ellives

BMW is proof of this point.

He is mistakenly confusing market value with assets. People like him forget the main reasons why GM's market cap. is so low: Poor product and legacy costs. They certainly have the capability to fix the product problem - it's clearly underway now. In 2007 they'll fix the legacy problem too and they market cap. will quadruple if not more. Kirk is hoping to do something before then. I'm hoping he goes away by then.

..... and it never *will* be....

He doesn't own the company. He owns a good sized chunk of it but not even close to a majority. He'd sell if it became clear he wasn't going to be able to bully Wagnoner or the rest of the board. In fact the board could oust York at some point which would probably be enough for Kerkorian to want to sell. All this is possible if the business outlook for GM turns around. Judging from the product pipeline they could do it if they execute properly, INCLUDING getting a marketing team that could fight themselves out of a paper bag. The current one can't.

It was a very accurate assessment of the situation with Kerkorian. He doesn't care about the history of GM and how GM's results and survival impact the US either in the short or long terms. The gist of the article is that Kerkorian and York have already established what they are. What hasn't been established, at least with regard to GM, is the price. I'd love to see Kirk forced to sell all his GM shares for a dollar less than he paid for them.

In many ways, this "joint venture" BS is what has gotten GM into this mess to begin with. The "partner" learns GM's secrets and shares nothing in return other than short term low cost manufacturing. I don't see Toyota making a play for GM in its current form. Why would they with all the legacy costs to deal with? If they wait long enough, and enough dumbass Americans continue to be Toyota products, GM will go bankrupt and somebody like Toyota can then swoop in and get the physical and intellectual GM assets for pennies on the dollar and they get to shed any pension and healthcare responsibilities immediately. This is the perverse nature of business in the US today. GM would give anything to be able to shed these responsibilities but they can't without going bankrupt but somebody else can.

Your logic here is a bit flawed. While you are correct in saying having a NHC system will lessen responsibility, your connection that people won't care for themselves if the government will pay the cost of healthcare is incorrect. In fact if you're covered under a healthcare plan now, you're already paying for others' bad healthcare habits. The same people are currently out there fat and smoking. Today we already have somebody else "flipping the bill" which is part of the reason healthcare costs are so out of control. Since we are not individually on the hook for the costs (the insurance companies are currently) we don't challenge any of the costs when we're presented with them. How many times do people ask about the cost of a procedure in their doctor's office to which they're told "insurance will cover it." I get agitated with that response (my doctor's admin staff hate seeing me in the office) and point out to them quite clearly they are incorrect - *I'm* paying for the procedure through my insurance premiums so I expect an answer to the f@#king question. Oh and god forbid you don't have insurance at all. That's the opporunity to get REALLY screwed because you're paying full price for anything whereas the insurance company will pay a discounted amount. That's the perversity of the current system. (Don't forget to negotiate the cost of procedures if you don't have insurance. All prices are negotiable up front before the procedure is performed. Shop around if you have to.) While I understand why Ghost Dog made the statement it's just another attempt to push the cost to somebody else. The bigger issue is how to get out from under the pension costs. This is where the big inequity is in the car business. Healthcare is the same for everyone.

Unfortunately "we" don't get a vote.... unless we happen to be shareholders...

The article is nothing but conjecture and supposition. Typical "stir the pot and see what happens" stuff. It's clear the author likes Ghosn and conveniently skips over Nissan's current problems while he's singing Ghosn's praises. Oh and Josh, are you going to be resigning if Wagoner isn't gone this fall? Maybe Buickman will hire you to sell real estate.

There are plenty of salesmen that are whores too. We have all met them. This does not mean all of them. (This is the problem with generalities. There are always exceptions.) So are you saying two wrongs make a right? This lawsuit is a perfect example. Instead of somebody just calling up and complaining to you that you're not enforcing parking, they decided to drop a dime and call a scumbag lawyer. So now we have two scumbags. On top of which you actually have 3+ scumbags because you also had the people parking illegally who were also scumbags. Of course in the end, there are plenty of these kinds of people in this country particularly. They're the ones you see throwing cigarette butts out the window and sitting in the left lane of a highway and blocking everyone else from passing. How's that for cynical?

I don't agree. Lawyers are the facilitators. The people that do the hiring don't understand the law, which is why they hire a lawyer. The lawyers tell their clients what they can get away with and what they can't and they advise their clients in particular directions when they know the advice isn't morally correct. It's just legal. I stand by my original statement. They're whores.

So you're asking GM to behave in an unethical manner? Mistakes happen. The goal is to minimize the number and size/scope of them. We all know lawyers are scum sucking bottom feeders.

