Hogans_Heroes

Okay, sorry - didn't mean to jog a collective mind trip back to an 8 o'clock English 102 or anything! It was my attempt to humorously refer to Prufrock: http://www.bartleby.com/198/1.html As for the 386, I'm still trying to sort it out myself. But some important suppliers have very recently been handed "stop-work" orders associated with the NG Malibu's code. It sounds improbable, I know. But how many improbable things have happened at GM in the past year? Or the past month for that matter. Anyone else hearing rumblings on this?

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...?showtopic=3809

I'm hearing increasing chatter regarding the 2008MY GMX386 on Global Epsilon. Backroom channels, scrawling on the walls of secret passages, notes between homeroom and first period, smoke signals, that sort of thing. Internal GM plans (as recently as September 2005) were showing a very green October 2007 launch. Hands on the wheel. Eyes on the road. It seems the eternal footman was recently spotted in the area of this bedrock program. No coat was seen in hand. Not the hint of a snicker. Yet, there he was, inexplicably peering in its darkened windows, fogging up the front passenger window, kicking tires, tracing his fingers along the sheetmetal. What WAS he doing?

Correct, it was released after market close 12/06/05.

Eric Feldstein is head of GMAC and Bill Muir the president. Mark Bole EVP of IO. Devine sits on the Board of Directors of GMAC, nothing else.

While analysts and the media will spin this development inexorably out of control, it is good news for GM in that they are getting as CFO and Vice Chairman one of the very best and brightest in the industry. I've met Fritz Henderson on quite a few occasions - most recently at the NAIAS in Detroit this past January, but prior to that many times in Brasil. He has long been my favorite GM automotive executive, next to Mark Hogan. Quite simply, the remarks by Efraim Levy were out of line and, I can only conclude, hastily rushed to press: "It's not good news to change someone of Devine's stature," Standard & Poor's equity analyst Efraim Levy said. "I would have liked to see Devine stay on longer. I'd rather have someone with greater experience around as the company deals with the trouble it has and is likely to continue to have. I'm more concerned about his level of experience, his age, both of which are a lot less than Devine." Wall Street analysts are loving GM's tumultous times, as it provides ample opportunity to write research reports and field opinions that have more to do with attracting attention to the individual analyst than providing objective observations (e.g. Ron Tadross). Did you hear him on the analyst call after the plant closure announcement? The guy doesn't know his capacity from his assembly. Fritz is the only executive in GM's history to have run all three international operations [LAAM(O), GMAP, and GME]. He has experience at Delphi (ACG, Saginaw Steering), GMAC (mortgage, other diverse positions), GMNYTO (incl. borrowings), and - before that - what is now PricewaterhouseCoopers and is a CPA. This represents as broad-based an understanding of the global automotive industry as you are likely to find. Are we to compare it with Efraim Levy's? And he's not exactly a spring chicken; regardless, his age is also irrelevant. Should we lament Stephen Girsky's move to GM? Does Robert Barry, then, not have the age, experience, and other intangible wisdom to do his job? I'm sorry, I'm just getting a little sick of this. Let's all just pile on GM without a solid thought process in place for doing so. At least our name will be in the paper. Fritz is at the very tops in terms of intellect, foresight, experience, and analytical ability that I've ever seen. Yet there is not a HINT of arrogance in him. Also, within the higher ranks at General Motors, he has widely been perceived as having been groomed for eventual sucession of the CEO post. In fact, if you look at the first Bloomberg article Tuesday concerning this move, you'll see it is reporting on word of high-level insiders at GM claiming Henderson was returning from GME to head GMNA. Of course, they were wrong - but it's significant to note that when high-level insiders caught wind of an impending announcement, they believed he'd be given the reigns Wagoner took hold of only months ago, if not even something else. This move by the board could be an effort to create a public perception to match the internal understanding of there being an heir-apparent for Wagoner in the event that he at some point does need to take one for the team. Also, although analyst reaction is initially negative and Devine is well-loved on the Street, the restatements (while not material) were significant given their timing and implications and over time Fritz will instill confidence in this regard due to his strong record and experience in controls. When I see the consensus quickly arriving at a point of assailing Fritz Henderson, my confidence in GM outperforming ever-diminished expectations and proving the naysayers wrong is reinforced. I was "in" in GM at $23.06 in November. New policy, on down days I'll be a purchaser of January 2008 call options at way out-of-the-money levels. This company will survive to see a better day. Fritz Henderson is the right man at the right time.

