enzl

Citi would have been a better example, however, I believe that catastrophic losses in subprime mortgages left the FDIC in the position that they were going to give Citi a $12b dowry to buy Wachovia at $1/share. Wells made a better, 11th hour move to grab Wachovia... The financial thieves did their share, but GM is as much guilty of fast, loose credit practices as the worst of the worst banks, unfortunately.

I'll preface my remarks with the admission that, yes, talking trash to a auto-show model about Detroit's perceived failures is stupid....it's like complaining to the garbage man about the mayor of your town, however.... The overall mood of this country is anti-bailout....and the extra vitriol aimed at GM/Chrysler is firm evidence that the PR departments in these companies have been doing an awful job...for decades. Everyone here knows that the credit crisis is responsible for pushing both companies over the edge. The bigger question is why they were at the edge to begin with and why more wasn't done sooner to move away from that 'edge.' In GM's case, the writing has been on the wall for years, in Chrysler's case, they were left for dead by Daimler, so I actually have more sympathy for them. In any case, the average American thinks these companies are not worth saving. That is a sad indictment of the quality of vehicle, marketing, sales and PR jobs done....no more or less. People may be sheep, but there have been profound and real reasons that they've abandoned the Detroit carmakers--whether those reasons exist today is another story, but this result is a logical conclusion to the lost years, the lost generation of customers. We should be rallying around Detroit, instead we want to feed them to the sharks. This is what happens when carmakers' leaders live in a bubble or echo chamber--this resentment for Detroit has percolated for years---and now, when the public support is needed, the goodwill isn't there. This economic meltdown has been disasterous for a large segment of the population---the mob is looking for blood. The second and third wave of companies at the gov't trough will all find tough roads ahead--- but most of them don't have rolling examples of mediocrity (or ghosts of past work) in almost every household across the nation to rub salt in that wound.

...or perhaps pissed off Americans who see the Big 3, Banks and Insurers getting bailouts and wonder why the government isn't helping them too? It's not all black & white, man. People are hurting and they see GM/Chrysler/AIG/Wachovia as welfare queens of the highest order. That's what happens when you go to the government for a handout...people (fairly or not) judge you for it.

I've got to laugh when posters think Obama's administration has anything to do with GM's fate. Things have been f'ed up for years...this crisis has exposed the Emperor for wearing NO clothes! Bush & Obama threw both GM (and inexplicably Chrysler) a lifeline! If anyone here knows anything about the banking business, they'd know that banks set the terms for loans all the time. In this case, the government has basically said that they're not going to throw YOUR tax money into a black hole...how is that a bad thing? GM gets to survive in some fashion (albeit not in its current, FAILING form) and the taxpayer, who is involuntarily funding this whole thing, has some protections that money isn't being flushed down the toilet. Why help and not get GM back to fighting health? It simply makes no sense, from any perspective.

Your hope may be justified, we'll see...unfortunately, our neighboring P-B-GMC just shut down recently. It's really depressing to see 1/3 of your campus shuttered.

Agreed. I think the problem is that GM has so many issues to address that there's a tendency to lump these problems together. In this example: Bad Pontiac must go--as you've outlined, the G3, G5 & Vibe simply don't match a bad-boy performance niche that Pontiac should occupy. (and none of those products offer anything that can't be found in another GM showroom) The Good Pontiac of the Solstice or G8 (or the ST and Firebird, which should be here) could thrive --not in volume, but in profitability--if Buick had a reasonable sell rate for their bread and butter sedans or GMC had lots of crossovers to compliment their Truck line. Thus, Pontiac itself isn't the problem, its having the proper complimentary pieces in place to sustain all 3 'divisions' as 1 full line of product. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to get to find out how to fix it--I suspect that the split of GM into Chap 7/Chap 11 pieces will take place in two months, leaving Chevy/Caddy as the remaining GM divisions.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Oy vey...making a guest appearance to annoy me? 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. True Leadership would have halted the slide, not caved to its inevitability.

