Yep. Rick Wagoner became CEO in 2001.

Bob Lutz took over product in September 2001.

4 years already.


Boy, time flies!

He does auto shows, & he's also Chevrolet.

He KNOWS this stuff.... beyond just being his job.

I'd add Welburn, Reuss, and maybe LaNeve as devoted GM types.

 

Just from talking to some ex Chrysler people, it seemed that everyone from top to bottom did everything they could to keep the company from failing. With GM, it seems like some people are willing to sit and wait, from the way some on this board talk. While I'm sure most in GM would die for the company before it goes BK, there seem to be some in the high up willing to settle for less. If what buickman said about a few on the board are from other companies that went bellyup, they are willing to let GM fail bcuz they have been through it before and THEY have gone on with THEIR professional life. They don't care about the company they just care that they can get another job and get their money.

 

Really shows you what strong leadership can do.....my biggest fear when Hanenberger retired was that Holden would be pushed into the GM N/A methodology.

 

This is a good article that my friend sent me in regards to the B-word and GM.....makes for a good read, not sure how accurate it is though.

 

My next car is going to be a GM, providing they stick around and they maintain a steady quality level.

 

Every car I have paid for has been GM, they might have been old but they were all GMs. That is something that will not change. What will change is that when I can I will buy new.

 

As many on here have said, GM is not in iminent danger of declaring bankruptcy. Here's an article from a source with somewhat better financial credentials than the Detroit Free Press

http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/14/gm-...apbox_inl.html

 

The actual declaration of bankruptcy would not mean GM is out of business.
But MORE importantly, I don't fear BANKRUPTCY as much as I do TAKEOVER.

In the post above yours, there is a quote ,"Wall Street could sell GM down to $1 a share, it would not cause bankruptcy. "
This is 100% correct, because the stock price does not affect profitability, and the company itself is required to file for bankruptcy protection. However, if GM stock went to $1/share, there would be several individuals, and many companies, who could single-handedly buy controlling interest in GM, and proceed to run it the way they want to. THAT is more the issue to me, because I don't think that many people with that much money really care about GM's history, brand loyalty, or the customer waiting for a 5th gen... they are after MORE MONEY, PERIOD. GM and all of it's subsidiaries become articles for sale to the highest bidder at a clearinghouse-type auction. Some will be looted for their resources and assets, some will be redirected to produce for Ford, Chrysler, or Toyota, and some could likely remain unchanged (except for having new owners). But it's a risky proposition at best, and for sure, GM will not be as we know it today.

Another thought... I have seen many posts that refer back to Chrysler in the 1980's and Iacocca's appointment as CEO. One thing that has NOT been mentioned in any of these posts is that Chrysler DID file bankruptcy. They worked with the government to have debt either reduced to interest-free, or forgiven all together, they rescheduled debt payments and got guarantees by the government to pay their suppliers. The government actually "bailed them out" with interest-free loans and low-interest loans that were termed for years. To their credit and Iacocca's, Chrysler did repay all the debt to the government, and even repayed some creditors that forgave their initial debt (meaning they didn't have to). That was a huge deal back then, and there was a lot of harsh discussion about taxpayer dollars bailing out a corporation - but in the end it appears to have been the right thing to do - largely in part to Iacocca's business ethics and commitment to doing what was right instead of taking the money and running with it.
I propose that the same would be done in GM's case if they asked the government for the help. If nothing else, based on the success demonstrated by helping Chrysler... it shows that it can work.

So given the two situations of bankruptcy and takeover, I think it is clear to see that bankruptcy could in fact be the lesser of the two evils here, and it in no way means that GM is "out of business" just because they file for debt relief bankruptcy. If Kirk and the boys buy up all the outstanding shares and take over the business, THEN you have something to worry about. THAT is what could spell the end of GM as we know it.

Hope you guys can see the difference between the two... that is exactly why I posted the thread indicating my recent change in concern for GM.