VenSeattle, Yes, the NG LaCrosse is completely solid and has been for some time - it will debut on the "Global Epsilon" (what GM calls it) / "Epsilon2" (what I've been calling it) architecture beginning in January of 2009. The official code is GMX353. I don't have official word on plant location assignment, but can only deduce that it will be Orion Township (Lake Orion), MI. It seems to make the most sense. The current generation will continue until that time (until late 2008), in accordance with GM's timing for the shutdown of Oshawa #2. My guess is it will be pretty long-in-the-tooth at that point. I actually like your pricing estimates on the Enclave / TE CUV. I've seen nothing, but would guess the TE CUV (which is not 100% greenlighted) would start at around $24k-ish and go up to $33k-ish. And then the Enclave could slot in above it, maybe starting around $30k and topping out near $39k, excepting any kind of "Ultra" variant). But remember the Enclave will start production in April of 2007 (after the Nov-06 launch of Acadia & Outlook but well before any potential TE CUV), so initially it's going to have to span a larger pricing band (similar to the current Rendezvous). I believe the current Rondy starts close to $27k, so the Enclave, too, will probably need to begin at a similar point at launch. Enclave will be better-equipped / lesser priced version of such vehicles as RX350 and MDX, whereas the TE CUV would be positioned to compete more directly with a RDX or CX.

Invicta was name reserved for the RWD Zeta "Buick Flagship Sedan". That vehicle has I believe since been cancelled, due in part to GM planning on the NG Lucerne being RWD (ZETA). Don't look for the Invicta name to be resurrected on a Buick CUV. The CUV program on TE (Theta-Epsilon) platform is real (to be built in Ramos Arizpe), and the Buick is being looked at but is not at the same level of "go" as the BRX and 9-4X. As it stands now (or, more accurately, how it stood two months ago), is that the BRX is scheduled to debut first (as would make the most sense) in December of 2008, with the 9-4X to follow in Feb-09. I don't have timing on the Buick (as it is more shaky than the others), but imagine it would either commence at the same time as the 9-4X or even slightly after. Buick seriously needs this product, as they would otherwise be left only with a Global Epsilon (Epsilon2) Lacrosse, the Zeta Lucerne, and the Enclave. Terazza and Rainier will not live to see the light of day.

These are not Theta, nor are they Sub-Theta. It is a new architecture called "Theta-Epsilon". Internally, GM refers to it as "TE". I can confirm Ramos Arizpe build location, only the dates are wrong.

Moore really gets me wound up. I wrote this on another board: "Okay - not a big John McCain fan. But I thought these words summed up Michael Moore pretty well (part of his address to the RNC in NYC - 2004): "Our choice wasn’t between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents. ***And certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam’s Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls.***" What was unfortunate about the delivery of McCain's remarks was that after he said the words, "disingenuous film maker", the entire audience errupted in laughter, applause, and cheering, then - as they located Moore in the audience (press box), jeering. Moore then playfully took a bow and smiled. Then people laughed. He took it all in jest. And it made McCain's remarks seem similarly in jest. As if they were some kind of playful jab. But McCain's sentence was cut mid-stream. Eventually, he was able to complete his thought (though minutes later). The rest of his sentence, "who would have us believe that Saddam’s Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls" is HARD HITTING. I mean it's sad. Really sad. Destroying the lives of small children inside prison walls? That's tough stuff. It's true, though. The talk is of 300,000 dead. Of course the American-led war has not only alleviated the suffering of Saddam's cruelly-tortured populace, it has in other ways added to their suffering. It's a complex issue. But the point is, Moore selectively portrayed pre-war Iraq as a place where children happily flew kites and rejoiced in their fatherland. The reality was Moore sinisterly glazed over Saddam's crimes. And, this is not morally right. I would rather Mr. Moore have used his talents to make a documentary about the small children dying behind Saddam's prison walls than to have ignored them entirely. Kind of reminds me of Walter Duranty, actually."

I agree with this sentiment, although it is my understanding Silao is not tooling up to produce the GMT92x/93x SUVs and will instead only produce GMT900 pickups at the onset. It should maintain the flexibility to produce the SUVs in the future should demand warrant, but I don't believe this is the intention. Following the Silao development, Janesville's future should have been viewed as virtually assured, though I hope GM may have secured some concessions regardless. I share your sentiments regarding the media.

My bet is GMX002 NG Saturn ION 4dr ("Evoke"?) based on DELTA, built in Lordstown, beginning Sep-07 after an 8 month hiatus in which none are built following a build-out followed by inventory burn.