It's nothing personal. You're defending a man who rode the world's greatest corporation into the dustbin of history as if he were a defenseless child and a pure victim of circumstance. If the product side is mediocre and the finance side was terrible, where is there to go in defending RW? I mean, what else is GM about if not making cars and the loans that go with them? Perhaps we're talking past each other, but I find any defense of RW absurd, given the facts....not my opinion, simply the facts. There's noone (other than RW himself) that has benefited from his years at the top. (With the possible exception of the bankruptcy attorneys)

You're simply wrong. Cherry picking the good stuff and ignoring the bad does not an argument make. I'm well-prepared for any debate you'd like to have....but I do work for a living, so my answers may not be the dissertation you require to change your mind. Here's my suggestion....read any of my historic posts....many, if not all, will support the fact that I've been suggesting a good many things that now MUST come to pass---only I would have done them when they actually made sense to do so. (I've also been quoted in reputable biz mags as far back as 2005 saying the exact same thing). When you've got 900 lives or your own personal stuff at stake, call me. Until then, I simply can't agree with you.

Oops, and I almost forgot the biggest disaster of all: GMAC. A wholly owned subsidiary of GM (and a pillar of their company for 75+years) was allowed to leverage itself with bad bets (leasing, sub-prime mortgages) that it had to be sold off, leaving GM subservient to Cerberus...when that gravy train stopped, it nearly brough GM to its knees. Most GM dealers floorplan with GMAC, a huge share of retail financing was done by GMAC--the spigot being shut off by GMAC a few months ago has placed many of GM's remaining dealers in peril---those that have not already succumbed to the economic environment are being told to find other floorplan lenders...which will not happen. Letting the goons from GMAC kill the golden goose alone would justify his dismissal, BTW.

You've certainly enlisted the good stuff about the Rickster...now how about the bad? 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? RW is a nice man. I've only heard good things about him personally. But please do not try to convince me that he's done a good job or all he could do. There's a profound culture problem at GM (I should know, I deal with them constantly). RW NEVER took steps necessary to fix it. That's why they were in the awful position they were in when the economic meltdown occurred. If you're going to get paid like he did, you MUST accept the accolades or negativity when the ship does down. I cannot accept that more or better could have been done. It's obvious that Mullaly had some good ideas, as his vision has resulted in a number of positives, including the sale of Jag/LR, borrowing $ when Ford could & NOT begging the gov't to save Ford because no lender in their right minds would. Ford has been positioned to succeed. GM will go Chap 11, either by force or quasi-gov't involvement. You can't defend the indefensible since these are simply the facts!

Absolutely. While I agree that RW was a victim of politics, it doesn't change the fact that he has presided over the failure of what was once the largest, proudest, most bad ass industrial giant on the planet. The Board, RW & his minions have done an awful job. The economy might have pushed GM over the edge, but management failure left them in that precarious position to begin with. One only has to look across Detroit at what Mullaly has done at Ford to see what a realistic plan looks like. Unfortunately, its Chap 11 or a gov't sponsored 'Chap 11 - lite' that will result now. GM will never look the same again. Somebody has to provide a vision to reinvent GM. RW was clearly not the man to do it.

Firstly, RW is a GM lifer....he's worked in an Exec-level position for the last 15 years or so...quite enough time to have guided the ship into the rocks, my friend. I'm not defending Obama or his plans, merely statinmg that 100 days is a little short a period to judge the man. And, I couldn't discuss my position if I wanted to...and I don't. Suffice it to say I'm not actually selling cars---but I do have about 900 or so people that depend upon my abilities to run things---and I take that very seriously and blame RW for part of the current problem. He shoud've been done in 06, at best. Anyone delievering the performance he has would lose their jobs. Not my fault GM's Board couldn't man-up and boot him sooner.

GM alone couldn't dictate the market for cars & trucks people actually can buy and afford today. The government merely needs to mandate things (like CAFE, CO2, et al...) not throw $50Billion down a black hole! Like I said above, more thinking, less posting would do many here wonders.

I'm not a sheep for anyone...I actually think for myself, thanx. Just commenting on the idea of conspiracies...didn't subscribe to Bush-bashing, only hazarded a pretty good guess as to the source of the absurd thought process & just commenting on the fact that some can't seem to look past rhetoric to actually think about what they're saying. I mean, who the f&^k would need GM to control anything in this country? You'd be better served nationalizing Starbucks..... (I've been up front and out front on all of this, boys. If that ruffles some feathers, so be it. I may be out on my ass in 60+ days--I'm just a front line a$$hole with his livelihood on the line--as far as I'm concerned, the President has been the only one with balls enough to kick RW to the curb--far too late for many of my co-workers &, perhaps, me as well.)