Kerkorian and GM - Beam Me Up, Scotty!
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Kerkorian and GM - Beam Me Up, Scotty!
Are GM's problems over now that Kerkorian has left the battle? I would say there is a long road ahead (with many a winding turn as the song says)...
Originally Posted by The Wall Street Journal
By PAUL INGRASSIA - December 5, 2006
Kirk Kerkorian's code name for his ambitious investment in General Motors 20 months ago was "Bigfoot." Last summer, when he sought to reshape GM by putting it into an automotive alliance with Nissan and Renault, the code name was "Supercar." The code name for last week's operation should have been "Exit Ramp."
Last week Mr. Kerkorian, the 89-year-old investor who made his first fortune in Las Vegas casinos and made another $3 billion on Chrysler a decade ago, completed the sale of his entire stake in GM. He had once owned 9.9% of the company, purchased for a total price of $1.7 billion. "Captain Kirk" wound up with a profit of less than $100 million, not bad for most folks. But it is leagues less than the billions he had envisioned, and no more than he could have made by buying plain-vanilla corporate bonds.
GM is an American icon, albeit a faded one. Its bonds are junk rated, it posted an astounding $10.6-billion loss last year, it's fending off several SEC probes of its earnings reports and its U.S. market share stands near historic lows. It's the very definition of a company needing radical change. So how did Mr. Kerkorian lose?
Partly, it seems, just by being Kirk Kerkorian. Imagine if the avuncular Warren Buffett, instead of the reclusive and enigmatic Mr. Kerkorian, had purchased a big chunk of GM stock and pushed for an urgent transformation of the company. Such moves, of course, aren't Mr. Buffett's style. But had it happened, the dynamic would have been different. It would have been billed as America's most revered investor riding to the rescue, in the view of the press and public, instead of a "corporate raider" and "Las Vegas billionaire" out for a fast buck. But Mr. Kerkorian became the issue, instead of GM's chairman and CEO, Rick Wagoner, which is ironic. During Mr. Wagoner's first five years as the shareholders' chief steward, the stock went from more than $70 a share to less than $19 a share -- despite strong car sales, industry-wide, for the most part.
Thus Mr. Kerkorian and his representative on the GM board, former Chrysler and IBM executive Jerome B. York, took it upon themselves to approach Carlos Ghosn, the CEO of both Nissan and Renault, to suggest that GM join the Nissan-Renault alliance. Mr. Ghosn, who had engineered the miracle rescue of Nissan from near-bankruptcy in 1999, expressed interest. But when Mr. Wagoner didn't quickly come to the table, Messrs. Kerkorian and York took their proposal public last summer. Mr. Ghosn would have been top dog in any alliance. So in effect, Messrs. Kerkorian and York were offering the GM board a chance for regime change. They were pushing for something rapid and radical.
But the directors proved to be the "Tammy Wynette board," determined to stand by their man, Mr. Wagoner. "Who does this guy from Las Vegas think he is, telling us what to do?" snapped one GM board member at a key meeting, as the Journal's Monica Langley reported.
Things have improved at GM since the nadir late last year. Mr. Wagoner has won from the United Auto Workers health-care concessions and a buyout plan under which some 35,000 GM hourly workers will retire. The moves should greatly lower GM's fixed-cost base. The company is posting operating profits again, though its core North American auto business remains in the red and cash flow remains stuck in reverse. When Mr. York quit the GM board in October, he publicly decried the company's efforts as inadequate.
Last week Mr. Wagoner completed the sale of 51% of GMAC, the company's venerable financing unit. The sale, which will yield some $14 billion for GM, is like pawning the family silver to get through a famine. Ford Motor, in contrast, mortgaged the house -- pledging its factories and other assets to secure $18 billion of credit to pay for the costs of restructuring. The two companies' methods were different but their goal is the same: securing cash to buy time to repair and rebuild.
GM's stock has recovered somewhat from a year ago, closing Friday at $29.69 a share, up 46 cents despite the previous day's news that Mr. Kerkorian was cashing out. So somebody, besides the GM directors, believes that Mr. Wagoner can turn around General Motors.
