enzl

For the same reason Baseball Managers get canned because of a slow start to the season--injuries, bad luck not withstanding---RW must go. He's simply a symbol of a system that has crashed and must be rethought--probably a smart, nice man---but it must be done. You conveniently omit the fact that EVERY car maker, to some degree or another, faced most of the abovementioned hurdles and managed to clear them...GM's single largest problem was a lack of focus on product--EDS, Hughes, Fiat--all took time, energy and, sometimes, capital away from prioritizing what the most simple person would think is the most important GM does: Design & Produce Vehicles.

I consider the above posters fairly astute when it comes to GM history, but utterly blinded by love when it comes to judgments on GM's behavior.... While its obvious that cuts are difficult and, in the short term, expensive, I'll give you a few ways in which the current disaster--could have been minimized--if not avoided: 1. GM has thrown away BILLIONS on distractions for the past 10-20 years--Hughes, EDS, Fiat, Subaru, Isuzu, Saab---all of which would have provided the money to weather this crisis. (For the cost of NOT buying Fiat ($2 billion)--all Saturn dealers could be bought out! 2. GM has never shown a willingness to allow outsiders to render opinions that receive any weight where it counts--in the Boardroom and Exec-Suites. (And don't tell me Lutz---the product was so mediocre, anyone given authority with a brain could have done what he's done). When Ross Perot barked about the waste and stupidity, they paid him (alot) to go away. Jerry York, as recently as 2+ yrs. ago, suggested almost all of the things GM now must do. 3. GM has been losing the ALL-important PR wars for decades---are you telling me they couldn't have hired better? Engaged the same people Toyota does? Done market research that wouldn't simply be short-sighted reflection of internal decisions preordained? I got off the phone with a well-placed GM exec on Friday who couldn't believe how GM's brass didn't anticipate the 1st visit to Congress and how badly that would play with the public. How could they not of considered the possibility? 4. The UAW issues have already been handled---and fairly well, IMO. Det3 are 1.5 yrs. away from real freedom from the shackles of the historical commitments---this indicates to me that the UAW has fairly pragmatic leadership that would have been a partner in working this whole situation a little sooner IF the Det3 were willing to communicate and demonstrate the dire need. 5. If GM wanted to, they could sell Saturn lock, stock and barrel to the Chinese--or perhaps Fiat--or Tata or Mahindra---there are 400 standalone dealers, right? There is no provision in any dealer agreement I know of that requires that GM produce Saturns. I'm sure that Hummer can be given away with a small dowry, with Saab in the same boat. 2 years ago (when this should have happened) there was plenty of credit available for potential buyers of these brands--which brings me to my last point: 6. Ford, a competitor, was far behind GM's restructuring efforts 3 years ago---their product pipeline was thin, they had little spare cash & their crown jewels like Jag, LR & AM were bleeding. Yet, they brought in fresh leadership, borrowed money at historically low interest rates, shed non-core assets and decided to reinvest in product--the roadmap was clear and right in front of GM's face---they did nothing and now they are weeks away from death! It's sad. And inexcusable.

And many more indicating that despite the abject distrust of the MSM, the story they are portraying is frighteningly accurate, yet many here cling to notions of a grand comeback. Why did it take this situation to bring GM to its senses? The denial at the Tubes must literally clog the hallways. But its just as thick here, for many--certainly not all. (And some of us have been advocating for a wee bit longer)

My suggestion: Maybe congress would be more likely to give the Det3 the money if RW arrived in the back of a Cadillac Hearse.

With all due respect, I don't think I've read some more tragically misinformed posts on this topic in a while.... GM just publicly admitted that they need $4billion by the end of this month, and you guys are talking about how good a guy Wagoner is or why they should keep all of their brands? The short answers are: RW has overseen the devastation of GM, whether his fault or not, he MUST go. It's simply the price he must pay, even if you believe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time for the past 8 yrs. They can't afford to keep the lights on past Dec 31st and you want to keep money holes like Saab, Saturn or Hummer? Guys: GM can't even afford the Kool-Aid anymore--better break the habit!

