Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
deftonesfan867

Fritz opens himself to criticism on public blog

70 posts in this topic

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=149649

DETROIT — General Motors President and CEO Fritz Henderson, who promised the buying public that he would be available to them when the company filed for bankruptcy on Monday, is finding himself the target of venomous attacks on the GM FastLane blog.

In a Tuesday posting titled "Keeping the Conversation Open," Henderson opened himself up to such vitriolic comments as: "Mr. Fritz, The issue is your company is selling snake oil...At least admit you screwed up big." That posting came from John Shultz, who identified himself as "the American working Joe."

"Mr. Henderson, I have been a loyal GM owner until June 1, 2009," wrote J.E. "I will no longer purchase a GM car because owners of the 566 million shares of GM stock and the holders of 27B of bonds have been completely written off by you, the CEO and the U.S. government — e.g. President Obama. Why would ANYONE invest in the new company? You just zeroed out the existing investors. Because of this, I will not buy a new Cadillac CTS this year, but I will buy either a Lincoln or luxury transplant car but here in the USA."

Henderson responded to that comment by saying: "We recognize our actions have a significant impact on many constituents, including stockholders, bondholders, employees, dealers, retirees and others."

Robert Hammen, a disgruntled owner of a 2009 Pontiac G8 GT, told Henderson: "No economical RWD sedans = no more new GM purchases for me (sorry, a starting-at-$37K [Cadillac] CTS isn't in my price range)."

In an intriguing response that seemed to hint at future-product possibilities, Henderson responded: "Robert, I appreciate your comment. Certainly the G8 is going to be one of the Pontiacs we'll miss. But we haven't closed the door on RWD now or in the future. As we map out our future vehicle needs, if we can find the right opportunity and price point to do a world-class RWD car, you can bet we'll consider it."

Inside Line says: Sounds like Fritz Henderson may need a flak jacket if he plans to continue down the "transparency" path. — Anita Lienert, Correspondent

Edited by deftonesfan867
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I will no longer purchase a GM car because owners of the 566 million shares of GM stock and the holders of 27B of bonds have been completely written off by you, the CEO and the U.S. government — e.g. President Obama. Why would ANYONE invest in the new company? You just zeroed out the existing investors.

Idiotic. It's just another way to stab at Obama.

Do you boycott K-Mart? Delta Airlines? U.S. Airways (twice)? United Airlines? Northwest Airlines? Most major malls?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The person probably doesn't even drive a domestic car I'm willing to bet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Idiotic. It's just another way to stab at Obama.

Do you boycott K-Mart? Delta Airlines? U.S. Airways (twice)? United Airlines? Northwest Airlines? Most major malls?

Obama still owns those airlines?

While I am not that extreme, I do understand the guys frusterations.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama still owns those airlines?

While I am not that extreme, I do understand the guys frusterations.

Obama owns GM? This guys frustrations fail to understand the purpose of the bankruptcy. Be consistent. If you're going to be mad at GM for declaring bankruptcy, you HAVE to be mad at those other companies I listed. The only reason the government is even involved in this process is to provide the financing to get GM through the BK period since no private company can do it right now. US Airways had a government loan to get them through the bankruptcy period. They refinanced that loan privately after they emerged from bankruptcy. I don't see people running around calling them Government Airways.

We're 3 whole days into this bankruptcy. Give it a chance to work.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Idiotic. It's just another way to stab at Obama.

Do you boycott K-Mart? Delta Airlines? U.S. Airways (twice)? United Airlines? Northwest Airlines? Most major malls?

You need to stop being Obama sensitive. He and Fritz are just the top targets for all of this by the people who lost money and jobs. When you are at the top you have to have thick skin.

I can understand the comment on how many will want to invest in a company after giving most of it to the goverment and UAW. I would not buy stock in something like that till it show strenght to stand on its own again.

But on the other hand I have no issue with the bail out. I would rather see the goverment bail out GM and Chrysler vs sending billions to N Korea or spending it on laid off workers welfair when we could have kept them working.

The idea of bailing them out was the right call now how they split the money I could put up to debate. In a free market society it is important to maintain a free market if you want investment. I would have liked seen the investors better covered for their risk and trust.

Either way there are just going to be a lot of hard feeling and a lot of this is going to go around for a while. I know the UAW guys in Mansfield are on the war path with everyone from the prez to the uaw.

Edited by hyperv6
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama owns GM? This guys frustrations fail to understand the purpose of the bankruptcy. Be consistent. If you're going to be mad at GM for declaring bankruptcy, you HAVE to be mad at those other companies I listed. The only reason the government is even involved in this process is to provide the financing to get GM through the BK period since no private company can do it right now. US Airways had a government loan to get them through the bankruptcy period. They refinanced that loan privately after they emerged from bankruptcy. I don't see people running around calling them Government Airways.

