GM, Ford has managed to get a hell of a lot more done in the four years Mullally's been in than GM (or Chrysler).

• Ford has a plan
• Mullally has shown leadership and the ability to make decisive action
• Commitment to utilizing Ford Europe's resources and creating truly excellent, global products
• Taking the existing product, and working with what they've got to make them excellent (Mustang, Fusion)
• Setting themselves up so they don't need to be begging for government aid

I could elaborate more but you get the general idea. While I certainly don't blame Rick for all of the companies problem,s you just have to look at Ford to see how much they've changed and improved since Mullally took them hell to see that much more could have been done at GM.

--

Second warning though, keep it civil guys. Heated discussion is fine, but not personal attacks.

As I have also said in the past - Mullally is a great guy and has done great things for the company compared to Bill Ford, however, Ford just like GM is on the cusp of ruin if the economy does not pick up.

They are in the same boat - all of them.

[Intrepidation]

As I have also said in the past - Mullally is a great guy and has done great things for the company compared to Bill Ford, however, Ford just like GM is on the cusp of ruin if the economy does not pick up.

They are in the same boat - all of them.

That is indeed true. If the economy doesn't pick up all 3 face oblivion and the fallout from such an event would be catastrophic.

[Camino LS6]

[*]Taking the existing product, and working with what they've got to make them excellent (Mustang, Fusion)

Right now, I see this as a key issue.

[enzl]

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?)

http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/news/govt/docs/plan.pdf

Page 24 - GM is on pace to take $10 billion of structural cost out of the company by the end of the year. That is data I had at my finger tips.

Give me a break. Unlike you I took the time to show data. With a little digging I am sure I can fine how much cost was removed since 2000 and I am sure it is a big number.

A big chunk of GM's long term debt right now was assumed because the accountants did the math and saw GM's pension plan was unfunded - well unfunded. At least right now it is about 90% funded - down about 20% since Sept.. Not bad given the market and the added liability GM took on by assuming more Delphi workers.

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?

It is a small percent and a fraction of GMs problems - systemically and financially. It is doubfull history books will show GM failed because they kept SAAB, HUMMER and Saturn too long. Case in point, if GM sold all of them when York requested it, GM might have recieved $1.5 billion. Maybe, as I think that is optimistic. Last I looked GM was looking for an additional $20 billion from the government.

Things need to be put into perspective.

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!)

Again you make little sense in light of the facts.

GMT900 pull-ahead - revenue, revenue, revenue

Soltice/Sky debacle - this one beats me. It was a management exercise for Lutz to get product design moving. Both did fairly well in the market with limited incentives that I saw. All but tripled the entry level 2 seat market.

GTO joke - Kept Holden busy. GM is global you know. Again this was an exercise in leveraging GM's global resources. 10,000 sales a year is not bad considering little was invested. Better to have a product than none at all. As I said in an earlier post the LX cars are a joke with sales inflated almost 50% by fleet sales not to mention steep discounts.

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.

Jack Smith?? Fiat is misunderstood. You need to dig into that one a bit.

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....

GM was the first to step in with a Chinese partner and build modern vehicles with a serious plan for growth. Everyone else followed GM. Plus that was Jack Smith and a mid 1990s decision.

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?

Much of that was write downs. In 1991 or 1992 GM wrote down on the order of $20 billion during a restructuring.

When you close plants you have to take the write down.

BTW actually record sales were in 2000-2001.

Wow - I think I wrote these same points to you before probably word for word.

enzl - Do some research. Thinking for yourself as you claim you do requires information, knowledge and understanding.

Most of that is YOUR interpretation of some cherry-picked facts....

How is it that Ford has been able to do what it has done, under the same conditions?

What were the structural costs to begin with? $10 Billion when your costs are $150 billion is not an achievement of note when you've got such a sprawling org with the waste I 've seen 1st hand.

Write-downs are still losses--and an admission that you do not foresee taxable profits. Better question to ask is whether, in historically high sales in the marketplace, you are operationally profitable? GM has struggled to do so. Now, I don't have the time to breakdown all the numbers, but I can remember most business news about GM centered around the operational issues, not the one-time write-offs.

