evok

Your facts are old. For the year end results for the 2005 MY Ford (traditional US) and Toyotas corporate (all brands) sales weighted average are as follow: 2005CY sales including 2006 MY vehicles. Ford drops to 82% (Ford's number is your post conveniently leave out PAG) Toyota Rises to 50% GM is about 80% for reference. Fords number will drop further (below 80) as the sales for the Fusion and the cousin increase and the Taurus is phase out. That number also excludes Ford's foreign brands (Volvo, Land Rover, Jaguar) which would drop Fords number for the 2005 CY close to 73%. You argument looses its merit because this discussion is about transplants and those vehicle produced by transplants in the US have a higher US/Canada content. Toyota's corporate number will increase with their new US operations. So your argument is again pointless because the traditional US brands are reducing their US content while the Asia's are increasing theirs as their operation shift to NA production. Toyota's transplant operation uses app. 70% NA sourced content as a sale weighted average. So get your facts straight as it pertains to this Kia discussion.

I suspect that Kellers comments to the dealer group with regard to BUick and Pontiac are as follows: If GM does not act promptly in rectifing the current financial and market share situation at their NA operations, drastic measures might be called for, including the contraction of Pontiac and Buick over the next five years. But that is how I read Keller and can not be verified from the actual quotes from the article.

Go back and read my actual post. No where is Keller quoted and I point that out, as explicitly stating to axe Buick or Pontiac.

Kelle'rs actual quotes from the article are dead nutz on. She has been saying the same thing about GM for 20 years now. This is not a new spin on things. Anyone go and read her books or article in AI. She is not a typical analyst who gets quoted in the press that does not know what they are talking about. She is not a reporter but spent year on the street with Furman Seltz. She is one that actually does her due dilegence and homework. If there is any frustration in her actual presentation which we are not privy too, it is because it might get old repeating yourself for 20 + years when the subject is GM and things appear to not be getting any better.

Agreed - I expect 06 and part of 07 to continue looking ugly but my date on Wagoners head is Jan. 08 if it is not turned around by then.

GM is in a perpetual death spiral that Keller points out. This has been going on at GM since the first real market share implosion in 1985. 1) Less and less money available to invest in emerging markets and for product in the US. 1a) Sacrifice on advaced powertrains. 1b) Less model variants. 2) The new product that arrives are not homeruns or even winners for the most part and are receiving a luke warm reception. 2a) Decline of market share 2b) More reliance on heavy incentives to hold a shrinking market share. 3) Rising legacy costs, investments in Hughes, EDS, GMAC, other OEMs etc. 4) Back to bullet 1. That is GM in 4 bullets. They have to fix bullets 2 and 3 before bullet 1 can be fixed. And those product decision are still a questiom mark especially for GM in the US. This ain't rocket science.

Let be fair to Maryann Keller. She generally is one of the better ones out there and enjoy her perspective. I credit a lot to her when I started out and how I perceive the business. This is what she is quoted and only what she is quoted as saying in the article. “GM always seems like it’s in a bubble, like customers are always waiting for GM to release new models,” Keller told about 200 guests from the automotive, advertising and financial industries during a luncheon at the Founders Inn. “GM has never understood that the whole world is changing rapidly.” “A year ago, Rick Wagoner was saying, 'Just wait until next year when the new models are out,’” Keller said of the General Motors chief executive. “Well, guess what? It’s next year, and market share’s down .” “That’s really smart,” Keller said of the cuts. “What do they think they’re selling, insurance?” Really, what she is quoted as saying is not off base if you are observing the company's performance and rhetoric. As for the rest of it, we do not know, what she actually said. So I think the article sux but what Keller said is not off in left field.

That is why the concepts interior worked. The wood grain is aweful.

No the Fiat buy out was because of the pending DPH disaster and NA restructuring. They picked their battles.

OK big mouth - show me some data already. You continue to throw stones but your arguments as usual continue to be unsupported. Put up some data, prove me wrong. Hell the Toyota Sienna has a hell a lot more NA content (90+%) and is built in the US. That is more than can be said for the Chrysler LX cars. Get your facts straight. And BTW Chrysler Group is part of a German company called Daimler Chrysler. Give me a break! And let me add, the Ford Fusion/Milan/Zephyr are 30%.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A.../604130376/1148 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/automobi...r=1&oref=slogin "But analysts say they have played a valuable role that executives may not acknowledge. "Without pressure from Wall Street, they would never have got things moving," said Brad Rubin, an industry analyst with BNP Paribas in New York. "It took Wall Street to wake them up."" Mr. Rubin is talking out of his ass. GM only announced the restructuring after 2 bad quarters. 4th - 04 and 1st 05. The contingency for the restructuring began prior to Jan 05. ""People who think it doesn't matter who owns our automobile industry are flat wrong," he said, adding that it was "fiction" that foreign automakers were becoming more American as they build plants here. "They are not producing. For the most part, they are assembling. The parts mostly come from overseas. The profits are partially invested in the United States but not necessarily."" And here Uncle Bob is doing the same. How much has GM invested in China and other parts of SE Asia compared to say the US in recent years?