Yes, Lacrosse/Allure and Grand Prix end roughly around this time. The Lacrosse/Allure will transition to Orion Township (needed to justify 2nd shift given G6 output) though and the Grand Prix will just be relegated to the dust bin of history. You yourself said Project Beacon is dead. Oshawa #2 won't, in my estimation, be retooled. Nor will a Saturn mid-size MAV be built there. Instead, product you may be envisioning for the plant (if I correctly ascertain your thoughts - by no means certain) could be built in Hamtramck, along with a RWD Zeta Cadillac DTS & Buick Lucerne - plus one product which could help to explain the 3rd shift elimination at Oshawa #1. Agree on the quality remarks.

That's a very good, interesting, and insightful point regarding the CAW & Ontario pols. How confident are you Oshawa #2 will be retooled for C-Flex, though? I think it might just die.

AH-HA, first off you know I'm a big fan. However, I can't bring myself to envision these plants both reopening. You've also offered rationale for Oklahoma City reopening as well. All three plants reopening with new product and investment? Are you sure? This would seem to need to be predicated upon a resurgence in market share beyond any current expectation. Too much of my own esteem is wrapped up in GM's success and I hope you're right the automaker will make significant inroads. Your enthusiasm for future product sustains me. It does. That said, that all three plants would reopen I think seems a bit fanciful. As someone who's found myself suddenly trying to fit 400,000 LAMBDAs into Delta Township, I can sympathize with your nod to the LAMBDA vans needing somewhere to be built, but have to hesitate before reopening these shuttered facilities. Lastly, as for Spring Hill #1 and Oshawa #2 being "smoke and mirrors", GM has promised the financial community that these cuts to be enacted will result in a "run-rate" structural cost savings of $7 billion / yr from the end of 2008 on. If GM plans to reopen a significant amount of this capacity / these plants / lines with new product and the large investment required to retool them for C-Flex or LAMBDA, then GM would have provided false and misleading information to the investment community regarding the run-rate cost savings.

I'm extremely impressed by what I've seen of the Escalade thus far. It seems that even if you've been left less than impressed by some GMT9xx cues*, you'll come to embrace the Escalade. While I can empathise with your sentiments regarding "daring" and "groundbreaking" products, GM was never going to - and should not have - created a hugely divisive or far-out GMT92x. These vehicles are understood to receive evolutionary redesigns. GM will be similarly conservative with the Silverado, et. al. (though the Hummer full-size PU will be out there, true to its heritage). The financial performance - for better or worse - of General Motors in large part depends upon these vehicles appealing to the maximum amount of buyers. The previous Ford F-150 launch is well remembered in this regard. The C/K's in their last year overtook a radically-designed F-150 in its first full year of production. So while I'm ordinarily with you 100%, in my opinion GM has competently walked that fine line between "just enough" and "too much". *though the vehicles have grown on me, I've had at various times reservations about: the minivanesque rear; the extent of faux wood on the lower-end models; the headlights and general front-end treatment of the Yukon, the Yukon's copy-cat interior, etc. all-in-all, though, the trucks are great.

License plates in the background are interesting. Prototypes could most certainly be built in Warren, etc., so you can't read too much into it - but what they don't say is "Birthplace of Aviation".

Fiero, For a brief period, I'd replied to say I remember having nearly as hard a time as a sixth grader following the character Jim in Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" as I did in trying to understand your post in response to Hazlitt. Then, I surfed over to the "Tracinda pledges GM stock as collateral for loan" thread to check for any comments in repsonse to my BofA theory and found only yours. Not knowing whether it was mere further banter or a geniune effort at making an intelligible remark, I leaned towards the latter and reconsidered my previous less-than-jestful response above. So, thinking better of it all, I then quickly deleted the post critical of your efforts at communication. Not knowing how to delete a post entirely, I replaced my comments with ellipses. This is what you interpreted as lack of a "full thalt".

...

Saving the X (Auto) Industry: “The X industry is sick. The X industry is dying. It must be saved. It can be saved only by a tariff, by higher prices, or by subsidy. If it is allowed to die, workers will be thrown on the streets. Their landlords, grocers, butchers, clothing stores, and local motion pictures will lose business, and depression will spread in ever-widening circles. But if the X industry, by prompt action of Congress is saved – ah then!” – Henry Hazlitt (or, as his friends liked to call him "H.H.") :)

GMAC has "short list": http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...p2hfao&refer=us

Blackviper8891, I have to say I really like the LF-Sh. It builds nicely on the design of the IS & GS cars which are also exceptionally well executed. And the 400h is a hit, as irrational as that may be. The IS should naturally be the most expressive, followed by the GS and then the LS, as the latter buyers would tend to be a tad more conservative. I did have some L-Finesse reservations after seeing the LF-A in Detroit, but the LF-Sh is exactly as it should be. With time, it will challenge the 7-Series and S-Class - certainly in North America. Toyota's missing key ingredient has always been styling. Even the new Camry promises, from what is out there at least, to be "emotive" as well. In its mission of creating inspiring designs which evoke emotional response, Toyota had its work cut out for it. But today evidences they're solidly heading in the right direction. The Rick is right in that no company is unstoppable, but with this missing element increasingly present, Toyota promises to be an even more competitive player than ever before.

