Excuse me, bud.... GM's cash ran out months ago.

GM got themselves here.



There are plenty of posts here that are pretty strong in opinion in that the poster feels that forcing Mr Wagoner out is simply a case of governent sticking their nose into business, and interfering. Not gonna list every post, so I'll want to comment to what seems to be a stunning sentiment with many here.


First of all, it's absolutely amazing that so many have selective memory or have such a startling ability to pick and choose items to fit an ideal that frankly, doesn't hold any water in this situation.

I have been here for nearly 2 years under 2 different names, and I've seen many people here roast GM over the direction they've taken. When GM was doing all the things that left it venerable to a reversal of the economy or marketplace (which most here over the years were wise enough to forsee) many roasted GM and bluntly wondered what on earth are they thinking. Although, most of it centered on the "why aren't they taking pocket change and make a new Camaro" line, but many were also concerned (rightly as it turned out) that GM was putting all it's eggs in one basket, & dragging their collective feet in doing necessary changes for the company's survival and future.


Last summer, the General Motors Corperation went to the Ford Motor Company looking for a merger. After Ford reviewed GM's books, Ford bolted the other way. If that wasn't a major clue something was wrong, then information that GM was plunging towards over $60 billion in debt should have been a heads up. Even before all this happened, GM showed signs of trouble. GM had to actually place all new products on hold in order to simply move the GMT900 line's introduction up mere months.




Reading some of these posts here, it almost looks like that many here believe that Mr Wagoner is being forced to resign unfairly, for no reason whatsoever. Pushed out by an evil government that has some type of greenie enviromental aganda or the realization of a "Big Brother" that is determined to force GM to it's knees and into oblivion.

Oh Pleeeze!




First:
General Motors ran THEMSELVES into the ground. Gold fish have a memory span of only a few seconds. Humans, even mentally challenged ones, have one quite a bit longer.

General Motors has been losing money and running up debt for many years. Some was gross mismanagement or shortsightedness. Some was because of circumstances stacked against it that they were perhaps forced into (ie: Delphi). But GM was obviously in trouble the day gasoline hit a price level that no incentives or discounts would move large trucks and SUVs at the volume needed to keep GM's house of cards standing.

What is telling is that GM (and Chrysler to be fair) was sitting in front of Congress within a mere month and a half of a stock market fall asking for cash. Up to that point, GM had made it through recessions in very recent history (2 in the 70s, & 1 in the late 80s/early 90s) that were far longer and far worse.


Two:
Rick Wagoner has been CEO at GM for nearly a decade.

Mr Wagoner is a VERY decent guy. I have e-mailed him at least twice over the years, and everyone that knows him really likes the guy.. he genuinely cares about those that work for him, and recognizes GM's role in the economy (local and national). By no means did he deserve the taunts and general vicious harassment that "Buickman" gave him.

Mr Wagoner started off with big plans to change GM, and wasn't afraid to say he didn't know about cars and was secure enough to bring in genuine talent from even competing companies (including bringing one famous car guy out of retirement and create a position for him).

However, again, he has been at GM for a decade. Far more than enough time to get major changes pushed through GM, whether he has to go through the GM board for everything or not. The fact that GM has changed as much as it has the past year (let alone the past few months) is a testament that it could have changed to this magnatude many years ago. Mr Wagoner took a painful-to-watch "Go-Slow" approach while the rest of the industry was moving fast to stay competitive.

GM developed methods and capabilities to bring vehicles to production that outpaced every other carmaker on the planet. Yet, not only kept old ways of doing things, actually turned many of them far more conservative.


Three:
The government in this issue is NOT the problem.

Flash back to last fall and winter. Mr Wagoner was sitting before congress along with Mr Nardelli and Mr Mulally.

Mr Nardelli stated that without government help, the tiny Chrysler Division wouldn't make it past summer 2009. Mr Mulally, from the half-the-size-of-GM Ford Motor Company stated that although Ford didn't need government money, that they were there for support because if any of the other 2 went down, it would put Ford at risk.

However, it was Mr Wagoner that stated that without government money, the General Motors Corperation... at the time, the planet's largest automotive manufacturer, a company that's been around 100 years and has a major presence on every continent except Antartica... would go underwithin 45... DAYS!!!

Congress, via some Senators professing the very same freemarket, government-non involvement in business principles as many of the ideas posted on this thread, voted to let GM crash and burn without any federal funds (even though, they were giving all types of money to foreign brands to set up shop in their own state). President Bush, in a seemingly rare sense of clarity decided to overrule congress and give GM (and Chrysler) money anyway with the stipulation that they need to prove viability and win concessions within a certain time or must give back all money, even if it means bankruptcy and liquidation. There was talk of replacing CEOs even back then.