He'll get the chance to prove it soon. Car sales are slumping, and GM (like Ford) has cut production plans for next year's first quarter. The UAW contract expires next year, and one sore point in the negotiations will be the notorious "jobs bank," in which GM pays workers not to work. The bankruptcy proceedings of Delphi Automotive, formerly part of GM and still its largest parts provider, will cost GM billions. And Mr. Wagoner remains publicly wedded to the costly burden of keeping eight different car brands -- more than GM had 40 years ago, when its market share was double what it is now.
Will Mr. Kerkorian make another run at GM in the future? Perhaps, but at this point it's unlikely that he knows himself. A more pressing question is whether GM's progress will continue without Messrs. Kerkorian and York on hand to agitate for change. Another is whether Mr. Wagoner, the same man who presided over GM's plunging fortunes in the first half of this decade, can engineer a revival.
Kirk Kerkorian's code name for his ambitious investment in General Motors 20 months ago was "Bigfoot." Last summer, when he sought to reshape GM by putting it into an automotive alliance with Nissan and Renault, the code name was "Supercar." The code name for last week's operation should have been "Exit Ramp."
Last week Mr. Kerkorian, the 89-year-old investor who made his first fortune in Las Vegas casinos and made another $3 billion on Chrysler a decade ago, completed the sale of his entire stake in GM. He had once owned 9.9% of the company, purchased for a total price of $1.7 billion. "Captain Kirk" wound up with a profit of less than $100 million, not bad for most folks. But it is leagues less than the billions he had envisioned, and no more than he could have made by buying plain-vanilla corporate bonds.
GM is an American icon, albeit a faded one. Its bonds are junk rated, it posted an astounding $10.6-billion loss last year, it's fending off several SEC probes of its earnings reports and its U.S. market share stands near historic lows. It's the very definition of a company needing radical change. So how did Mr. Kerkorian lose?
Partly, it seems, just by being Kirk Kerkorian. Imagine if the avuncular Warren Buffett, instead of the reclusive and enigmatic Mr. Kerkorian, had purchased a big chunk of GM stock and pushed for an urgent transformation of the company. Such moves, of course, aren't Mr. Buffett's style. But had it happened, the dynamic would have been different. It would have been billed as America's most revered investor riding to the rescue, in the view of the press and public, instead of a "corporate raider" and "Las Vegas billionaire" out for a fast buck. But Mr. Kerkorian became the issue, instead of GM's chairman and CEO, Rick Wagoner, which is ironic. During Mr. Wagoner's first five years as the shareholders' chief steward, the stock went from more than $70 a share to less than $19 a share -- despite strong car sales, industry-wide, for the most part.
Thus Mr. Kerkorian and his representative on the GM board, former Chrysler and IBM executive Jerome B. York, took it upon themselves to approach Carlos Ghosn, the CEO of both Nissan and Renault, to suggest that GM join the Nissan-Renault alliance. Mr. Ghosn, who had engineered the miracle rescue of Nissan from near-bankruptcy in 1999, expressed interest. But when Mr. Wagoner didn't quickly come to the table, Messrs. Kerkorian and York took their proposal public last summer. Mr. Ghosn would have been top dog in any alliance. So in effect, Messrs. Kerkorian and York were offering the GM board a chance for regime change. They were pushing for something rapid and radical.
But the directors proved to be the "Tammy Wynette board," determined to stand by their man, Mr. Wagoner. "Who does this guy from Las Vegas think he is, telling us what to do?" snapped one GM board member at a key meeting, as the Journal's Monica Langley reported.
Things have improved at GM since the nadir late last year. Mr. Wagoner has won from the United Auto Workers health-care concessions and a buyout plan under which some 35,000 GM hourly workers will retire. The moves should greatly lower GM's fixed-cost base. The company is posting operating profits again, though its core North American auto business remains in the red and cash flow remains stuck in reverse. When Mr. York quit the GM board in October, he publicly decried the company's efforts as inadequate.
Last week Mr. Wagoner completed the sale of 51% of GMAC, the company's venerable financing unit. The sale, which will yield some $14 billion for GM, is like pawning the family silver to get through a famine. Ford Motor, in contrast, mortgaged the house -- pledging its factories and other assets to secure $18 billion of credit to pay for the costs of restructuring. The two companies' methods were different but their goal is the same: securing cash to buy time to repair and rebuild.
GM's stock has recovered somewhat from a year ago, closing Friday at $29.69 a share, up 46 cents despite the previous day's news that Mr. Kerkorian was cashing out. So somebody, besides the GM directors, believes that Mr. Wagoner can turn around General Motors.
