Auctions:
    Auctions
See Also:




LeftLetterRight





German versionFrench version

Subject:
Re: Obama now owns GM

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:59:50 -0700

From: WayneC <WayneC(at)linkline.moc>

Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM

Lines: 46

Bytes: 3993

________________________________________________









CardsFan wrote:

> "WayneC" <WayneC(at)linkline.moc> wrote in message

> news:ReCdnesQTdMLxk_UnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(at)linkline.com...

>> Speaker of the Truth wrote:

>>> Ever hear the song "too much too little too late"

>>>

>>>

>> I`d argue that Wagoner was steadily doing the right things, but hampered

>> (slowed & blocked) by pesky little things like union contracts &

>> negotiations, local politics in every town affected by his proposed

>> changes, green laws, etc, etc. The guy was a 31-year employee, not an

>> outsider emotionally unaffected by the changes he attempted to make.

>

> The whole point is the corporation has to have someone with an entirely new

> agenda to survive, not someone who`s sitting around pining for the good old

> days. The automotive world has radically changed and if it does not adapt,

> GM is dead. It would have been dead already without taxpayer help, so Mr.

> Wagoner was out of a job either way.

>

My point is that Obama isn`t hampered by contractual legal agreements,

he proved that with the AIG bonuses.... Wagoner had to honor those

legalities. Obama can wheedle the democratic mayors (and the union

bosses) and promise them largesse from the US treasury to smooth over

the changes he`d like to make in the auto industry... Wagoner could not.

Obama could have done the wheedling and still leave Wagoner in charge of

the change, but he needed a boogeyman for us peons to blame.



I still think Wagoner did as much, and went as fast in bringing change,

as he was able to do, I do not think he was in the same arrogant mold as

the prior bean counters who ruined GM for so many years. I think he got

hit by a world-wide economic credit crunch at precisely the wrong time,

when company coffers were low (partly from the costs of changes he`d

been making), and before his changes began to pay off. You`ll note that

the governor of Michigan called Wagoner a "sacrificial lamb", noting the

many changes he`d already made and the much-improved products just going

into production, while still retaining the good will of the politicians

and union.



I would rather see a "car guy" in charge of GM, but as I recall, they

did have one of those in the late 80`s and he wasn`t up to the rest of

the job... to paraphrase what one TV commentator said, GM today is a

retirement and health benefits company that operates a car-making

business on the side to help defray the costs of it`s public service

obligations. I just happen to think Wagoner was closer to a "car guy"

than the string of financial guys that preceded him, and that he did

push change.




From: "CardsFan" <me(at)here.com>

Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM

Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:18:12 -0400

Lines: 80

NNTP-Posting-Host: cfs98-112.cfs.purdue.edu

Bytes: 5457

________________________________________________











"WayneC" <WayneC(at)linkline.moc> wrote in message

news:bPKdnTJrLInEHk_UnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d(at)linkline.com...

> CardsFan wrote:

>> "WayneC" <WayneC(at)linkline.moc> wrote in message

>> news:ReCdnesQTdMLxk_UnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(at)linkline.com...

>>> Speaker of the Truth wrote:

>>>> Ever hear the song "too much too little too late"

>>>>

>>>>

>>> I`d argue that Wagoner was steadily doing the right things, but hampered

>>> (slowed & blocked) by pesky little things like union contracts &

>>> negotiations, local politics in every town affected by his proposed

>>> changes, green laws, etc, etc. The guy was a 31-year employee, not an

>>> outsider emotionally unaffected by the changes he attempted to make.

>>

>> The whole point is the corporation has to have someone with an entirely

>> new agenda to survive, not someone who`s sitting around pining for the

>> good old days. The automotive world has radically changed and if it does

>> not adapt, GM is dead. It would have been dead already without taxpayer

>> help, so Mr. Wagoner was out of a job either way.

>>

> My point is that Obama isn`t hampered by contractual legal agreements, he

> proved that with the AIG bonuses.... Wagoner had to honor those

> legalities.



Like everyone else, Obama is bound by the law. His directive was to "find

any legal means" to reclaim the AIG bonuses. It was the House which passed

a law to tax the bonuses at 90%, a law which probably will run afoul of the

Constitution. Obama has not signaled support for that law.



> Obama can wheedle the democratic mayors (and the union bosses) and promise

> them largesse from the US treasury to smooth over the changes he`d like to

> make in the auto industry... Wagoner could not.

> Obama could have done the wheedling and still leave Wagoner in charge of

> the change, but he needed a boogeyman for us peons to blame.



They threw out the head of AIG too. The only thing Obama has said is that

he`s committed to a sustainable US auto industry, and that the government

will honor GM/Chrysler warranties. I concede that the only way Wagoner

could have "saved" the company was to take it into bankruptcy. Its legacy

costs would have forced that already had they not thrown themselves at the

feet of the taxpayer.



> I still think Wagoner did as much, and went as fast in bringing change, as

> he was able to do, I do not think he was in the same arrogant mold as the

> prior bean counters who ruined GM for so many years. I think he got hit by

> a world-wide economic credit crunch at precisely the wrong time, when

> company coffers were low (partly from the costs of changes he`d been

> making), and before his changes began to pay off. You`ll note that the

> governor of Michigan called Wagoner a "sacrificial lamb", noting the many

> changes he`d already made and the much-improved products just going into

> production, while still retaining the good will of the politicians and

> union.