Yea that explains why the latest rounds of Toyotas and Hondas have 70+% North American content and vehicles like the GMT800s utes and Equinox are in the low 60% or below.

Well I see there have been many edit all around! And a deleted post. ha ha

Someone is getting testy! ha ha Re-read what I wrote. I used the word "say". As in example. Just busting balls.

I can atest to that. We do disagree but I am more often right. Joke

The takers on the buyout could be very large and certain plants could find themselves strapped for personel. This is more than GA plants but an across the board offer to all UAW worker. GM has a lot of powertrain operations as well as technicians in other aspects of the corporation that need to be factored in. Some operations might have to first draw upon displaced worker in the jobs bank. One thing I am sure of, GM's HR department will be very busy. There are still a lot of ifs out there for the potential for new hires: - Flowback from DPH (5,000) - Flowback from US plants that are closing (30,000) So in theory, GM needs 35,000 people to accept the offer for their to be a shortage. It is my opinion that GM should receive about 35,000 buy outs. The biggest issue facing new hires at GM is the current contract. A new tier for new hires would have to be written into the contract to prevent the current situation from arising 30 years from now. That means the potential: Lower pay for new workers 401k type retirement plan Shared burden for health care

Part of the problem is GM is not chasing the big boys with the Aura. They are planning to sell "only" about 100k - 75k Auras a year. Squandered opportunity I would say. This could have been a real homerun for them with serious volume. Saturn does not have the perceived baggage that Chevrolet and Pontiac have. At the other end, Saturn does not command the premium attention that say VW does but Saturn is GMs best brand (opportunity) for conquest sales. It does not make sense to me. GM still trying to be all things to all people. Pick a foe and fight them head on. Tyring to fight everyone at once does not work. It reminds me of that time we went down to see the first SLs at the dealer when Saturn was launched. And there was that old guy that asked the Saturn sales consultant, "Can you get one of these with bench seats?" Why they hell "figuretively" did they offer the bench seat option on the Aura this time around?

I just continue to shake my head and am at the point of complete ambivalence toward the company and their products. The Aura would have been a beautiful car back in 2002 but the look has grown tired. Back when the concept was revealed I said just that. It is so depressing that this is another round of product from GM that is just not good enough compared to the competition and that will have to stick around for another 5 years. Styling is opinion but this Altima goes to show me yet again which company is on the ball and which is not. GM’s products lack refinement and attention to the detail. How can they get it so right with the 900s and yet miss the mark with this. I saw your post about the Aura lacking the Ecotec. I agree 100%. I would take the Ecotec over the 3.5 any day of the week. It is that mentality with GM that continues to persist. I have been wanting to vent over this for so long. I am glad the info is finally out. That South East Detroit, MI mentality will never go away at GM. It just continues to linger. I am sitting on a GMS discount and I really have no desire to walk back into a GM showroom. For what? Aura or the Altima?

That is not correct. The price of fuel cost the same for the most part around the world. Only the tax is different.

Without examples her point is moot. Actually GM has not given any guidance for the last year. Has Carol actually seen an Org chart and compared it to the competition. Pink slips and buy out! Where does Carol get this from? I have my problems with GM's VDP but this makes no sense. I have no idea what Carol is refering to? Maybe the old Ron Zarella school of Brand Management and Analysis? I don't know.

That is what the Aura is going after. Good luck!

Been there done that! http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www...aurora.f3-4.jpg http://www.newcaradvise.com/images/2003nissanaurora.jpg

Exactly - and when you are going after Toyota and Honda you can not afford to be yet another entry into an already crowded market. Toyota and Honda can afford to be bland or ridiculious and sell. They have 30 years of good will behind them.

k ... you might actually learn something if you would have finished the article you have posted. In this case the "what if" is the caveat in how the GMAC deal was structured.

It is a good analysis of the GMAC deal.