He'll get the chance to prove it soon. Car sales are slumping, and GM (like Ford) has cut production plans for next year's first quarter. The UAW contract expires next year, and one sore point in the negotiations will be the notorious "jobs bank," in which GM pays workers not to work. The bankruptcy proceedings of Delphi Automotive, formerly part of GM and still its largest parts provider, will cost GM billions. And Mr. Wagoner remains publicly wedded to the costly burden of keeping eight different car brands -- more than GM had 40 years ago, when its market share was double what it is now.
Will Mr. Kerkorian make another run at GM in the future? Perhaps, but at this point it's unlikely that he knows himself. A more pressing question is whether GM's progress will continue without Messrs. Kerkorian and York on hand to agitate for change. Another is whether Mr. Wagoner, the same man who presided over GM's plunging fortunes in the first half of this decade, can engineer a revival.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
I think GM will be better off without Mr. Kerkorian becuase the changes he wanted to make were more for the bottom dollar (his) and impressing Wall Street. Yes thats important but GM needs a long term plan that makes the company better not just filling his or the boards pockets!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
I try to see both sides of a position, and tend to give the benefit of doubt alot of times.
But that article was pure garbage, and it's author a bonehead.
Kerkorian misunderstood???
Ask Chrysler about that one.
"Stand by your man" board of directors???
They represent REAL stockholders, and they aren't going to keep someone around that doesn't have a solid plan.
I see he downplayed the fact that GM's shares (closed last week at $29 per share) is up $10..... that's 50%.... over the low of $19 he used as a so-called example of how he felt Wagoner led GM into the pits.
If the paper it was printed on was more adsorbent than other newspaper, you could use it to line litter boxes. Since it isn't, I don't know what purpose that article serves.
But that article was pure garbage, and it's author a bonehead.
Kerkorian misunderstood???
Ask Chrysler about that one.
"Stand by your man" board of directors???
They represent REAL stockholders, and they aren't going to keep someone around that doesn't have a solid plan.
I see he downplayed the fact that GM's shares (closed last week at $29 per share) is up $10..... that's 50%.... over the low of $19 he used as a so-called example of how he felt Wagoner led GM into the pits.
If the paper it was printed on was more adsorbent than other newspaper, you could use it to line litter boxes. Since it isn't, I don't know what purpose that article serves.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Regardless of what one things of Kerkorian, I don’t see how anyone can ignore or downplay what has happened to GM under Wagoner’s leadership.
Loosing 73% of your common stock price and reaching junk bond status in such a relatively short time is not impressive; at least not if you looking for good news.
The stock price being up $10 is good news but not all that informative...let's see where the price is six months and then a year from now compared to where they once were and then there may be something to really feel good about.
Wagoner may or may not be the leader GM needs but his performance so far has not been impressive.
Loosing 73% of your common stock price and reaching junk bond status in such a relatively short time is not impressive; at least not if you looking for good news.
The stock price being up $10 is good news but not all that informative...let's see where the price is six months and then a year from now compared to where they once were and then there may be something to really feel good about.
Wagoner may or may not be the leader GM needs but his performance so far has not been impressive.
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; Dec 6, 2006 at 05:24 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Kerkorian tried to buy into and push GM managment around, and into a merger with Nissan that wasn't in the best interest of GM.
Kerkorian is upset that he didnt get his way, and is pulling out, and made a nice profit for his trouble.
Big deal. Time to move on.
Kerkorian is upset that he didnt get his way, and is pulling out, and made a nice profit for his trouble.
Big deal. Time to move on.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,376
From: Sarasota FL
Robert, you appear to be forgetting the basic fact that we're still on the tail end of the product developed during the Zarella "brand management" years. As more new products have been rolled out that Lutz & Co. have had their hands on, sales have stabilized, residuals have improved on many models, and the cars are getting far more favorable press than they were 5 years ago, when Wagoner started.
I think its necessary to look at the bigger picture before you criticize. Indeed, the stock price is down because profitability has gone into the toilet...the end of the SUV boom can be credited for a significant amount of the drop in profitability and by default, stock price. I don't think Wagoner mismanagement can be blamed...if anything, he's letting the car guys get the product done, and not letting it get watered down.
