SSbaby

Let's see now...

GM's notable failures over the past few decades:

- SAAB never returning a profit.
- Isuzu not making money.
- Opel's decline.
- Saturn brand.
- Pontiac's demise.
- Partnering Fiat.
- Too slow to release Camaro.
- Not productionising Zeta sedans in NA.
- Not doing enough despite continually flowing red ink.

GM's notable success stories over the past few decades:

- Reinventing Cadillac.
- Buying Daewoo.
- Leveraging off Holden's development.

Just off the top of my head.

It's quite obvious to me that GM has bitten off more than it could chew.

BigDarknFast

Oopsy. In your rush to bias, you overlooked a few GM successes:

- Market-leading fullsize pickup trucks like the GMT800
- Safety innovations such as passenger airbags, OnStar, HUD
- The stunning, timeless and wildly successful third generation FBodies
- World-class performance and value in the C5 and C6 Corvettes
- Unmatched 2+2 performance value in the 4gen Fbodies, with their wonderfully simple and under-rated LS1 delighting thousands of enthusiasts
- Pontiac designs with unique presence and widespread popularity such as the Grand Am's and Grand Prix's of the 1990's
- Innovative SUV designs like the Avalanche, HHR and H2
- New and unexpected levels of road performance from FWD designs, like the Cobalt SS and Grand Prix GXP
- World-class quality in today's Buicks and other offerings
- All this, despite onerous constraints from the UAW, picky whiny biased mass media inputs/import-worshipping propaganda, unrealistic/absurd federal regulations too numerous to print with normal computer printers, and brutal state franchise laws supporting picky, whiny dealers.

(I imagine I've still missed a few)

SSbaby

I don't believe any of the things you mention got any press. Probably because they weren't anything out of the ordinary.

As I said before, I love GM, probably as much as you do. But given the poor leadership over the years, I do believe it's time for a change at the upper management level. The entire leadership group needs to give way to those who actually care about cars and GM and not just themselves.

I even remember Ross Perot saying something like "At GM, the first thing you do is organize a committee on snakes. Then you bring in a consultant who knows a lot about snakes. Third thing you do is talk about it for a year. "

Does that ring a bell at all? C-A-M-A-R-O was conceived the same way!

I still love GM too much to see it die. My comments might seem cruel to you but if I really knew... my comments might even seem too kind!

Route66Wanderer

In the business world, the only true measure of success is the figure at the bottom of the page called Profit (or loss) and that is where GM has been failing and is failing; regardless of their notable successes with particular vehicles like the C5 and C6 Corvette.

The reasons for that failure are many and varied and everybody seems to have their favorite gremlins to point at but ultimately, even if a car company is making the “best cars and trucks in the world”; if they can’t sell enough of them or if they sell as many as can reasonably be expected in the existing world market but can’t make a profit because of their costs; then they fail.

GM's management had to known for two or three decades that they were heading for this cliff but I suspect they refused to deal with it for the reasons I noted earlier.

Z28x

About two years later now, Those that bought old GM stock lost everything, those of us with GM cars still have good resale values. Looks like buying the GM car was the better choice.

Jason E

Holy ancient post, Batman

Amazing the difference, then vs. now.

Captain Jeff Z28

I'm not sure how I missed this the first time around (or if I just don't remember it), but good read, nevertheless!

Jeff

Z28x

I was actually looking for a GM IPO thread, then came across this one. GM is doing a lot better than many people imagined after a bankruptcy.

BTW...GM stock hit $39 today. IPO price was $33 about 2 months ago.

jg95z28

Keep in mind that those that bought during the IPO period cannot sell their shares for a certain period of time. (I want to say its 6 months, but it may be different for different companies.) For example, 6 months after Tesla IPO'd its shares dropped when original investors were allowed to sell their shares for the first time.

You may want to wait until after the grace period has ended.

Z28x

Usually the market anticipates events like that. If those people are going to sell off the stock price will drop long before that. That is what i though was going to happen to Google. IPO was $85, I bought some at ~$120 and sold at ~$145 thinking it was going to drop, instead it went right up to $700. I don't think GM will shoot up like that, but I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years it is at ~$60-$80 a share and comes into the Honda - Toyota market cap range.

JakeRobb

I didn't buy stock, but did buy a new '09 Aura XR 3.6 on December 30th of 2009. Clearance pricing and a GM family discount shielded me from most of the typical new-car depreciation, and I got a pretty nice car out of the deal.

The Saturn dealer closed (building still vacant), and their other branch across town converted to a Hyundai dealer.

Route66Wanderer

Had the bankruptcy been handled per bankruptcy law it's quite possible that GM wouldn't exist or at the very least, it would be much different today.

I'd say that the eventual success or failure of GM long term is still very much debatable. That doesn't mean that investors can't win or lose many $ in the interim.

Just my $0.02

guionM

You almost sound like one of those people who came out of the woodwork back then preaching that GM's bankruptcy was somehow shady and didn't follow bankruptcy law..... That's a group of paint-chip-eating, powerline-living, too-many-head-injuries-as-child, couldn't-figure-out-which-side-of-their-underwear-goes-to-the-front-even-if-it-was-color-coded-yellow-and-brown" group of people you certainly don't want to be associated with.

