GM CEO Wagoner to Step Down
Banned
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 213
I think it's a symbolic move. Maybe the board will be replaced, too? Wagoner's not solely responsible for GM's debacle but he was the leader of the car company that went broke, having to beg to the govt to guarantee its survival.
Would you trust any leader in that position, going forward?
Don't forget, Wagoner has been there for 30 years. During that time, GM has largely failed to establish itself as the premier car company as distinct to the biggest car company.
Yes, the GM of today is vastly better than the GM of the 70s, 80s etc... but that's hardly huge praise. Not when the competition is gaining a larger share of the domestic auto market.
Would you trust any leader in that position, going forward?
Don't forget, Wagoner has been there for 30 years. During that time, GM has largely failed to establish itself as the premier car company as distinct to the biggest car company.
Yes, the GM of today is vastly better than the GM of the 70s, 80s etc... but that's hardly huge praise. Not when the competition is gaining a larger share of the domestic auto market.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
This is an easy one. Wagoner has been at GM so long that it is his company. More than any one current person at GM he is responsible for where they are right now.
Some of things that happened under Wagoner's oversight-
-The stratagy of robbing Peter to pay Paul and spending on new SUV's while allowing profitable car models in lines like Pontiac to die without replacements.
- He was on board for the Fiat Mess.
- Selling off diversified assets like Hughes that could be helping pay the bills in a tough car market.
- He allowed the situation get bad enough with GMAC that GM had to sell controlling interest. This came back to gurt them bad this year. GMAC also made many of the bad mortgage bets hurting it now..while under GM's full ownership.
-It was Wagoner who oversaw spending a metric *** ton of money to reinvent Saturn....only to propose killing it off 3 years later.
- Spending money to develop Hummer, but not giving it a small Wrangler competitor to ensure it's future.
The simple fact is GM is much worse shape today than the day he took the job. Sure that is because they are facing the "absolute worst case scenerio"...however the reality is..his job is to have a plan for that.
As for Lutz...unfortunatly...I think his reign will go down as a failure. While he brought us enthusiasts a lot of cool cars...it is almost impossible given GM's current state to call anyone associated with it a success. While Lutz gave Pontiac great limited production cars like GTO, G8 and Solstice, he hilled most of mainstream Pontiac by renaming or not replacing bread and butter cars. Repositioning Saturn....he was there for that. Shrinking Buick to only grow it again now...check for that too. The Camaro is great...but honestly it is a year late to market. Everything really GM has bought to market in the last 5-10 years has been late to market.
Either way...GM does need to start over...but again..it has to be with the best people for the job..not some hand picked government puppets.
Some of things that happened under Wagoner's oversight-
-The stratagy of robbing Peter to pay Paul and spending on new SUV's while allowing profitable car models in lines like Pontiac to die without replacements.
- He was on board for the Fiat Mess.
- Selling off diversified assets like Hughes that could be helping pay the bills in a tough car market.
- He allowed the situation get bad enough with GMAC that GM had to sell controlling interest. This came back to gurt them bad this year. GMAC also made many of the bad mortgage bets hurting it now..while under GM's full ownership.
-It was Wagoner who oversaw spending a metric *** ton of money to reinvent Saturn....only to propose killing it off 3 years later.
- Spending money to develop Hummer, but not giving it a small Wrangler competitor to ensure it's future.
The simple fact is GM is much worse shape today than the day he took the job. Sure that is because they are facing the "absolute worst case scenerio"...however the reality is..his job is to have a plan for that.
As for Lutz...unfortunatly...I think his reign will go down as a failure. While he brought us enthusiasts a lot of cool cars...it is almost impossible given GM's current state to call anyone associated with it a success. While Lutz gave Pontiac great limited production cars like GTO, G8 and Solstice, he hilled most of mainstream Pontiac by renaming or not replacing bread and butter cars. Repositioning Saturn....he was there for that. Shrinking Buick to only grow it again now...check for that too. The Camaro is great...but honestly it is a year late to market. Everything really GM has bought to market in the last 5-10 years has been late to market.