If 10k sales/yr. are OK for the GTO, wouldn't 150k zetas make sense?(LX's were selling almost 300k/year at the peak of demand, using your 50% fleet figure, which I don't doubt.) The other Zetas are currently being sold all over the planet in different forms...could GM have built those here and shipped them overseas, taking advantage of the weak dollar for the past few years? Between Commodores/Caprices/GTO/g8/Camaro/ST, couldn't they have filled a North American plant?

Fiat might be a net-net break-even due to tech exchanges etc...but that still doesn't explain Saab's black hole or Subaru's waste of time (and $ loss). And, you simply can't account for the corporate ADD that these deals evidence....what could have been done with the time and effort misspent on these efforts? What is the opportunity cost?

New car sales have been record numbers (top 5 historically, IIRC) for 5 of the last 7 full years, no? Where's GM's profit in that time? Shouldn't a company that has the capacity GM does benefit from that growth in the market?

Chrysler was in China well before GM, building Jeeps in Beijing. VW shipped its old Passat assembly lines to China years before as well. What kind of genius does it take to figure out that China might be important? And, as you state, RW shouldn't get the credit anyway.

I tell you what Evok, maybe I'll hire you to do my research for me. Got my hands full right now in the real world.

Sorry for the mis-information. Didn't realize we'd be graded here.

[FloydHendershot]

GM was the first to step in with a Chinese partner and build modern vehicles with a serious plan for growth. Everyone else followed GM. Plus that was Jack Smith and a mid 1990s decision.

There certainly wasn't a plethora of stellar products for GM in the 90's that aided their cause but when you look at what Jack Smith started especially considering what he walked into I think he is somewhat misunderstood.

In many ways he was the first to try and break the archaic structure with decent results. Wagoner continued to build on much of what he started and would be as bold to say had Wagoner stepped down 1 year ago his restructuring efforts would be viewed much more positively. Or if he had made it to 2010 or 2011 he would begin to see that windfall. In all I will say Henderson is primed to be in a good spot.

Here is a quote from a 1998 article

The UAW staged a 54-day strike that closed down the automaker, cost $2.5 billion and caused market share to plummet to 21%. A $9 billion stock buyback didn't boost margins nearly enough. Reports showed that GM lost $104 pre-tax per vehicle in North America in 1997 while Ford made $1,520 and Chrysler, $1,366. And, worst of all, GM's vehicles still don't seem to stir passion in many buyers.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m301...ag=content;col1

[FloydHendershot]

Most of that is YOUR interpretation of some cherry-picked facts....

Well see now, those cherry picked facts were picked by you as the foundation for your argument. I would call it a debate but the best response is that is your interpretation [and it is wrong, i.e. I, (meaning you) am still right)] or followed by with questions that are not rhetorical because you do NOT have the answers.

couldn't they have filled a North American plant?

what could have been done with the time and effort misspent on these efforts? What is the opportunity cost?

Where's GM's profit in that time? Shouldn't a company that has the capacity GM does benefit from that growth in the market?

You miss the bigger picture of how this company is organized and the inherent limitations sans magic wand would be able to fix.

Any furtherance of a debate with someone with this particular intellect is a head-banging exercise in futility.

Some people are just think-headed. :AH-HA_wink:

Edited April 3, 2009 by FloydHendershot

[Intrepidation]

Some people also have a holier than thou attitude.

[evok]

Most of that is YOUR interpretation of some cherry-picked facts....

Now you are just being absurd and irrational.

$10 billion dollars is a lot of money when the average margin in this business for ALL OEMs is 3-5%. Of course I exclude Porsche which is more of a hedge fund these days.

I supplied the data in the link with all the plant and head count reductions etc that addressed your unsupported comment. In addition I will add the 2005 and 2007 health care deals with the UAW. One realized and the other not. The latter likely renegotiated to further reduce structural cost.

How is it that Ford has been able to do what it has done, under the same conditions?

What has Ford done? Last I looked they lost $14 billion last year and I think about $10 billion the year before. That is AIG type of money.

