View Full Version : General Motors CEO - Rick Wagoner Resigns..
101lifts2
03-29-2009, 10:11 PM
Just heard that Rick Wagoner resigned....not sure if this was posted already.
Homeslice
03-29-2009, 10:16 PM
:zowned:
bmblebee
03-29-2009, 10:32 PM
He was asked by the Whitehouse to resign and he did. I guess the president knows more about running GM than the Board does
He was asked by the Whitehouse to resign and he did. I guess the president knows more about running GM than the Board does
the white house knows everything. the problem is that we just arent intellignet enought to understand their decisions.
101lifts2
03-29-2009, 11:15 PM
He was asked by the Whitehouse to resign and he did. I guess the president knows more about running GM than the Board does
Sorry, but the government fucks up most things they touch. God help GM.
is this the change everyone wanted?
pauldun170
03-30-2009, 12:08 AM
Wagoner has been in charge for 9 years.
GM's performance over the past 9 years has not been great and the decisions made over that period have resulted in what we see today.
9 years is enough time to make an impact and Wagoner's leadership have led GM to what it is today.
If it were a bank GM was approaching for cash vs the federal Government...
I would think the Bank would ask for "regime change" as well before loaning a coulpe of billion dollars.
Homeslice
03-30-2009, 12:08 AM
Considering the size of the bailout, I think the government has the right to get some influence..........Think of it almost like buying themselves 2-3 seats on the board.
Or would you guys prefer that they go bankrupt without any bailouts?
with bankruptcy they could renegotiate the contracts right?
Porkchop
03-30-2009, 01:19 AM
He was asked by the Whitehouse to resign and he did. I guess the president knows more about running GM than the Board does
The Golden Parachute built into this jackasses contract must have been UNREAL!!!!! :panic:
"So..... you want me to step down Mr President???? You say its for the betterment of the company?? Heh heh, pay up suckers!"
Or would you guys prefer that they go bankrupt without any bailouts?
ding ding ding ding, we have a winner.
bmblebee
03-30-2009, 07:28 AM
GM is approaching a ventilator type life support. The problem at GM is that people are not buying their cars, and they are not building the cars the market has determined, and people are buying.
How many models of cars does GM sell for under 20K? Try to find a new car for under 17K on a GM lot. I have found most prices well in excess of 25K, and many more north of 30K. The price of GM cars is the biggest reason I don't visit their lots. Even Saturn, who began as a moderately priced car has moved into the high end range where they now have very few models you can drive off the lot under 20K.
When you factor in the extremely poor investment any automobile purchase is, along with the government's green initiatives to make operating an automobile very expensive, this creates even more hardship on the family as the economy shrinks, and families have to be radically careful with their money...people aren't buying cars
Until GM or any manufacturer can convince consumers back to the lots, it is just a fail waiting to happen
pauldun170
03-30-2009, 10:18 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/29/news/companies/motor_world.fortune/index.htm
pauldun170
03-30-2009, 12:59 PM
20mil for wagoner
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7208201&page=1
Homeslice
03-30-2009, 02:12 PM
LOL...........$20 mil is small change compared to what some of the Wall Streeters got, and IMO those guys don't even have to handle as many diverse problems as an auto executive does.
pauldun170
03-30-2009, 02:44 PM
LOL...........$20 mil is small change compared to what some of the Wall Streeters got, and IMO those guys don't even have to handle as many diverse problems as an auto executive does.
Really?
Please explain..
Homeslice
03-30-2009, 03:05 PM
Union labor, overseas production and labor, raw material sourcing & costs, the selection and management of thousands of suppliers, environmental and safety standards, not just for their products but for the factories that build them, extensive work adapting products to other countries, warranty policy, lemon laws, dealer network politics and figuring out ways to push unpopular vehicles onto their lots, extensive R&D on future technologies........how many Wall Street CEOs deal with these issues?
IMO the financial industry leaders are overpaid compared to manufacturing industry leaders...... Does that mean I advocate some sort of gov't salary caps, no.........Just spouting off my unproven and unproveable opinion.
pauldun170
03-30-2009, 03:40 PM
Union labor, overseas production and labor, raw material sourcing & costs, the selection and management of thousands of suppliers, environmental and safety standards, not just for their products but for the factories that build them, extensive work adapting products to other countries, warranty policy, lemon laws, dealer network politics and figuring out ways to push unpopular vehicles onto their lots, extensive R&D on future technologies........how many Wall Street CEOs deal with these issues?
IMO the financial industry leaders are overpaid compared to manufacturing industry leaders...... Does that mean I advocate some sort of gov't salary caps, no.........Just spouting off my unproven and unproveable opinion.