Either way...GM does need to start over...but again..it has to be with the best people for the job..not some hand picked government puppets.
Why does everyone that thinks Wagoner should have gotten the boot a long time ago think he was the one responsible for it all? How often did we hear about Lutz having to fight to do what was needed for the new GM vehicles that came through during his tenure? Was not Wagoner the one who brought Lutz in?
I think Wagoner saw the struggle he was up against when he got to GM and hired Lutz to help get certain things done that needed to be done years ago. Its not Wagoner that needs to go, but the ideology at GM that is call the culture and those on the board that support it. Bill Ford saw the need for change at Ford. He hired in Mulally and backed him a 100% and look now where Ford is in comparison to GM.
I think Wagoner saw the struggle he was up against when he got to GM and hired Lutz to help get certain things done that needed to be done years ago. Its not Wagoner that needs to go, but the ideology at GM that is call the culture and those on the board that support it. Bill Ford saw the need for change at Ford. He hired in Mulally and backed him a 100% and look now where Ford is in comparison to GM.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Also...GM's shares are down from $60 a share when he became SEO to about $3 (at one point a $1 and change). If your a shareholder...you own part of the company....could you approve of someone who oversaw you loosing that much value in an asset?
Some other food for thought....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Wagoner
Some other food for thought....
In an interview, Wagoner stated that the worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image." The effect on the image was that the perception of GM changed from being viewed as a technology innovator, into a perception of the company as having little interest in innovation in a market with high demand for hybrid and electric vehicles, and leading to observations that GM, under Wagoner's leadership, failed to see clearly obvious trends
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 254
From: OSHAWA
I think it's a symbolic move. Maybe the board will be replaced, too? Wagoner's not solely responsible for GM's debacle but he was the leader of the car company that went broke, having to beg to the govt to guarantee its survival.
Would you trust any leader in that position, going forward?
Don't forget, Wagoner has been there for 30 years. During that time, GM has largely failed to establish itself as the premier car company as distinct to the biggest car company.
Yes, the GM of today is vastly better than the GM of the 70s, 80s etc... but that's hardly huge praise. Not when the competition is gaining a larger share of the domestic auto market.
Would you trust any leader in that position, going forward?
Don't forget, Wagoner has been there for 30 years. During that time, GM has largely failed to establish itself as the premier car company as distinct to the biggest car company.
Yes, the GM of today is vastly better than the GM of the 70s, 80s etc... but that's hardly huge praise. Not when the competition is gaining a larger share of the domestic auto market.
Agreed. How can GM after 100 years of building cars have such a poor reputation with the American public and the fact that it took so long for GM to have cars that compete with the Japanese and Germans while the Korean's first attempt at a Rear-wheel drive V8 luxury sedan nets them car of the year!!!
This is just one of many examples which proves GM management's inability to make the right decisions. You can have the best JD Powers scores and Harbour Report scores in productivity but if management fails in bringing the right product at the right price that the public will be excited about, none of that matters.
For too many years I've been hearing:"GM needs that car out now" or "GM needs to bring that car here" blah blah blah. Didn't Lutz say 5 years ago that the Cobalt was going to be a premium car in the compact car segment???
I really like the current lineup that GM has to offer but the buying public has very little faith in GM's future and the lack of proper marketing hasn't helped either.
A new direction for management was severely needed.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,496
From: Roseville, MI, USA
Here's something to consider about Bob and Rick:
Bob did not agree with many of the decisions Rick made towards the end. Bob left earlier this year. Bob also didn't like a lot of the things going on with Pontiac right now.
Not to bring this into a "Bob and Rick" debate but I think we'll hear a lot at the end of the year (or when this finally shakes out) that Lutz wanted to go one way and Wagoner wanted to go another.
Think of it as a struggle that got us to where we are now.