GM may have been more profitable 5 years ago, but I think its in better shape with better products right now, IMO. You could make the argument that GM's issues now were initialized 10 years ago under Zarella...
Unless anyone here thinks cheap plastic interiors and brand management helped the situation
I think its necessary to look at the bigger picture before you criticize. Indeed, the stock price is down because profitability has gone into the toilet...the end of the SUV boom can be credited for a significant amount of the drop in profitability and by default, stock price. I don't think Wagoner mismanagement can be blamed...if anything, he's letting the car guys get the product done, and not letting it get watered down.
GM may have been more profitable 5 years ago, but I think its in better shape with better products right now, IMO. You could make the argument that GM's issues now were initialized 10 years ago under Zarella...
Unless anyone here thinks cheap plastic interiors and brand management helped the situation
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,215
From: Coppell, Texas
Robert, you appear to be forgetting the basic fact that we're still on the tail end of the product developed during the Zarella "brand management" years. As more new products have been rolled out that Lutz & Co. have had their hands on, sales have stabilized, residuals have improved on many models, and the cars are getting far more favorable press than they were 5 years ago, when Wagoner started.
I think its necessary to look at the bigger picture before you criticize. Indeed, the stock price is down because profitability has gone into the toilet...the end of the SUV boom can be credited for a significant amount of the drop in profitability and by default, stock price. I don't think Wagoner mismanagement can be blamed...if anything, he's letting the car guys get the product done, and not letting it get watered down.
GM may have been more profitable 5 years ago, but I think its in better shape with better products right now, IMO. You could make the argument that GM's issues now were initialized 10 years ago under Zarella...
Unless anyone here thinks cheap plastic interiors and brand management helped the situation
I think its necessary to look at the bigger picture before you criticize. Indeed, the stock price is down because profitability has gone into the toilet...the end of the SUV boom can be credited for a significant amount of the drop in profitability and by default, stock price. I don't think Wagoner mismanagement can be blamed...if anything, he's letting the car guys get the product done, and not letting it get watered down.
GM may have been more profitable 5 years ago, but I think its in better shape with better products right now, IMO. You could make the argument that GM's issues now were initialized 10 years ago under Zarella...
Unless anyone here thinks cheap plastic interiors and brand management helped the situation
Exactly! Wagoner inherited this mess.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Fair or unfair, the "leader" usually gets either the blame or the accolades for what has happened on his watch regardless of how much a preceding leader had to do with it.
Carlos Ghosn certainly inherited a mess when he took over Nissan – he wasn’t blamed for the mess he inherited (and Nissan, in 1999, was in truly bad shape when Ghosn took over) but I can assure you that Ghosn would have gotten the blame had Nissan continued into bankruptcy.
By the end of fiscal 2005, Nissan had better profitability than even Toyota (which was the next highest of all manufacturers); a turn-around beyond anyone’s expectations. While Ghosn didn’t do anything truly miraculous; just basic good business really, he does get and deserves the credit for what has happened since he took over just as he would have gotten the blame.
Contrast that with Wagoner who has been GM’s president and CEO since June of 2000 and Chairman and CEO since 2003…I’m not denying that GM’s problems preceded his leadership and were a long time coming…all I’m saying is that GM’s financial performance while he’s been at the helm hasn’t been very impressive so far.
Only time will tell if he is ultimately able to turn GM around.
Carlos Ghosn certainly inherited a mess when he took over Nissan – he wasn’t blamed for the mess he inherited (and Nissan, in 1999, was in truly bad shape when Ghosn took over) but I can assure you that Ghosn would have gotten the blame had Nissan continued into bankruptcy.
By the end of fiscal 2005, Nissan had better profitability than even Toyota (which was the next highest of all manufacturers); a turn-around beyond anyone’s expectations. While Ghosn didn’t do anything truly miraculous; just basic good business really, he does get and deserves the credit for what has happened since he took over just as he would have gotten the blame.
Contrast that with Wagoner who has been GM’s president and CEO since June of 2000 and Chairman and CEO since 2003…I’m not denying that GM’s problems preceded his leadership and were a long time coming…all I’m saying is that GM’s financial performance while he’s been at the helm hasn’t been very impressive so far.