We're 3 whole days into this bankruptcy. Give it a chance to work.

The mob mentality with the one-sided viewpoint is tough to debate with. When all is good, nobody notices, or even cares when they do notice; when all is bad, everyone thinks they have the right to voice their uninformed 'opinion'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without Government intervention GM was headed to liquidation, so... how are shareholders being wiped out of something that was basically worthless? These people talk of GM as it was a perfectly healthy company that was nationalized by a Chavez-like nutcase... I find that amazing...

Edited by ZL-1
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Obama was able to force the CEO of GM to resign. Isn't that usually only a power of an owner?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Obama was able to force the CEO of GM to resign. Isn't that usually only a power of an owner?

Obama said GM couldn't have the loans with Wagoneer as CEO. GM had a choice. CEO or (relatively) easy money.

No, I don't define that as ownership.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama said GM couldn't have the loans with Wagoneer as CEO. GM had a choice. CEO or (relatively) easy money.

No, I don't define that as ownership.

Yes, as a condition of the loan..not that different from a startup company taking venture capital and the VC firm providing their choice of CEO as part of the funding deal (I've been through a few of those).

Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this whole process could have gone smoother if this just went normal Ch. 11. If no financing was available than a government debtor in possession loan would have been acceptable... should GM make it out of the bankruptcy the existing shareholders are NOT wiped out. If it fails, well GM liquidates and .gov gets the proceeds.

GM CANNOT emerge as strong from this bankruptcy as it could have from a regular bankruptcy.

Edited by Teh Ricer Civic!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama said GM couldn't have the loans with Wagoneer as CEO. GM had a choice. CEO or (relatively) easy money.

No, I don't define that as ownership.

Ok, well the government will have over 60% ownership in GM. Is that considered ownership?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mob mentality with the one-sided viewpoint is tough to debate with. When all is good, nobody notices, or even cares when they do notice; when all is bad, everyone thinks they have the right to voice their uninformed 'opinion'.

It is not so much mob mentality than just the people who did not benifit from the goverment action. There were winners in this deal and losers. The UAW for the most won due to a lot of donations and the invester who lost out.

I have no issue with the UAW getting a part of the action if anything it will put them at stake. But the investor should have been included somewhere.

No matter what anyone did someone would be pissed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, well the government will have over 60% ownership in GM. Is that considered ownership?

That's called collateral on the loan the same way my mortgage company owned some percentage of my house.

Do you refer to US Airways as Government Airways?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not so much mob mentality than just the people who did not benifit from the goverment action. There were winners in this deal and losers. The UAW for the most won due to a lot of donations and the invester who lost out.

I have no issue with the UAW getting a part of the action if anything it will put them at stake. But the investor should have been included somewhere.

No matter what anyone did someone would be pissed.

The bondholders wanted liquidation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the investor should have been included somewhere.

The basic 101 of owning shares of a publicly traded firm is that you get dividends for owning its shares at the risk of losing all the capital when the company goes down. If the people fail to understand or do the research about a company's strength then their shares are put at their own risk, not the company's. Just ask Warren Buffet about it - he will just not buy shares if he thinks he is going to lose the capital. Legally GM or ANY publicly traded company is not liable to those investors.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does owning stock in public companies like GM and AIG provide the government the type of ownership over the means of production that is the hallmark of socialism (as Hayek and Von Mises tell us themselves)? Stock ownership does not necessarily yield control; the management still has that. Hence, I don't see how it makes any sense to call this activity socialist in any way.

The Bush and Obama administrations were faced with three basic choices: (1) let these companies fail, (2) help these companies out with no strings attached, or (3) help these companies with strings attached that allow the government to be participate in any downstream upside. While I don't necessarily agree with it (or its execution) in every instance, option 3 certainly seems like the most rational choice given where everything stood. It's also the most business-like approach.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mob mentality with the one-sided viewpoint is tough to debate with. When all is good, nobody notices, or even cares when they do notice; when all is bad, everyone thinks they have the right to voice their uninformed 'opinion'.

They do, it's called the first amendment.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does owning stock in public companies like GM and AIG provide the government the type of ownership over the means of production that is the hallmark of socialism (as Hayek and Von Mises tell us themselves)? Stock ownership does not necessarily yield control; the management still has that. Hence, I don't see how it makes any sense to call this activity socialist in any way.

The Bush and Obama administrations were faced with three basic choices: (1) let these companies fail, (2) help these companies out with no strings attached, or (3) help these companies with strings attached that allow the government to be participate in any downstream upside. While I don't necessarily agree with it (or its execution) in every instance, option 3 certainly seems like the most rational choice given where everything stood. It's also the most business-like approach.