Many. Americans love hypocrisy.

Although I believe that slimmer, more focused line-ups are the way to go for GM --- it looks like GM will have to place brands and dealers on the chopping block to appease all of the other interests that are sacrificing for the sake of the long-term survival of the company. To me, Saturn is the best example of what happens when best intentions get run through a large, faceless corporation. In the 90's, Saturn sold 300k examples of the S---as a start-up company. They now have 5+ products and will sell 33% less cars--that simply makes no sense... Imagine the Astra as a line-up like Europe, built at Spring Hill and priced like a Cobalt+. Could have worked, no? Buick, Pontiac and GMC are merely victims of the middle market squeeze that has afflicted many consumer products that grow stale and behind the times. The Walmart-ing of cars by Koreans on the low end and Lux-makers on the high end (BMW's 1 series, Audi A3 et al) has simply exacerbated GM's inability to keep these lineups fresh and relevant--thus being late to SUV's, then crossovers and RWD. It's going to be a hell of a battle to save GM as we know it. They'll be lots of baggage thrown overboard for good and bad.

Brand consolidation isn't an 'if', its a 'when', boys... GM's experience with Olds only indicates they must sell, rather than shutter the brands they plan to amputate--that's how you beat most state franchise laws. This is going to be like Sophie's Choice--as is obvious from the passion on this site---but if GM is to survive, we've all go to get used to the fact that it will be in some vastly different form.

Cadillac's proliferation has kept it relevant, but I'd hardly suggest that Caddy sells anywhere near its historical levels, either by numbers or marketshare---either here or worldwide. A smart GM would have leveraged the Cadillac brand worldwide decades ago. That's the problem with the Audi comparo--it's not apples to apples. Audi has entered the argument of high-end product while Caddy has struggled to stay relevant. Audi is an example of VW effectively acting as a steward of the brand--I'm sure that GM has not done the same with Caddy. Put the CTS aside, and there's little to discuss, presently.

I think Audi will hit 1 million sales, annually this year, worldwide. I don't believe Caddy will hit 300k, worldwide. Audi is fleshing out a full line-up---Caddy has been trending downward for decades, no? Caddy is great--but the prime victim in the unavoidable starvation of great brands in the GM universe.

AGreed. I'd also add that Pontiac has tried to have its cake (volume) & eat it too ('performance image')--most of the volume products simply didn't truly reflect the marketing slogan. GM couldn't spot and exploit a niche well enough or quickly enough to make 'niche' brands work--that's why we see spotty 'excitement' product across GM--XLR, Solstice/Sky. original GTO, Aztek, SSR. et al.... It's tough to excel with a record like that.

All previous posts have failed to identify the Current real issue with GM: They can no longer finance their own product--therefore, every 140% (or unlimited before that) LTV vehicle they rolled out of showrooms 12 months ago CANNOT be sold now. And when GM customers return for GM cars/trucks, they find their leasing & financing options (assuming they aren't buried upside down) are extremely limited and uncompetitive. No Leasing, No Zero% Financing and no bank that'll finance negative equity like GMAC used to....the death spiral mentioned in other, unmentionable web sites has come to pass... The product issues are just a manifestation of the corporate ADD and inability to truly see the market's needs beyond the next business quarter results---they are the net results of a failed organization. Those failures then forced GM to sell GMAC to Cerberus---Now both are in credit-hell without the resources needed to effectively survive the current downturn without both getting Gov't handouts. Cutting brands must be looked at as necessary amputation for the rest to survive. It sux, but GM doesn't have the luxury of time---coulda been different if they were listening to the right people years ago (Perot, York)---but it was more expedient to buy them off.... Now we're going to lose a number of American icons because of that behavior...but it does look like I'm going to get my wish---RW looks like he's living on borrowed time.