Only time will tell if he is ultimately able to turn GM around.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
He also downplayed (i.e. ignored completely) the fact that five years is not much time in the automotive industry. In order to "engineer" a turnaround based around a new set of high-quality, competitive, attractive vehicles (which is the only way to save GM in the long run), you need several years, simply because it takes that long to develop the vehicles themselves.
That said, as we all know around here, all of the work they've been doing is about to pay off.
Oh, and what's that about GM's market share being the lowest it's ever been? Sure, but aren't they still #1 overall? That's hardly a mark against GM.
EDIT: okay, so in the time it took me to type that, a couple other people said basically the same thing (that it takes time).
Nissan is a much smaller ship; two brands and what, maybe ten models? It's therefore reasonable that Ghosn took over in '99, and they had some new products out the door for MY2003. However, Wagoner had a much larger boat to turn around. Starting with nine brands and ~50 models, Wagoner has so far taken less than twice the time to turn GM around. Admittedly, he's not done yet, but I think that the most recent new products (Solstice/Sky, GMT900, you all know the list) point to some very good results. We have all heard the rumors about what's in the queue (Camaro, Impala, GTO, CTS, you all know this list too), and it looks like Wagoner and Lutz are on track to complete the turnaround by MY2010 or 2011.
Point to Ghosn/Nissan and shout about it all you want, but it's simply not the same. Take into account the differences, and you'll be surprised to see that it looks like Wagoner and Lutz are doing a great job at GM and that the ship is coming about.
That said, as we all know around here, all of the work they've been doing is about to pay off.
Oh, and what's that about GM's market share being the lowest it's ever been? Sure, but aren't they still #1 overall? That's hardly a mark against GM.
EDIT: okay, so in the time it took me to type that, a couple other people said basically the same thing (that it takes time).
Nissan is a much smaller ship; two brands and what, maybe ten models? It's therefore reasonable that Ghosn took over in '99, and they had some new products out the door for MY2003. However, Wagoner had a much larger boat to turn around. Starting with nine brands and ~50 models, Wagoner has so far taken less than twice the time to turn GM around. Admittedly, he's not done yet, but I think that the most recent new products (Solstice/Sky, GMT900, you all know the list) point to some very good results. We have all heard the rumors about what's in the queue (Camaro, Impala, GTO, CTS, you all know this list too), and it looks like Wagoner and Lutz are on track to complete the turnaround by MY2010 or 2011.
Point to Ghosn/Nissan and shout about it all you want, but it's simply not the same. Take into account the differences, and you'll be surprised to see that it looks like Wagoner and Lutz are doing a great job at GM and that the ship is coming about.
Last edited by JakeRobb; Dec 6, 2006 at 03:13 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,748
From: New England
I remeber when this mess all came to public realization it was 2001-02 and we all were here firing the flairs the ships going down if nothing drastic is planned.
We got the planned told to us and it was forcasted for the start of the 2007 model year..well here it is 2007..does it look like some of those plans that were implimented are starting to make thier way into the show room? I think the tail end of 08-09 we will see the major push by GM to be solid again.
Back when Nissan was having its problems I thought they were going to go under and like said smaller ship makes faster turns. Especially when you have sales leads and the likes to go to bat for. GM has to make sure its next pick up sells great, that its next Impala is a sales leader. Is Nissan banking on the Maxima or the Titan to fill those rolls?? I dont think so. Nissan is not in the same problems as GM, for one they are out of thier mess. While GM is still in it. Look at the product from Nissan now compared to 5 years ago?? MUCH better. I think we will see the same with GM in another 2-3 years.
and Kerkorian is EXACTLY what GM does not need or any car company.
And yes Robert this guy is one of the problems with GM he was not for the company he was for himself and thats bad. He is a cancer that I am glad to see gone and I think we will see a better GM for it. I just hope Ford does not buy into his crap.
We got the planned told to us and it was forcasted for the start of the 2007 model year..well here it is 2007..does it look like some of those plans that were implimented are starting to make thier way into the show room? I think the tail end of 08-09 we will see the major push by GM to be solid again.
Back when Nissan was having its problems I thought they were going to go under and like said smaller ship makes faster turns. Especially when you have sales leads and the likes to go to bat for. GM has to make sure its next pick up sells great, that its next Impala is a sales leader. Is Nissan banking on the Maxima or the Titan to fill those rolls?? I dont think so. Nissan is not in the same problems as GM, for one they are out of thier mess. While GM is still in it. Look at the product from Nissan now compared to 5 years ago?? MUCH better. I think we will see the same with GM in another 2-3 years.
and Kerkorian is EXACTLY what GM does not need or any car company.