What do you think "financial industry leaders" responsibilities are?
What issues do you think they face?
Quick281
03-30-2009, 06:09 PM
Sorry, but the government fucks up most things they touch. God help GM.
I wasn't aware that it could get any worse for GM.
Smittie61984
03-30-2009, 09:05 PM
If it were a bank GM was approaching for cash vs the federal Government...
I would think the Bank would ask for "regime change" as well before loaning a coulpe of billion dollars.
It's one thing for a private company and another private company to invest and use input. Both have the ability to walk away and even argue with no consequences or repercusions for upsetting each other. It's another thing when you have the government telling someone what to do. Telling the government "No" can fuck your world up.
Plus the money was already given to them. Maybe there was a clause in whatever paperwork that said "If you recieve this money we can make decisions for you". But for the government to give them the money and then after they recieve the money put new terms on them. That's not good.
Now I am curious what stupid fucktard they will put in his place. Good luck finding a CEO who wants to make $500k (or may be told to later on), no bonuses (despite being in a contract), no private jet use, and demonized everytime he buys a non-domestic beer for being a "rich capitalist pig". If you worked some major overtime (or average hours a CEO uses) you could make $100k with no fucking worries.
GM is dying because of the UAW and that no one wants to buy a fucking peice of shit.
Plus the money was already given to them. Maybe there was a clause in whatever paperwork that said "If you recieve this money we can make decisions for you". But for the government to give them the money and then after they recieve the money put new terms on them. That's not good.
they have done this already, why not again?
101lifts2
03-31-2009, 12:20 AM
....GM is dying because of the UAW and that no one wants to buy a fucking peice of shit.
GM is dying because of all the retirement and healthcare (for retirees) that they are shelling out. The UAW cost per person isn't all that much compared to Toyota and Honda in the U.S.
And for the record GM continues to outsell every other make in the United States.
Wagoner has done wonders for GM and was probably the single most CEO to change the structure of General Motors. Unfortunately, GM is so huge that making changes were too slow. I would say Wagoner was the best CEO GM has ever had. Most of the others have driven GM into the ground over the last 100 years.
I heard something that the Gov was going to try to make them take stock to fund those programs. I think that would be good, that way they would also have a vested interest to make the company do good so their stocks would go up.
goof2
03-31-2009, 02:21 PM
I heard something that the Gov was going to try to make them take stock to fund those programs. I think that would be good, that way they would also have a vested interest to make the company do good so their stocks would go up.
I see a big problem with this. The direction in which the government wants to force the auto industry will not be profitable in the next ten years, if ever. The government seems focused on forcing the American auto industry to build hybrids, plug in hybrids, and electric only vehicles. I could be mistaken but I don't believe anyone has built any of these and made any kind of profit. Toyota and Honda, the pinnacle of making profitable vehicles, both loose money on each hybrid they build. I suspect the domestics are not doing any better.
The question is, who would want to be an executive in the auto industry where your compensation is directly tied to profits, but you are either discouraged or ordered to build unprofitable vehicles. Is it a good idea to work for stock in a company where the government is essentially guaranteeing the demise of the company?
I have been told that every Honda RC51 that was sold, lost Honda money. don't know for sure thats the truth either but the guy has been in the business for a long time.
Homeslice
03-31-2009, 04:20 PM
I have been told that every Honda RC51 that was sold, lost Honda money. don't know for sure thats the truth either but the guy has been in the business for a long time.
Wouldn't doubt it.
Believe it or not there was a time when Ford lost money on every Escort, simply because they couldn't sell them for what they wanted to sell them for.
goof2
03-31-2009, 04:32 PM
I have been told that every Honda RC51 that was sold, lost Honda money. don't know for sure thats the truth either but the guy has been in the business for a long time.
Honda can afford to do that on some motorcycles and cars because they make money on a large majority of their vehicles. GM and Chrysler do not have that luxury since they loose money on the majority of their vehicles.
goof2
03-31-2009, 04:34 PM
Wouldn't doubt it.
Believe it or not there was a time when Ford lost money on every Escort, simply because they couldn't sell them for what they wanted to sell them for.
That seems to be the case with about every GM and Chrysler full size truck and SUV right now.
Rsv1000R
03-31-2009, 05:08 PM
The question is, who would want to be an executive in the auto industry where your compensation is directly tied to profits, but you are either discouraged or ordered to build unprofitable vehicles. Is it a good idea to work for stock in a company where the government is essentially guaranteeing the demise of the company?
Welcome to a US Auto Industry run by the Car Czar......
Homeslice
03-31-2009, 08:54 PM
That seems to be the case with about every GM and Chrysler full size truck and SUV right now.