Since that time, both GM and Chrysler has had to come up with plans to show viability. Next to GM, Chrysler has it easy. Chrysler is asking for a relative small amount, it already went through alot of the labor cutting it needed from the Daimler days, it already operates on next to nothing, and it's issue is simply moving from a model based on trucks and fleet & rental sales to cars with good enough materials to compete strongly retail sales. It already has ties to Nissan, plus, Nardelli is still relatively new. But with Chrysler being owned by Cerberus, that kills it. Cerberus shouldn't profit from taxpayer money when they can still invest more and change leadership at will.

Mr Wagoner, on the other hand, presided over a time that could be easily called the collaspse of GM. A time when GM was crumbling, while he was CEO GM took extremely conservative steps, and General Motors failed to show the same dramatic leadership in developing and making world class cars as they did making world class trucks. GM also seemed to become the "Daddy Warbucks" of every supplier and spinoff that did business with them.


While it is certainly and grossly unfair to lay all of GM's current situation at Mr Wagoner's feet (where were the Board of Directors during all of this???!! ), there is no CEO of any company I know of that would have survived a fraction of this time under the same circumstances as Mr Wagoner has survived. Jack Stempel was CEO of GM for only a year, and GM's crisis at that time isn't even on the same level with what GM has had to deal with the past couple of years. The total tenure of GM's 2 previous CEOs weren't much longer than Mr Wagoner's single tenure.


And it is also cynical (if not downright ignorance) to criticize the government in all of this.

The federal government didn't drive GM to this point. The feds also didn't exactly ride to GM's rescue either... they would have rather let GM rot.

GM was within only a couple of days from shutting down when they got their first federal money.

In case you need it to be placed into context:

There would be NO Camaro without federal money, because there would be NO GM!!


As with any lender, whether it be a bank, the government, the Mob, or even Auntie Elm, the lender DOES have the complete right to demands and conditions as a condition of lending. It's either take it or don't take it. Period.


If the market had never crashed, and CitiGroup was the one bailing out General Motors instead of the Feds, you'd have to actually be heavily addicted to crack and every hour having to perform cardinal acts with 4 legged farm animals for cash to support that habit in order to genuinely believe that as a condition to getting the money, CitiGroup wouldn't look at GM's last number of years and demand the CEO resign (and would likely force out most of the board as well!).


Regardless as to what the government does, it is no worse (actually, is better because it's forcing changes GM should have done years ago) than what GM has done, and still keeps GM alive instead of being the largest corperation in recent history to go into liquidation.

If any of you are willing to forgo buying GM products (including the Camaro) from this day on, then you can talk against government intervention at GM as much as you want.

If not, and you plan on buying a GM vehicle, you owe the Feds a thank you because you would not have the chance to buy that vehicle if it wasn't for taxpayer money.

 

I’m glad he’s gone … but then again, I’ve been advocating his removal for many years now. He’s been in charge of GM NA in one form or another for almost 15 years and during his reign we've seen nothing but an increasingly rapid spiral downwards. How anyone can think he's the right man for the job is beyond me. He was trying to manage GM like it was the same company it was in the 60s and 70s, and never adapted to the new realities of his company or the auto business.

Some have argued that the timing isn’t the best since we're in the middle of a crisis. But I would argue that this could be the best time to replace him, because the crisis presents unusual opportunities to make real change. Wagoner didn’t seem to get that, and seemed to be continuing his strategy of tweaking this and tweaking that (albeit on a bit grander scale), but still not making the sweeping changes required.

I don’t know enough about Henderson to say whether he's the right man to effect the necessary changes or not. One of the people I would have loved to see take the helm would be Roger Penske. He has a record of being a tough, smart, and successful businessman, and he has plenty of experience in the automobile industry. I think we really need someone not stuck in the GM mindset, much like Alan Mulally was for Ford. I hope Henderson can break the GM mould.

 

I really don't know where this is heading.

My own completly personal, nothing to do with what I do for a living opinion, is that Wagoner was asked to step down for 2 reasons.

First, he was unable to gain further concessions from the UAW and the bondholders.

Second, Wagoner, IMO, does not want to oversee a bankruptcy. With the little blurbs about warranty coverage backing and assistance to suppliers stories that have been out there? Let's just say the government has shown what cards they intend to play, the way I see it. I am guessing that Wagoner didn't agree with the government's plan so he was told to resign. Any resistance to this by the board was trumped by the government advising they intend to restructure the board as well.

You might note that Gettelfinger was not asked to step down. The upcomming midterm congressional elections should clear the reasons for that right up. Gettelfinger was an Elector for our present president. Make of that what you choose.

I also sense that Chrysler was told, essentially, the government appreciates the opportunity but... no thanks, but make a deal with Fiat because that's Cerberus' only hope... I believe the governmnet has given Chrysler 30 days to make a deal with Fiat, and 60 days to present an acceptible plan... Sounds as though the 60 day decision is contingent on the 30 day results. . .

I intend to hang in for GM as I believe in them. Whether I get that option is another question. I hope I do.