Let me put it simply, if Ford takes one dime from Uncle Same, they break covenants with their lenders. If that happens, the $30+ billion (same as GM) debt they are sitting on goes up in smoke and the banks own the company instead of the Ford family. Just like GM, Ford also plans to dip into the cheap ESA funds once that becomes available.

I also wonder how much Volvo is worth right now to anyone. Not a lot of takers and I highly doubt the Chinese will pay a premium for it. Whoever buys it is looking over at the Tata deal for Jag and LR and will think twice.

Volvo has lost plenty of money in the past 2 years.

In any case Mullaly is following Wagoner's play book but tailoring it for Ford as far as their restructuring goes.

Write-downs are still losses--and an admission that you do not foresee taxable profits. Better question to ask is whether, in historically high sales in the marketplace, you are operationally profitable? GM has struggled to do so. Now, I don't have the time to breakdown all the numbers, but I can remember most business news about GM centered around the operational issues, not the one-time write-offs.

Unless you are a bank, write-downs are a non-issue and are a natural part of an infrustructure related industry especially during a restructuring.

To your other point, high sales, low margin industry. GM made money on trucks and lost it on cars because well we know the answer on that one. However, the profits and transaction price on the new cars/crossovers has improved a lot in the past couple years. The company could not redesign everything at once.

If 10k sales/yr. are OK for the GTO, wouldn't 150k zetas make sense?(LX's were selling almost 300k/year at the peak of demand, using your 50% fleet figure, which I don't doubt.) The other Zetas are currently being sold all over the planet in different forms...could GM have built those here and shipped them overseas, taking advantage of the weak dollar for the past few years? Between Commodores/Caprices/GTO/g8/Camaro/ST, couldn't they have filled a North American plant?

Let us do the math. If the original plan went forward the cars would be out one full year prior to the current crisis. They are in the same boat and sitting on some very nice cars that no one wants. The G8 is not knocking the world dead with all of the incentives on it. Camaro? In today's climate it will never touch the 100k per year pace that was originally anticipated. Once the novelty wears off, 1/2 that would be optimistic. I hope I am wrong because it is a first class effort as have been all their recent launches.

There is that other thing to consider and that is CAFE. The writing has been on the wall since Katrina. You ever factor that into the equation?

Plus, where GM would have had to price those vehicles, the market would be limited and stepping on Cadillac. Assuming if Chrysler makes it to 2011, which I doubt, the next generation LX cars to meet CAFE will sell a fraction of what they did.

Fiat might be a net-net break-even due to tech exchanges etc...but that still doesn't explain Saab's black hole or Subaru's waste of time (and $ loss). And, you simply can't account for the corporate ADD that these deals evidence....what could have been done with the time and effort misspent on these efforts? What is the opportunity cost?

Out of context as you do not factor in the 2005 meltdown. GM had to sell to pay the UAW and the deal could not be realized fully. GM had big plans especially for SAAB, too bad Lehman happened.

But I do agree with Subaru. They could never get things to click with lambda as Subaru wanted to continue with the boxter motor. But GM sold their shares to Toyota and walked away. In any case these are minor distractions.

However you conveniently forget about the Daewoo deal and Chevy Europe and the huge expansion into Eastern Europe including Russia (which they may regret now).

New car sales have been record numbers (top 5 historically, IIRC) for 5 of the last 7 full years, no? Where's GM's profit in that time? Shouldn't a company that has the capacity GM does benefit from that growth in the market?

Yes and they did OK up until 2005 when the decision was made to bite the bullet and really fix the company. Plus the company came off bad launches from the last round of Zarrella cars. Malibu, Lacrosse, STS, G6 were not exactly homeruns in the market and added to their problems fast. I think we can agree that the above were not the company's best efforts.

And I can not leave out the Delphi bankruptcy. That was not exactly good for the company.

Chrysler was in China well before GM, building Jeeps in Beijing. VW shipped its old Passat assembly lines to China years before as well. What kind of genius does it take to figure out that China might be important? And, as you state, RW shouldn't get the credit anyway.