Labor's time is coming... tick tock, tick tock. Can you hear the clock ticking? I'm patiently awaiting for the 2007 labor negotiations. 2007, beyond any time in GM's history will define the company. The perfect storm of new product introductions and the future of the union at GM will define whether the company continues to exist. The world is watching what they decide collectively. I am not anti-labor. I just want to see GM survive. They need come up with a plan that compensates everyone within the company for success. None of this bull$h! $400m packages for the CEO a la Exxon. (I have never bought gas there since that story came out.) They should be sharing the fruits of the effort without killing the company in the process as was done over the last 20 years. GM needs a labor ADVANTAGE now in order to compete with the asian manufacturers... not parity... an advantage. The company should accept no less. If they do, they deserve to be put out on the street and I personally will march over to Lexus myself and plunk $50k down on a GS to prove my point if it happens.

The Corvette has always really been the odd duck in the GM family. It's in a league of it's own and in a lot of ways it's tough to relate it to the rest of the Chevy line and in a broader sense the overall GM line. (Isn't Pontiac the "excitement division?") I *do* love these analysts that bitch about GM and their front-wheel-drive vehicles. Somehow they've seem to forgotten how they bitched at GM 20 years ago for NOT having FWD. I guess they aren't as clairvoyant as they claim.

I think the point here is to really focus on what GM gets out of it. I don't see much really.

Just in case anyone is wondering who Wilbur Ross is: http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/bizfi...yandmind/10279/

I agree. The number of brands is confusing and fragmented. They need to get rid of the sentimentality and focus like a laser beam on building the best cars that can be built in the segments they can compete in. The mediocrity game is so played. Take a page from the story of Jack Welch: Be #1 or #2 in whichever category you choose to be in or get out. They will have a challenge with the number of dealerships they have if they collapse the brands. In our area there is a Pontic-GMC-Cadillac dealer very close to a Chevy-Buick-Hummer dealer. The P-G-C will need to collapse into only Cadillac. This would work because it doesn't work with the currently with the showroom they have. If they focused on Cadillac, they'd do very well. (Their service sucks currently from my perspective. I've been waiting for a replacement NAV unit from them for a month.)

Actually you are very wrong in this statement. GM's problem is anything BUT variable cost. It's fixed cost that is killing them. This is why the big focus on market share. If they were selling product to the point where their factories were not at 85% they'd be making money big time. The problem is their factories are underutilized so the fixed costs are eating them alive.

Moron? I was never good at puzzles or spelling.

Yeah the XLR-V is an '06 and sticker of $114k and the S'lade is an '07 with a sticker of ~$86k - yikes! I'm always curious about who actually buys these things and whether any of them actually buy them outright or leased and is the cost paid by a corporation?

I wouldn't read much into it. There's more to the story than you see in print I'm sure. The grandson is the general manager AND they claim the operation was profitable so why not sell to the grandson? Something doesn't add up.

1. The expression is "rant and rave" and not "rant and rage." 2. Salesmen love to tell you how great they are, after all they are salesmen and have to sell themselves to you before they can ever expect to sell their product. There are some good ones. No doubt Jim is a good salesman based on his track record but even he would concede in order to achieve great sales numbers, even a good salesman needs a good product to sell. 3. Being a good salesman does not qualify anyone to run a company OR be a turnaround expert. They are good at selling and not at understanding the nuances and intracacies of a large multi-national corporation. There's always an exception but Jim has yet to prove he's one of them. In my experience I've found most sales guys (not all) are weak in almost every area of business OTHER than sales and are usually only after whatever they can get for themselves. 4. No one is doubting Jim's honest desire to see GM survive however I'm not sure many people would agree with his strategy of attacking Rick Wagoner relentlessly in whatever forum he can. Even he must know changes of the size and scope are agreed on in conference rooms and handshakes. 5. Personally I don't know if Wagoner is the right guy for the job. In the end the board will have to decide. I wonder if he has the "vision" thing down and whether he is able to effectively communicate it. At least he'll have a lot less employees to deal with soon although yet more pensioners. Good luck to him.

Notice the author has his email address attached to the article. Maybe the NY Times will catch on.

I thought it was a good article. Well thought out and backed by real numbers. To me the one thing that lends credence to the author is the fact you can email him. Notice there's no such opportunity on the Friedman article. Tells you something about their relative testicular fortitude.

I have absolutely no problem with it at all. Cheney whining is just another example of the hypocritical criminality that permeates the Bush administration. This "trust us" mentality got us into Iraq. It's clear nothing they say can be trusted and they need people like the NY Times to keep them honest.