Maybe, but 2 years ago those same models were making bank. I know Ford used to make $18K after manufacturing costs on every Navigator.
goof2
03-31-2009, 09:46 PM
Maybe, but 2 years ago those same models were making bank. I know Ford used to make $18K after manufacturing costs on every Navigator.
Maybe that is why Ford wants nothing to do with the government bailout. While GM might have been doing as well on Escalades they are now essentially paying people to remove them from the lots.
It reminds me of a story I heard about Aston Martin, but the veracity of it I do not know. At some point during one of the company's less successful periods the friend of one of the owners asked, since they were buddies, if he could purchase an Aston at cost. The answer was "Sure!" and the price was raised by a few thousand pounds.
bmblebee
03-31-2009, 10:14 PM
perhaps an understanding of cost accounting is needed. If an airline sends a plane on a flight, where every seat but one is full, they can claim they lost money on the flight. It has nothing to do with revenue vs expenses.
If you accept the rebate, or zero percent financing when you purchase a car they finance in house, the manufacturer claims a loss on the sale
goof2
03-31-2009, 10:50 PM
perhaps an understanding of cost accounting is needed. If an airline sends a plane on a flight, where every seat but one is full, they can claim they lost money on the flight. It has nothing to do with revenue vs expenses.
If you accept the rebate, or zero percent financing when you purchase a car they finance in house, the manufacturer claims a loss on the sale
That is fine for a discussion of individual cars, but doesn't tell the story of GM as a whole. GM's EBIT for 2008 was negative $30 billion. That has everything to do with revenue vs. expenses. With GM selling just under 8.5 million cars worldwide in 08 it also tells me, by loosing around $3,500 per car sold, it isn't just claimed losses.
Homeslice
03-31-2009, 11:00 PM
Maybe that is why Ford wants nothing to do with the government bailout. While GM might have been doing as well on Escalades they are now essentially paying people to remove them from the lots.
.
No matter how much of a rebate they give, I still bet they make money on them. Remember, all an Escalade is is a Chevy truck with an enclosed body and fancy trim. Same as a Navigator is just an F150. That's a hell of a cost efficiency. Now, most of their passenger cars I'm sure they're losing money on.
101lifts2
03-31-2009, 11:50 PM
It costs GM about 15-18K to produce most of its vehicles...A 40K Cad. Escalade is around the 18k figure, so they could discount it 20 grand and still make coin.
The problem is selling Cobalts where they loose on every one.
goof2
04-01-2009, 01:30 AM
No matter how much of a rebate they give, I still bet they make money on them. Remember, all an Escalade is is a Chevy truck with an enclosed body and fancy trim. Same as a Navigator is just an F150. That's a hell of a cost efficiency. Now, most of their passenger cars I'm sure they're losing money on.
It costs GM about 15-18K to produce most of its vehicles...A 40K Cad. Escalade is around the 18k figure, so they could discount it 20 grand and still make coin.
The problem is selling Cobalts where they loose on every one.
The other problem is while Escalades, Silverados, Rams, etc. may theoretically be profitable, they have to be sold first. They could cost a dollar each to build but they don't have a positive impact on the company when they are sitting in lots by the tens of thousands not being sold.
Even if they are profitable though, it only strengthens my original point. The government doesn't want GM building cars that can apparently still be profitable. They want GM building cars that have historically lost money. GM certainly did plenty to bring this on themselves. Management placed the company in a position where they are dependent on government aid for their survival.
When Chrysler was given government aid in 1979 in the form of $1.5 billion in loan guarantees (over $4 billion today) the government didn't tell them what they should be building. Even without the now indispensable hand of government, Chrysler was able to repay the loans in 4 years. That apparently isn't the case as far as the current administration is concerned.
This brings me back to my original point. The government is trying to force these companies to build historically unprofitable cars, essentially guaranteeing the failure of these companies. The executives now have to work for stock, which will be worthless once the companies fail. Under these conditions how are GM and Chrysler supposed to attract any talent at all?
pauldun170
04-01-2009, 09:27 AM
The problem is that we assume that in order for GM to survive they need to sell more cars and make a profit on each one.
Unfortunately this is not the 20+ years ago. The market is diverse and increased sales will not fix GM's problem. Even if GM could pull off a "hot" volume seller and increase sales they would still be in hot water.
They need to shrink.
They need an old fashion "regroup".
They have crappy obligations throughout from labor to vendors (vendors them selves have the same issue of crappy labor contracts and vendors).
They have an OBSCENE amount of redundancy in the portfolio.
Destitute
04-01-2009, 09:34 AM
The question is, who would want to be an executive in the auto industry where your compensation is directly tied to profits, but you are either discouraged or ordered to build unprofitable vehicles. Is it a good idea to work for stock in a company where the government is essentially guaranteeing the demise of the company?