He should get the credit for building on the earlier success and the integration of GM-DAT.

I tell you what Evok, maybe I'll hire you to do my research for me. Got my hands full right now in the real world.

Sorry for the mis-information. Didn't realize we'd be graded here.

Then why argue with me when I point out your mis-information or skewed understanding of the situation. Remember knowing this business is my real-world.

OT - It pains me to see what has happened to this company in the past year because the future product is incredible. I have waited 30 years for GM to get the product and company right and just when they did it all falls apart.

Edited April 3, 2009 by evok

[Camino LS6]

OT - It pains me to see what has happened to this company in the past year because the future product is incredible. I have waited 30 years for GM to get the product and company right and just when they did it all falls apart.[/b]

Of all of the missed opportunities, this may be the sadest.

[enzl]

Now you are just being absurd and irrational.

$10 billion dollars is a lot of money when the average margin in this business for ALL OEMs is 3-5%. Of course I exclude Porsche which is more of a hedge fund these days.

I supplied the data in the link with all the plant and head count reductions etc that addressed your unsupported comment. In addition I will add the 2005 and 2007 health care deals with the UAW. One realized and the other not. The latter likely renegotiated to further reduce structural cost.

What has Ford done? Last I looked they lost $14 billion last year and I think about $10 billion the year before. That is AIG type of money.

Let me put it simply, if Ford takes one dime from Uncle Same, they break covenants with their lenders. If that happens, the $30+ billion (same as GM) debt they are sitting on goes up in smoke and the banks own the company instead of the Ford family. Just like GM, Ford also plans to dip into the cheap ESA funds once that becomes available.

I also wonder how much Volvo is worth right now to anyone. Not a lot of takers and I highly doubt the Chinese will pay a premium for it. Whoever buys it is looking over at the Tata deal for Jag and LR and will think twice.

Volvo has lost plenty of money in the past 2 years.

In any case Mullaly is following Wagoner's play book but tailoring it for Ford as far as their restructuring goes.

Unless you are a bank, write-downs are a non-issue and are a natural part of an infrustructure related industry especially during a restructuring.

To your other point, high sales, low margin industry. GM made money on trucks and lost it on cars because well we know the answer on that one. However, the profits and transaction price on the new cars/crossovers has improved a lot in the past couple years. The company could not redesign everything at once.

Let us do the math. If the original plan went forward the cars would be out one full year prior to the current crisis. They are in the same boat and sitting on some very nice cars that no one wants. The G8 is not knocking the world dead with all of the incentives on it. Camaro? In today's climate it will never touch the 100k per year pace that was originally anticipated. Once the novelty wears off, 1/2 that would be optimistic. I hope I am wrong because it is a first class effort as have been all their recent launches.

There is that other thing to consider and that is CAFE. The writing has been on the wall since Katrina. You ever factor that into the equation?

Plus, where GM would have had to price those vehicles, the market would be limited and stepping on Cadillac. Assuming if Chrysler makes it to 2011, which I doubt, the next generation LX cars to meet CAFE will sell a fraction of what they did.

Out of context as you do not factor in the 2005 meltdown. GM had to sell to pay the UAW and the deal could not be realized fully. GM had big plans especially for SAAB, too bad Lehman happened.

But I do agree with Subaru. They could never get things to click with lambda as Subaru wanted to continue with the boxter motor. But GM sold their shares to Toyota and walked away. In any case these are minor distractions.

However you conveniently forget about the Daewoo deal and Chevy Europe and the huge expansion into Eastern Europe including Russia (which they may regret now).

Yes and they did OK up until 2005 when the decision was made to bite the bullet and really fix the company. Plus the company came off bad launches from the last round of Zarrella cars. Malibu, Lacrosse, STS, G6 were not exactly homeruns in the market and added to their problems fast. I think we can agree that the above were not the company's best efforts.

And I can not leave out the Delphi bankruptcy. That was not exactly good for the company.

He should get the credit for building on the earlier success and the integration of GM-DAT.

Then why argue with me when I point out your mis-information or skewed understanding of the situation. Remember knowing this business is my real-world.