And yes Robert this guy is one of the problems with GM he was not for the company he was for himself and thats bad. He is a cancer that I am glad to see gone and I think we will see a better GM for it. I just hope Ford does not buy into his crap.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
I haven’t said that Wagoner will not turn GM around – all I’ve said all along is that the numbers so far aren’t impressive and they aren’t…I’m not sure how anyone could say otherwise and keep a straight face.
People can point to what’s in the pipeline and what’s to come and those things may make all the difference in the world but that doesn’t change what has happened so far.
As to Ghosn and Nissan, I wasn’t inferring that Wagoner should have turned GM around by now/as quickly as Ghosn did with Nissan; the point of mentioning Ghosn was simply to help illustrate that whether “fair” or not, the leader gets the blame or the congratulations for what happens on his watch whether he had all that much to do with it or not…that’s true whether you are talking about a college football coach, the President of the U.S. or the CEO of GM.
People can point to what’s in the pipeline and what’s to come and those things may make all the difference in the world but that doesn’t change what has happened so far.
As to Ghosn and Nissan, I wasn’t inferring that Wagoner should have turned GM around by now/as quickly as Ghosn did with Nissan; the point of mentioning Ghosn was simply to help illustrate that whether “fair” or not, the leader gets the blame or the congratulations for what happens on his watch whether he had all that much to do with it or not…that’s true whether you are talking about a college football coach, the President of the U.S. or the CEO of GM.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Well, let me tell you which numbers are impressive.
- The number of years it looks like it's going to take to turn GM around (9 to 11)
- The number of GM vehicles that have received a complete refresh in the last two model years.
- The number of dollars GM has saved via UAW renegotiation.
- The number of people who are virtually salivating at the prospect of a number of GM's upcoming models.
I'm sure there are more, and if I were anything more than an interested bystander, I might know what they were.
Now for some things that aren't exactly numbers:
The refreshed models are mostly selling well. I see dozens of '06 Impalas every day (and no, I'm not counting the Chevy dealership I drive past). My mother-in-law and sister-in-law both have one, and both love them.
The GMT900 trucks are getting excellent reviews, and they have Toyota delaying the release of the new Tundra to avoid embarassment.
Again, I'm sure there are more.
You're right that the present and future do not change what's already written in the proverbial history books. But none of us here are claiming that the history books are wrong. We're simply claiming that you're comparing a successful, completed turnaround (Nissan), to one that's still in progress. Not only that, but you're shaming GM for not being done yet while Nissan is doing great, despite the fact that it's a larger organization that began the turnaround process a year later. Even if that's not your intention, that's the message that's getting through.
All of us here realize that nothing can change what has happened so far. We all know what has happened, and that's that. We don't talk about it much, because it's not news (you are in the Automotive News forum, after all). Instead, we talk about the progress that's being made, and what's coming up soon.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
The other specific issue mentioned, although not a specific number, is GM’s junk bond status which has effectively cut it off from normal financing (which is desperately needs for its turnaround to move forward).
GM is going to be financing much of it’s upcoming operations from its sale of GMAC – once that’s gone it’s gone and it will then probably have to do what Ford has just done which is pledge it’s physical assets to get any financing at a livable interest rate.
Once a company’s bonds have reached “junk” status it’s a pretty good indicator that it’s reaching the end of the line…meaning that they will either turn around or they will go bankrupt but chances are they will NOT continue for much longer without doing one or the other.
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
…But none of us here are claiming that the history books are wrong. We're simply claiming that you're comparing a successful, completed turnaround (Nissan), to one that's still in progress. Not only that, but you're shaming GM for not being done yet while Nissan is doing great, despite the fact that it's a larger organization that began the turnaround process a year later. Even if that's not your intention, that's the message that's getting through.
As I already said, the reason I mentioned Ghosn was to illustrate that the leader of a company gets the credit or the blame for what happens on his watch because it happens on HIS watch whether he actually had anything to do with causing the problems or solving the problems. If anyone wants to read more into it than that or keep arguing against a point not made it’s of they own doing.
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; Dec 6, 2006 at 05:04 PM.