The only unique thing about GM's bankruptcy was that the United States Department of the Treasury purchased the good parts of GM. Chrysler was more typical. A combination of employees and backers buying key parts of the company to save jobs and hiring an outside expert to run the thing.

As far as both GM and Chrysler combined, the only thing notable (and not at all unusual) was that the potential "Debtors-In-Possesion" (US and Canadian Governemnts at GM, and the UAW, and both the US and Canadian governments at Chrysler) asked court to expedite hearing objections to the sale due to the fact that both companies would have to cease operation and suffer irreversable damage which would kill their ability to recover.

This was way too true in GM's case (they'd be dead before the middle of summer). Chrysler, while not actually "fudgging" their numbers, did take use pessimistic numbers. They actually could have lasted through the end of the year it was later found out (yes...someone did try to sue over this. It was thrown out of court).

General Motors (and Chrysler) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy....Section 363

That's where the paint-chip-eaters get tripped up. They think of bankruptcy as this simple thing where someone simply says they're bankrupt and the court divvies out what's left. They can't comprehend that first a court has to decide if you can even claim bankruptcy (they can and do refuse, and you are still legally liable for all your contracts and liabilities).

Then.... and this is the part that you can't even teach those guys with crayons and Barney the Dinosaur-thingy songs (let alone those "show-me-where-he-touched-you" dolls).... is that there are many, many bankruptcy options.

That's what keeps bankruptcy lawyers in business. They find the right section to file under that meets the needs of the situation.

Section 363 allows parts of a company to be sold to an entity and be completely free of all liabilities the former company had. All bondholders, investors, and debtholders are left with whatever remains afterwards to liquidate to settle any debt (which essentially means they're out of luck being that the entire company went into bankruptcy...meaning it had no money to pay everone to start with....the parts left after the good stuff being taken away are basically worthless).

Any company can apply for this, and courts can grant this if a key buyer for the company is found before going into court.

Remember (though the paint-chip-eaters, and the bondholder lapdogs always forget), that Bankruptcy's 1st purpose is to protect the entity or person filing. That's why it's termed "Bankruptcy Protection".

In this instance, the goal was to save hundreds of thousands of jobs and have a company that would be fixed and effectively managed. (BTW: Normally top management would be gone at this point, so there is almost no way Rick Wagoner would have continued as CEO after BK any more than Chrysler's CEO).

All this information is easily accessible to anyone with a few keystrokes and about 10 minutes looking up types of bankruptcies..... or less than 90 seconds Googling "GM, Bankruptcy, section 363", so it still laughable when anyone hints that GM's bankruptcy was somehow illegal, shady, or below board......

.......... which I know wasn't your intention.

Questions answered here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...of_assets.html

You are certainly correct here. There is simply too many things that have yet to happen.

Ford has done a complete change in philosophy, and the way they do business since the early 90s. Ford isn't pinching pennies for short term savings at the risk of long term quality or duribility (and they aren't afraid to charge a few more pennies for it, in return).

Chrysler was already an extremely lean company that was seeing declines in sales because Cerberus didn't (or couldn't) invest in new vehicles and better quality materials outside of hardware. If Chrysler could pump up sales with new models, it would easily be back in black.

GM still appears to be unstable. Outside of eliminating debt, the only change at GM appears to be that an aristocratic management seems to have been replaced with management that changes chairs every few months. In a real sense, GM's quality hasn't changed above the certainly huge improvements that occured when Lutz's handiwork started hitting showrooms some years ago. Cars are developed quicker, but GM has had that ability for almost a decade (the bureacratic approval process is what made them take forever). There's nothing in the pipeline that wasn't before (except that an Opel is a Buick instead of a Saturn)

This is not to say that the new GM is miles better than the old one. GM is a leaner company that seems to finally understand that as a business, it has to make profits and to make profits, it has to sell vehicles above the cost to make them, and to do that they have to make cars that people want (not make something them pay people to buy them).

But while Chrysler has Fiat (whose management now treats as a "Crown Jewel" and seems to be pumping attention and products into, at the expense of other divisions in their empire) and a simple-to-fix problem (get new cars on the road), and Ford has so much money and unused lines of credit, and (shockingly), a quality reputation that outstrips Toyota, GM still has challenges.

1. They don't have a safety net. If the economy sours again, Ford has money, Chrysler is a lean business that has Fiat to draw on. GM isn't going to get a government loan again.

2. GM needs to stableize the management musical chairs. Every new manager needs to set himself apart from the old one. That breeds policy, vision, and operational changes each time a position is changed.

3. Finally, it still seems GM still haven't made the commitment to quality and the money and change of culture it takes that Ford did some years. An example? Styling tastes aside, sit in both the new Chrysler 200 (basically a redone Sebring...was the worse US car interior in materials IMHO) and sit in a Malibu. Chrysler has done more than close the gap, it actually feels more expensive. Ditto the Avenger.... which used to have it's picture in the dictionary next to the words "Cheap Interior".