Hasn't it already died, and the government is giving it a second chance at life? If it wasn't for taxpayer money, GM would already be in bankruptcy.
I didn't realize the government was making product decisions, rather than just financial/organizational ones.
Corey
04-01-2009, 09:39 AM
Hasn't it already died, and the government is giving it a second chance at life? If it wasn't for taxpayer money, GM would already be in bankruptcy.
I didn't realize the government was making product decisions, rather than just financial/organizational ones.
What qualifies the government to make financial decisions related to the auto industries? Right now it's sounding like they are pushing for bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler. They're trying to push Chrysler into a merger with Fiat. They're pushing moves on an industry that is in rough waters around the globe without anything that qualifies them to make any proper decisions except being able to rape tax payers to back their mistakes. Everything about this whole auto fiasco gets worse with each passing month. None of this bodes well for GM or Chrysler.
pauldun170
04-01-2009, 10:09 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090401/ts_nm/us_autos_report_sb
goof2
04-01-2009, 11:23 AM
Hasn't it already died, and the government is giving it a second chance at life? If it wasn't for taxpayer money, GM would already be in bankruptcy.
I didn't realize the government was making product decisions, rather than just financial/organizational ones.
If they had died the American taxpayer would not already be $17+ billion in the hole. If the government is just going to keep these companies on life support with taxpayer money, while setting conditions that make the companies incapable of recovery I wish they would just let them fail now.
The financial/organizational decisions are directly tied to product decisions. The previously mentioned Chrysler/Fiat merger is a prime example. Apparently the administration feels that Fiat will magically be able to make their cars pass American emissions and crash testing while convincing Americans they want to spend $15k+ on a small 3 or 5 door hatchback with a 75 horsepower engine. I'm sure Americans will be happy to go along, even though the Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris are similarly sized, have more power, are the same price or less, and have better reliability reputations than Fiat.
If my guess is right though it doesn't really matter. I suspect the Obama administration is trying to drive GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy so they can get rid of their labor contracts. The difficulty is they are trying to do it on the sly, putting all the weight on management. If the administration just came out and said that one of the big problems with Detroit was crippling labor agreements you would see Obama's approval rating drop by 10% or more. Instead, the administration has decided to throw the future of hundreds of thousands of GM and Chrysler employees, as well as their suppliers and those employees in to turmoil in an (I believe futile) attempt to save the approval rating.
and just think, if those jobs go overseas, those people couldn't make a decent living at those jobs anyway (according to obama's internet Town Hall meeting anyway).
Smittie61984
04-01-2009, 10:39 PM
I have been told that every Honda RC51 that was sold, lost Honda money. don't know for sure thats the truth either but the guy has been in the business for a long time.
Not the way my local motorcycle store priced those bitches. It's why those fucks still have 4 in crates.
101lifts2
04-02-2009, 02:03 AM
Interesting vid posted by Pauldun....I think GM will file for bankruptcy simply because the healthcare and retirement costs need to be curtailed heavily in order to make a profit for any of the vehicles GM sells.
If my guess is right though it doesn't really matter. I suspect the Obama administration is trying to drive GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy so they can get rid of their labor contracts. The difficulty is they are trying to do it on the sly, putting all the weight on management. If the administration just came out and said that one of the big problems with Detroit was crippling labor agreements you would see Obama's approval rating drop by 10% or more. Instead, the administration has decided to throw the future of hundreds of thousands of GM and Chrysler employees, as well as their suppliers and those employees in to turmoil in an (I believe futile) attempt to save the approval rating.
This is true of every move in the political world, not what is best for the country as a whole, but how good can our approval ratings be? And you are 100% right.
pauldun170
04-02-2009, 11:14 AM
http://www.leftlanenews.com/congressman-obama-should-oust-uaw-leader-ron-gettelfinger.html
Not the way my local motorcycle store priced those bitches. It's why those fucks still have 4 in crates.
guess if they own them they can price them any way they want. thought Honda owned all the Honda's out till they were purchased by a customer.
Rsv1000R
04-02-2009, 11:47 AM
http://www.leftlanenews.com/congressman-obama-should-oust-uaw-leader-ron-gettelfinger.html
I like that, what do you think the odds are though?
goof2
04-02-2009, 01:26 PM
Slim left town.
Homeslice
04-02-2009, 09:07 PM
Not the way my local motorcycle store priced those bitches. It's why those fucks still have 4 in crates.
If they still have a black one, I'd offer maybe 8K for it. Good luck getting any more than that for a bike that's been sitting around for 3+ years.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.