 

I agree with you. The minute they revealed talk of "Government-backed warranty coverage", I knew GM is headed for bankruptcy of some kind. The only question is what will be recognizable as GM (if anything) comes out the other side.

This sixty day extension is not an extension for GM to get their plans in order; I believe it to be an extra 60 days so that the Feds can put the finishing touches on their bankruptcy proposal.

 

Let's face it, Chrysler is in a much worse position than GM. They've essentially been told they have 30 days to make a deal with Fiat, otherwise its GAME OVER. Fiat is in the catbird seat and basically can buy Chrysler for as little as they want to and make whatever concessions they choose, provided the US government approves. Chrylser is toast.

GM on the otherhand still has options. A controlled bankruptcy seems all but given at this point. Provided Chevrolet survives and comes out stronger in the long run, I'd be happy, assuming the entire auto industry doesn't collapse within the next 6 months.

 

I agree that Lutz saw the writing on the wall, and he decided to retire. He did the same thing after Daimler merged with Chrysler.

But I gotta disagree with you on government involvement.

It it wasn't for the government in this case, the Camaro assembly line would be gathering dust, waiting for liquidation.

 

Would you feel better if the goverment loaned a bunch of our money, then let a company with a terrible track record just go spend it *****-nilly however they see fit?

 

Whether you like or dislike Wagoner, or the way he did his job... all that is irrelevant.

Even in a time when the govt is loaning money to the company, I do not feel they should have the power to remove anyone from a job, barring any sort of proven corruption or illegal activity.

Wagoner has done nothing even close to that, at least with anything I have read.

 

I am just as happy that Camaros are rolling and people that are my friends will benefit, whether thay are GM employed or loyal customers that can have some driving dreams come true.

The politicians are minimizing their exposure. They overplayed their hand in the AIG bonus deal. When that backfired in a huge way there's a a different face being placed on all of the financial assistance.

My biggest concern in the largest sense is that the party in power is hell bent to institue all of the policies and perks that have become the overlying issues for GM. All of the things that point to bankruptcy for GM, such as unsustainable entitlements, are being sold as a part and parcel to a resolution to crisis for the country.

I doubt that we will ever agree on what it means to involve the government as a partner.

I will offer that I find the honesty levels from the District of Columbia running at an all time low.

Get back with me when congress agrees to work for a buck a year until the economy turns around.

We witness members of congress encouraging Bushido code of Seppuko for business members to commit Harikiri? Where are the cool heads of a statesman?

I am amused when an elected official complains about what they "inherit" in light of the fact they campaigned hard and spent big bucks to get the job...

Few will comment on what the ramifications are when choosing to participate in a "world economy". We may one day see the real why of the continuous pumping of cash to cover idiotic "insurance" instruments and just where and to whom the bank bailouts are going.

I figure "if you wanted to drive, shut up and drive..."

 

Hahahahaaaaa.... The new GM, a government/union partnership.

They'll make it about a year before driving the whole thing off a cliff.

 

Come on Guy...you know the government is not there to bail our GM so we have a Camaro. I mean to use that argument you could say we should thank the Government because we can still buy Tahoe's and Suburban's. The only reason GM has been bailed out is because it is much cheaper for the government than if GM went bankrupt. Like it or not, this will effect what product we can buy and not in a good way for enthuisiasts. If you think otherwise you have you head in the sand.

Think of it this way...
What if a clothes company went bankrupt and the government bailed them out. What if as a condition of the bail out was that they had to make a much lower percentage of clothes in Sizes XL and above, because people who are overweight cost the government money...and whatever other reason you want to come up with.

Does not make much sense does it?

 

/rant on
People should be more concerned with the amount of debt this government is creating for our childrens grand children than whether or not we get our camaro. At the rate they are printing money these cars are going to skyrocket in price. Don't get me wrong...I would love to be driving around in a new camaro but not at the expense of this great nations health. But then again we'll probably end up losing the camaro once again now that the Government is pulling the GM strings as it doesn't fall perfectly into their green world. Since all these bailouts have not worked....why not let capitalism work and let some of these companies fail and file for bankruptcy....which is a shame because a lot of the blame can be put on the Governement itself! Our founding fathers would be so disgusted with what we've let this Government grow into.
/rant off

 

Agreed. I'm a pretty heavy conservative, but some amount of nationalism / protectionism is needed. With industry gone, we'll be producers of nothing but service, and there is no way a purely service-based economy is going to sustain us in the long haul.

I don't want to have to ask China to build us more F-22 Raptors.

I don't enjoy the idea of bailouts at all (but I much prefer loans like Chrysler had in the '80s and what GM has asked for now to the more involved bailouts of today...), but the chump change the automakers are after pales in comparison to the ginormous dollars the financial institutions have received. Not to mention, it isn't like the government had no hand in the industry being where it is today...

 

Chrysler is done.

 

No, I wouldn't feel better. I'd rather take option 3 - the government doesn't get into the car business at all.