One idea, hold all of GM's assets like their plants as collateral, like the lenders did when they loaned Ford money? Look at what the govt did with their ownership stakes in banks, telling them where and how they could spend their money, and they didn't even have majority ownership. Do you need to ask your mortgage lenders permission when you take a trip somewhere? Do you need to ask them what method you can use to travel there? I sure hope not. They have no say as to what goes on in your property, as long as you don't default. Therefore, they do not own the property, they own the lein, in case the loan is defaulted on.

Edited by CaddyXLR-V
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They do, it's called the first amendment.

Shhh! they will go for that one after they take the second.

I understand the risk and all of sock holders. But the UAW also has the risk of getting nothing too. GM could have just shut the doors and said sorry about your luck till the goverment stepped in.

The fact is a lot of people got a cut here that normally would have been shut out. The fact many of the share holders were old people and retired GM employees not represented by anyone for the most part lost out. DO you think the UAW would have gotten much if the Republicans had been in charge here with all the money the UAW gives them?

Right or wrong DC works on pay back for what you payed for with both parties. Lobbiest rules and how much I need your money and vote will gain you favore. A hand full of unreprsented grand fathers and grand mother had little chance here.

While a large amount of money would have done little for the major bond holders it would have at least been something to the small private invester that got nothing but the shaft.

This was a case were either everyone got a piece of the pie or nothing. The goverment and UAW could have done with a little less to cover many more. Everyone should share in the lose equally.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One idea, hold all of GM's assets like their plants as collateral, like the lenders did when they loaned Ford money? Look at what the govt did with their ownership stakes in banks, telling them where and how they could spend their money, and they didn't even have majority ownership. Do you need to ask your mortgage lenders permission when you take a trip somewhere? Do you need to ask them what method you can use to travel there? I sure hope not. They have no say as to what goes on in your property, as long as you don't default. Therefore, they do not own the property, they own the lein, in case the loan is defaulted on.

Stocks are much more fluid, can be bought and sold easily, and gives the government an upside for taking the risk. The government DID NOT tell the banks where to spend the money. The Federal Reserve, a private corporation, directed the cash flow.

Many mortgages have clauses regarding maintaining the livability of the house, whether or not you can rent it out while not occupying it, requiring certain levels of insurance, etc. Did you know that the bank can (usually) inspect your home after the first thirty days you are late on your mortgage? If they feel you haven't been taking care of the property, they can begin foreclosure proceedings.

It's rarely enforced, but it's there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, this whole process could have gone smoother if this just went normal Ch. 11. If no financing was available than a government debtor in possession loan would have been acceptable... should GM make it out of the bankruptcy the existing shareholders are NOT wiped out. If it fails, well GM liquidates and .gov gets the proceeds.

GM CANNOT emerge as strong from this bankruptcy as it could have from a regular bankruptcy.

I couldn't agree more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like this, but if GM can become a private non-goverment owned/run company someday (relatively soon) it will be fine with me. All new cars due to the new fuel economy legislation are going to suck anyways. So weather gov't tells them to build it with CAFE or gov't forces them because they own them it will not make a difference. I am to that point. I just hope good can come from this and gov't will give up their 60% ownership of the company, if Obama won't the next republican president will. I am willing to let it all play out. I have been kicked enough lately, no more Pontiac, and now government owning 60% of the comapny and the new fuel economy standards all make me sick. Which is why I say I will wait and see what happens.

Edited by gm4life
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama owns GM? This guys frustrations fail to understand the purpose of the bankruptcy. Be consistent. If you're going to be mad at GM for declaring bankruptcy, you HAVE to be mad at those other companies I listed. The only reason the government is even involved in this process is to provide the financing to get GM through the BK period since no private company can do it right now. US Airways had a government loan to get them through the bankruptcy period. They refinanced that loan privately after they emerged from bankruptcy. I don't see people running around calling them Government Airways.

We're 3 whole days into this bankruptcy. Give it a chance to work.

He owns 60% of it. Look, I understand... but there's also a difference in US Airways refinancing that loan privately vs gov't saying "we'll forgive the loans so far" and bypassing all standard bankruptcy laws.

I'll just go back 7 months ago when I said I was against the first bailout loan, and I said to let em go Chapt 11 and get it over with. Well..... 7 months and many billions $$ later, they are going through Chapt 11.

I hope it goes as smooth as it possibly can as well. And while Obbie says that the gov't has no intensions of running a car company, and they keep getting deeper and deeper involved everytime they say that, I hope that all changes for the better as well.

Edited by BuddyP
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0