Bob did not agree with many of the decisions Rick made towards the end. Bob left earlier this year. Bob also didn't like a lot of the things going on with Pontiac right now.
Not to bring this into a "Bob and Rick" debate but I think we'll hear a lot at the end of the year (or when this finally shakes out) that Lutz wanted to go one way and Wagoner wanted to go another.
Think of it as a struggle that got us to where we are now.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Looks like we get our answer here-
Two more months and more government oversight.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/auto_bailout
Two more months and more government oversight.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/auto_bailout
The administration planned to send a team to Detroit to help with the restructuring during the next 60 days. With Wagoner's departure, new management would be decided by General Motors' board of directors in consultation with the government. An official said a majority of the GM board was expected to step down.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,496
From: Roseville, MI, USA
You don't remember when Obama came to Detroit and SLAMMED the Big 3 while he was running for President, but I do.
He said that the "Big 3" need to get with it. This was before the financial collapse. I can find it on YouTube if I search long enough.
We wanted GM to wait for the Obama administration to take over because 'we' (auto fans) thought he would do us some favors that Bush wouldn't do.
He's making an example out of the Detroit automakers - and he's doing it the way he wants to.
He said that the "Big 3" need to get with it. This was before the financial collapse. I can find it on YouTube if I search long enough.
We wanted GM to wait for the Obama administration to take over because 'we' (auto fans) thought he would do us some favors that Bush wouldn't do.
He's making an example out of the Detroit automakers - and he's doing it the way he wants to.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 191
From: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
I could see an influence on what kind of cars are going to be developed, I mean thats why Lutz is going to retire right?
I dunno, the whole thing stinks to me,
I'm not blaming the current administration and I personally don't believe that Wagoner is worth keeping around....
But I dont like the government telling public companies what to do, or giving bailouts.... I also dont like the idea of tons of people losing their jobs...
I dunno, the whole thing stinks to me,
I'm not blaming the current administration and I personally don't believe that Wagoner is worth keeping around....
But I dont like the government telling public companies what to do, or giving bailouts.... I also dont like the idea of tons of people losing their jobs...
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 185
From: Pewaukee, WI
Obama denies bailout funds for automakers
...'nother article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090330/...wh/obama_autos
highlights:
...really, they assume that?? go figure... 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090330/...wh/obama_autos
highlights:
If a Chrysler-Fiat union cannot be completed, Washington plans to walk away, leave Chrysler destined for a complete sell-off. No other money is available.
Fritz Henderson, GM's president and chief operating officer, became the new CEO, a Treasury Department source said. Board member Kent Kresa, the former chairman and CEO of defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp., will be interim chairman of the GM board.
One official said a majority of the GM board was expected to step down.
In an effort to bolster consumer confidence, Obama planned to announce government backing of warranties for GM and Chrysler vehicles. An administration official said there is no price tag yet associated with that promise.
Fritz Henderson, GM's president and chief operating officer, became the new CEO, a Treasury Department source said. Board member Kent Kresa, the former chairman and CEO of defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp., will be interim chairman of the GM board.
One official said a majority of the GM board was expected to step down.
In an effort to bolster consumer confidence, Obama planned to announce government backing of warranties for GM and Chrysler vehicles. An administration official said there is no price tag yet associated with that promise.
Aides note that Obama inherited the auto mess from his predecessor, President George W. Bush.
...really, they assume that?? go figure...
Banned
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 213
For people who are pissed that he's been told to step down...there's an easy way around it. Don't ask for taxpayer money, GM. This whole thing just pisses me off all around.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
We've got the government taxing and transferring the money to a private company to exist, and deciding who the management will be. I'm not sure what you think socialism is, if not this.
For people who are pissed that he's been told to step down...there's an easy way around it. Don't ask for taxpayer money, GM. This whole thing just pisses me off all around.
For people who are pissed that he's been told to step down...there's an easy way around it. Don't ask for taxpayer money, GM. This whole thing just pisses me off all around.