I think you'll see the further reduction in nameplates, but without a truly "Chapter 11-ish" Government Event, you have mouths to feed and Olds proved you can't afford to buy 'em out. I'd be shopping or closing Holden, Saab, Hummer & Saturn---although I believe its small, independent dealer body and Spring Hill would make an attractive acquisition for someone. Saab & Hummer are costly distractions. With it's best lineup--possibly ever--GM has the potential to really do well with the 15% Market share they could naturally support. The credit crunch has decimated GM one hope of offering a deal. GMAC is tightening its lending footprint, daily...GM no longer has a captive finance company. Note that Chrysler is offering 0%.

That logic dooms GM...I'm not sure what else needs to be 'done' for the whole lot to be thrown out---Board, Rick & every one of his 'guys'... I've also been involved in corporate turnarounds...not GM sized, obviously, but who has run a corp that size? In my experience, confidence in a leader at the top is paramount--and there's no way the staff at GM feels confident in the current leadership. The fear of doing something shouldn't keep you from doing anything. The 'deer in the headlights' theory you're suggesting won't rally the troops. The next few months are rescue and recovery time---rememeber, most of what was being developed (remember--that's what GM is supposed to be doing) is now frozen. The other stuff won't lose an engineer, a team leader or anything else. What they might get is a new direction for the next thing---keep Lutz as a product guru, he's not the problem. IMO, Mullaly's efforts may save Ford. They borrowed money when it was cheap & available--they immediately rationalized their product portfolio---cut dead brands (for $) and admitted, through action, not words, that they were serious about becoming an Automotive company again--not a lux goods maker, not a finance company---a top quality, focused maker of middle market cars and trucks. And it may just save them. GM's management is still talking about the same solutions to a much, much bigger problem.

I feel that the politicians are just as bad, if not worse than the 4 gentlemen that were grilled...that being said: -How could they not expect to be sandbagged? -Why weren't they aware of what a PR disaster this could be? -Why didn't one of the 3 auto captains have a plan of some kind in their back pocket? The Press or Wall Street don't need me to defend them---I don't like them either---but you're making a fundamental error when you blame either of these parties. Neither ran GM or Chrysler into the ground. The only suit I felt a little bad for was Mullaly...he's the one guy up there that has really had a solid vision for the future--and circumstances may ruin his plans. Let me ask you a question: Why do you defend Rick Wagoner? Will it take bankruptcy for you to admit I'm 100% right about him? How can a man who grew up steeped in a broken, ancient system like GM possibly know how to save it now? The World's Greatest Corporation has been brought to it knees and you're upset with whom?

I would have looked like ass...but that wouldn't have stopped me from having been PREPARED for the event. Where were the advisors on payroll when this desperately needed trip was being planned? Typical Detroit response...denial, obfuscation and incredible tone deafness, all in one package. It reinforced every negative stereotype Detroit cannot afford to display to the public it is begging for cash.

While the politicians are clearly idiots...there's no doubt that the Big 3 bosses looked even sillier: Between the PR nightmare of corporate jets and the fact that none of the 3 showed up with a plan---or the specifics for how OUR money will be spent rescuing the Det3 from themselves--this was another PR debacle from the Kings of the Tone Deaf. How can you ask for these moneys, knowing the political and financial climate, and not have some sort of plan? Or explanation? There's no defending Detroit on this one folks---they're VERY lucky that they're getting a do-over on this thing in a few weeks. Anyone else wanna defend keeping Wagoner now? He looked like the biggest doofus of all up there.

Smartest thing you've ever posted. If you're going to reinvent the company, this kind of goal is needed. Remember, GM got into this mess partially because they set goals that were short term---like quarterly profits or matching an Accord. Shouldn't their aim be higher than that? This bailout is an opportunity, and it can't be viewed as a failure by the people running GM---otherwise, it's simply delaying the inevitable crash--and that can't be the goal, can it?