OT - It pains me to see what has happened to this company in the past year because the future product is incredible. I have waited 30 years for GM to get the product and company right and just when they did it all falls apart.

Here's the deal:

Even if your interpretation of events is 100% correct, responsibility for the past mistakes have to be shared by RW, if only because he's been an e-level guy between CFO & CEO responsibilities for years (15 or more, right?)

I was defending the idea that he should step down. I don't believe that having Fritz run the show is any loss for GM in terms of continuity---and the lack of accountability--be it the banking fiasco or GM--is disgusting and this country is worse off because of it.

That being said, just because the bankers didn't get the boot doesn't mean RW should have kept his job. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Camino LS6]

Here's the deal:

Even if your interpretation of events is 100% correct, responsibility for the past mistakes have to be shared by RW, if only because he's been an e-level guy between CFO & CEO responsibilities for years (15 or more, right?)

I was defending the idea that he should step down. I don't believe that having Fritz run the show is any loss for GM in terms of continuity---and the lack of accountability--be it the banking fiasco or GM--is disgusting and this country is worse off because of it.

That being said, just because the bankers didn't get the boot doesn't mean RW should have kept his job. Two wrongs don't make a right.

So what you are saying here is that firing RW accomplishes nothing except for punishment?

Hardly a basis for moving GM forward, I would think.

Still, the Mob called for blood - so Obama gave it to them.

Political positioning drove this, IMO.

[evok]

Of all of the missed opportunities, this may be the sadest.

Kills me - it really does.

[Oracle of Delphi]

So what you are saying here is that firing RW accomplishes nothing except for punishment?

Hardly a basis for moving GM forward, I would think.

Still, the Mob called for blood - so Obama gave it to them.

Political positioning drove this, IMO.

Political positioning & public perceptions ...

[hyperv6]

Bold prediction: You'll never get an answer out of him.

I'd actually be interested in hearing your point of view---I fully realize that I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but there's a nagging feeling about GM (in my experience) that noone outside of the building & culture could ever get an idea to blossom

Well I was going to state my case here but Evok has cover everything I had to add and then some. In fact he hit it out of the park.

Some of the keys here are it takes money to make a company smaller and more efficent. It cost money to buy out employees and dealers. It cost a lot of money to shutter plants.

Also the other issue is even a prepackaged Chapter 11 is not something 100% sure. Even if GM makes the deals on that there are no signed agreements and mostly it is a hand shake deal. If the economy worsens they can pull out on GM and stop the whole deal. This was pointed out in the WSJ on Wed.

GM's greatest hope now is the economy stops dropping. If it can level off and let the markets climb it will help them a lot. Then if the car market has a good second half it will help. Right now GM is getting killed and the other car companies could Join GM in trouble if they have to keep burning through cash reserves.

A flawed system that fought change all the way to the top, some bad decision over the years, Poor product in the past and a lot of bad luck in timing but then often you make your own luck.

This day was comning and no one could not have stopped the perfect storm here . Rick had the ship turned into the wind so it could ride out the waves but then a large wave of the economy came over the bow.

Rick had not onl a ever changing deal with economy but changing goverment regs that hampered him even more.

Even now with the bail out going on the goverment is looking to increase the eviro regs that could add another 14 billion each to automakers cost.

I know GM put themselves in trouble but at time it is almost someone some where is out to make sure they do not get as second chance to recover. Too often when something start to go right they get stopped again and again. No one could have that much bad luck.

[enzl]

So what you are saying here is that firing RW accomplishes nothing except for punishment?

Hardly a basis for moving GM forward, I would think.

Still, the Mob called for blood - so Obama gave it to them.

Political positioning drove this, IMO.

I don't ignore the political angle---how else do you sell proceeding with Auto Bailouts when public opinion FOR it is like 20%?

But that doesn't change the point that RW should have been fired. (As well as the Banking CEOs, as well as the AIG clowns & the crooked mortgage swindlers etc., etc. etc.)

Just like in sports when the manager is fired mid-season...it should be a kick in the ass to those who require it. (BTW, GM's Board & e-suite folks need one)