I haven't posted much on GMAC, though it is the one area regarding GM I'm most familiar with. BigPontiac is right to post this headline here. This collateralized Bank of America loan story could have flown under the radar screen any other day. But there really could be something more to this story than meets the eye. BofA (along with Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, HSBC, and GE Capital) is one of the firms most often connected to the GMAC controlling stake bidding process. It is speculated, too, that a large, money center bank with checking and savings deposits to invest is the preferred buyer of GMAC. Remember that GM is not "burning the furniture to keep warm" here. They do not need a large infusion of cash, as their liquidity is currently adequate to weather continued near and mid term losses as well as a Delphi OPEB assumption (which would not require significant cash in the short run, merely assumption of liabilities to be paid with cash in future periods). No, this deal is born out of necessity. GM is looking for a "strategic partner" with GMAC's long-term best interests at heart, not the "highest bidder". For that reason, it is expected the hedge funds, private equity funds and LBOs (likely to form a wolf-pack a la SunGard) will be rebuffed out of fear any deal would be laced with debt, negating the entire purpose of a vastly superior credit rating. Therefore, a large bank is favored. Citigroup is often recognized as the largest financial institution on Earth. And rightly so. But they are not the nation's largest bank. They are the nation's largest financial institution. BofA has 10% of the nation's cash deposits (Citigroup, for all its heft, has only 3.3%). BofA does not have the diversification Citigroup does, making GMAC a nice complement to their earnings base. Because it's so hand-in-glove, they would be seen as a long-term holder (a "strategic partner", if you will). Plus - perhaps an indication of their interest, they've already entered into the $55 billion / 5 year asset-backed security deal with GMAC. They're familiar with the enterprise. I think this adds up to BofA AT LEAST being out in front in terms of potential bidders. GE Capital has got to be on the short list, too. Scott Sprinzen's preference probably stops at large institution vs. private equity and GE Capital and GE's credit rating is stellar, but I wonder if BofA would be even more preferred in his eyes than GE Capital. So, to circle back, Bank of America - one of the rumoured front-runners in the GMAC bidding - has entered into an agreement to loan Kirk Kerkorian (9.9% owner in GM) AT LEAST $200 million (key word = "at least"). Could this be some sort of a behind-the-scenes effort to join forces for a proposed GMAC bid? Perhaps their combined stake could equal 51%? I dunno. But one thing is for certain regarding Kerkorian: he is, let's face it, a man with (for obvious reasons) a short-term time horizon. The speculation is he was looking for a spin-off of GMAC to shareholders or a special cash dividend raised as a result of a sale of all or part of GMAC. I think this would be a terrible thing for GM to do. The last thing they need is to further leverage the corporation. They shouldn't even be paying the dividend they do ($1 billion/yr), let alone a special cash dividend of $12 - $15 billion. Any stake raised should be earmarked for debt reduction (repurchase of most expensive long-term debt on the open market, booking a gain and driving down further cost of borrowing). Anyhow, I don't really know what this all adds up to. But you've got Kerkorian, GM, GMAC, and Bank of America. They're all related in various intricate ways. It's like seeing smoke, but no fire. One wild theory: maybe there's some type of proposed deal to satisfy all sides. Could BofA and Kerkorian together share what amounts to a controlling stake in GMAC? Could TRACy-lINDA exchange its GM Common shares for a GMAC stake at a premium? Kirk gets his quick buck. GM gets to retire 9.9% of its float - ammounting to a buyback enhancing share value - mollifying institutional investors and getting Kerkorian off their backs in one fell swoop. BofA gets earnings diversification. Buy Lehman, Bear Stearns, or another Wall Street firm to counter Citigroup Capital Markets, throw in MBNA... and all of a sudden Lewis' BofA can go head-to-head with Chuck Prince. I don't know. It's a stretcher. But the interconnectedness of it all has got to get one thinking of what could be cooking. Anyhow, the below article seems to be one of the better ones as far as speculating upon who might take on a controlling stake in GMAC... it does a good job explaining the PIPE doubts and making a good case for a company like BofA. http://today.reuters.com/investing/finance...EKLY-COLUMN.XML