I've never supported the idea of Detroit being allowed to fail---I would demand smart, meaningful milestones and goals---but you'll never find me rooting for their failure. As far as safety, or any other excuse, the EU's crash standards are good enough for me--clean diesel, hybrids & Volt-tech EREV's all will make 50 mpg a breeze---the Volt will come with 100mpg ratings, whichl raise the avg quite a bit if GM has the cajones to build enough of them!

The same was said about seatbelts, emissions regs, CAFE et al..... It's difficult to get 50 MPG, but far from impossible. Maybe we should keep being dependent on oil from our enemies for a few more generations? It's a national security issue more than anything---and Europe already has fun cars that get 50 or more---the electrification of the car (as led by GM's Volt) will mean realistic advances that net such results. It's actually not bad for GM--or the country. And, its better to have a GM than allow it to rot, no?

Here's the problem that most have with throwing money at this thing: Where does it end? Both in terms of monies needed to stop the Detroit 3's slide into oblivion, as well as which industries are 'deserving' of assistance. I think that GM has had a PR problem they've been in denial about for years. This attitude you see is a direct reflection of that issue, magnified by the economic crisis that's been accelerating

You've managed to cherry-pick most of their best decisions without acknowledging their mistakes: Bottom line: They couldn't make money in a 17 million unit market! Excuses about legacy costs make my ears bleed---they could have gone to the Union years ago, opened the books and let the UAW judge for themselves that the structure was untenable... Instead they denied, avoided and outright lied about the financial health of the company. The results are there for you in naked view! They're 60-90 days away from a liquidity event! The selfish, short-sighted, arrogant and disingenuous management team has taken an ICON and reduced it to a pauper's grave. I can't see how that can be defended on ANY level.

First, I would have opened the books to the UAW years ago--have them sign NDA's and away we go---the structural deficiencies were there. Second, I would have gone with the shared pain/shared pleasure offer--simply put, when things are tough, everybody eats a sh!t sandwich--mgmt, workers, shareholders---when times are good, bingo!--everybody gets paid. Now, here's what really happened: The Rickster didn't want to admit that the structural problems could doom the company--the share price would have dropped dramatically, his job placed in jeopardy and his obscene bonuses would have seemed inappropriate. As would the lavish perks. Instead, he figured we keep this thing lurching forward, execute the best, most profitable product plan in the SHORT term (i.e. big trucks) & hope for the best. But he couldn't make hay while the sun shined--the erosion of market share here, the loss inducing acquisition of distractions, the underestimation of the competition--ALL his fault. They LOST $ while the market expanded. How is that good? Sorry. Intellligent decisions could have averted this extreme result.

Bill Ford was smart enough to know he needed someone else to do the job! We quickly forget that GM wasn't making money before the latest economic disaster. In years that the US (& World) were buying record #'s of vehicles, GM was either losing money or barely making 1-2% net...a well run, mass market manufacturer should be netting much more. Change is scary---but the notion that an 'outsider' can't run GM is a farce. It's simply untrue---and besides, I don't believe others could have done much worse than 60-90 days from running out of money? And, of course RW doesn't think his resignation is a smart move---for him. I'm sure he's a nice man--probably extremely charming as well---what else could explain his employment, given his track record? Who here can honestly state that they would have a job if they performed in their job as RW has in the last 8 years?

If the burn rate continues at $6-7 billion/Quarter (as per 3rd Q numbers which don't include a horrible October), than that's just 1 year. Assuming they can slow the rate to $1 billion/month, then they make it until 2010, but have another $25billion in loans to repay on top of the current liabilities--oh, and they've got to restart all of the development programs at that time. Simply put, that's a tall order. They'll get the money---but I predict a day of reckoning will only be extended, not prevented. PArtnership, merger, a split of US/World operations or receivership are the most likely outcomes.