This is from www.delphidocket.com: "Relief Requested 15. To successfully reorganize, the Debtors require significant cost reductions and labor modifications, including elimination of retiree medical and life insurance benefits for its hourly active employees and current hourly retirees whose benefits were covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Under section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtors may eliminate retiree medical and life insurance benefits only if the Debtors and the "authorized representative" of the current hourly retirees agree to an elimination of retiree medical and life insurance benefits, or if the Debtor and the authorized representative do not reach an agreement and this Court authorizes elimination of such benefits pursuant to the standards set forth in sections 1114(g) and/or (h)." Strip out the legalese and what it means is that Delphi is "going nuclear". And, unlike a solvent GM, there can be no doubt as to the legality of it. Re: Shantanu, the UAW (and most objective legal parties, it seems) point to the GM-Delphi Master Separation Agreement and GM-UAW contracts as stipulating GM is liable for pension and OPEB (read: health care) for retirees in the event of a Delphi default on these obligations through 2007, and even then it seems some are saying GM is only liable for the discrepancy between what the PBGC will provide and what the Delphi retirees were contractually owed. I'm not a lawyer, though, and cannot speak to the predicted outcome with a lot of confidence. But neither can most legal professionals, I don't think, until more pieces fall into place. Also, one thing I do worry about is that the UAW is certainly free to bargain with GM during contract renegotiations in 2007 for relief for retired Delphi pensioners. Again, absolutely no way to predict how that might turn out either... (although the UAW will not necessarily be negotiating from a position of strength).

It is OFFICIAL and a DONE DEAL! Without interjecting myself into the "debate" above and while some on this board are undoubtedly affected directly (and we are all affected indirectly), I'd hope we could keep our commentary to a decent level of professionalism. No one, not Himanshu Patel et. al., not Steve Miller, not Ron Getellfinger, not Rick Wagoner, not myself is an entirely 100% impartial observor. Emotions will run high, but I look forward to the exchange of ideas much more than emotive response. Regards, Hogans_Heroes http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051008/delphi_bankruptcy.html?.v=2 AP Auto Supplier Delphi Files for Bankruptcy Saturday October 8, 12:25 pm ET By Dee-Ann Durbin, AP Auto Writer Delphi, America's Largest Auto Supplier, Files for Bankruptcy, Sending Shockwaves Through Industry DETROIT (AP) -- Delphi Corp., the largest U.S. auto supplier, filed for bankruptcy Saturday, sending shock waves through the nation's auto industry, which already is weakened by high labor costs and falling market share. The company's bankruptcy is one of the largest in the country's history. Delphi filed to reorganize its U.S. operations in federal bankruptcy court in New York, where hearings are scheduled to begin next week. Delphi's non-U.S. operations were not included in the filing. Delphi Chairman and CEO Robert S. Miller said the company hopes to emerge from Chapter 11 in early to mid-2007. "We will make every effort to make this as quick as possible," Miller told The Associated Press on Saturday. Miller, a restructuring expert who was hired in July, had threatened to take the company into bankruptcy if he failed to reach a restructuring agreement with Delphi's former parent, General Motors Corp., and its largest union, the United Auto Workers. Miller set a deadline of Oct. 17, when U.S. bankruptcy laws are scheduled to change. Miller said Delphi will continue negotiating with GM and the UAW to lower its labor costs. Miller said the three parties agreed to continue their discussions after a bankruptcy filing. "We mutually concluded there was still too much of the complex work yet to be done," Miller said. "It was not going to be efficient to work right up to the midnight deadline to the change in the law." Miller said nothing will change immediately. Delphi will continue to pay its 50,000 U.S. employees and suppliers and will ship its products on schedule. Delphi has 31 plants in 13 states, including Michigan, Ohio, Alabama and California. The company has 185,000 employees worldwide. "We are not going to adversely affect our customers," he said. "Our people will get their pay checks and will still have their health benefits. Retirees will continue to get their checks. Any changes to that will be dealt with in an orderly way." Delphi will finance its operations with $4.5 billion in loans, including up to $2 billion in debtor-in-possession financing from a group of lenders led by JPMorgan Chase Bank and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Delphi, based in the Detroit suburb of Troy, has struggled to make a profit since GM spun it off in 1999. It lost $4.8 billion in 2004 and nearly $750 million in the first half of this year. Delphi had $16.5 billion in total assets as of June 30, the most recent figure available, and has total debt of $6 billion, Standard & Poor's said Thursday. The company had $4.3 billion in unfunded pension liabilities at the end of 2004, according to a company filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The largest corporate bankruptcy in the U.S. was WorldCom Inc., which had $103.9 billion in pre-bankruptcy assets.