I just bought a lightly used car this past weekend, a 2008 Acura TL that was

a dealer service department loaner. I looked hard at the Malibu, and every

single car I saw on the lot/showroom had fit and finish issues of one sort

or another. Panels didn`t align, gaps were inconsistent on opposite sides

of the car, etc. My honest opinion is that none of those cars would ever

have made it out of a Honda factory. It`s not American workers, my car was

made in Ohio. I blame the engineers for poor design. If you tell me that`s

because the bean counters won`t let the engineers do their thing, I can`t

argue with you because I don`t know the inner workings of the company.



> I would rather see a "car guy" in charge of GM, but as I recall, they did

> have one of those in the late 80`s and he wasn`t up to the rest of the

> job... to paraphrase what one TV commentator said, GM today is a

> retirement and health benefits company that operates a car-making business

> on the side to help defray the costs of it`s public service obligations. I

> just happen to think Wagoner was closer to a "car guy" than the string of

> financial guys that preceded him, and that he did push change.



Remember "Roger and Me" when Michael Moore was funny, before he became a

self-righteous jerk?



AJM

`93 40th Anniversary coupe, 6 sp (both tops)










From: pj <pj4380(at)yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM

Lines: 144

NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.199.179.29

Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:20:30 -0700

Bytes: 7009

________________________________________________









WayneC wrote:

> CardsFan wrote:

>> "WayneC" <WayneC(at)linkline.moc> wrote in message

>> news:ReCdnesQTdMLxk_UnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(at)linkline.com...

>>> Speaker of the Truth wrote:

>>>> Ever hear the song "too much too little too late"

>>>>

>>>>

>>> I`d argue that Wagoner was steadily doing the right things, but

>>> hampered (slowed & blocked) by pesky little things like union

>>> contracts & negotiations, local politics in every town affected by

>>> his proposed changes, green laws, etc, etc. The guy was a 31-year

>>> employee, not an outsider emotionally unaffected by the changes he

>>> attempted to make.



Well said! Unfortunately, BK looks like the

only way to shed the baggage and BK appeared to

be Wagoner`s `line in the sand.` Fritz has a

bit less of that `baggage` and can look himself

in the mirror while making the next round of

hard choices. I give him 180 days on the job.

Obama may be considering 90 days.



The cover of last week`s TIME magazine said it all.



>>

>> The whole point is the corporation has to have someone with an

>> entirely new agenda to survive, not someone who`s sitting around

>> pining for the good old days. The automotive world has radically

>> changed and if it does not adapt, GM is dead. It would have been dead

>> already without taxpayer help, so Mr. Wagoner was out of a job either

>> way.



Yup; and, his stock options weren`t worth much!



>

> My point is that Obama isn`t hampered by contractual legal agreements,

> he proved that with the AIG bonuses.... Wagoner had to honor those

> legalities. Obama can wheedle the democratic mayors (and the union

> bosses) and promise them largesse from the US treasury to smooth over

> the changes he`d like to make in the auto industry... Wagoner could not.

> Obama could have done the wheedling and still leave Wagoner in charge of

> the change, but he needed a boogeyman for us peons to blame.



Hmmm, I thought we already spent the Treasury.



Next act: fake how much gold is stored in Fort

Knox.



>

> I still think Wagoner did as much, and went as fast in bringing change,

> as he was able to do, I do not think he was in the same arrogant mold as

> the prior bean counters who ruined GM for so many years. I think he got

> hit by a world-wide economic credit crunch at precisely the wrong time,

> when company coffers were low (partly from the costs of changes he`d

> been making), and before his changes began to pay off. You`ll note that

> the governor of Michigan called Wagoner a "sacrificial lamb", noting the

> many changes he`d already made and the much-improved products just going

> into production, while still retaining the good will of the politicians

> and union.



I think Wagoner, "meant well." We have to

remember that he was *Chairman of the Board of

Directors*. He failed to lead the Board to

maintain GM as a profitable enterprise with a

sound balance sheet. He was in charge when the

Book value went into negative territory.



The ship ran aground, a couple of times in 2005

when Wagoner and the Board failed to understand

the fallacies of their inventory valuation. (the

Sloan system of cooking the books). That was

obvious when the valuation of finished goods,

parts and material inventory was being based on

MSRP rather than on the actual net selling price

after "incentives." The ship sank in early 2008

(when corporate book value passed through zero

and cash flow was negative.)



Ask any Navy guy -- you `shitcan` the Commanding

Officer when the ship runs aground. You don`t

wait for it to sink. There is no reason for

doing otherwise.





>

> I would rather see a "car guy" in charge of GM, but as I recall, they

> did have one of those in the late 80`s and he wasn`t up to the rest of

> the job... to paraphrase what one TV commentator said, GM today is a

> retirement and health benefits company that operates a car-making

> business on the side to help defray the costs of it`s public service

> obligations. I just happen to think Wagoner was closer to a "car guy"

> than the string of financial guys that preceded him, and that he did

> push change.



Agree. But the string of `financial guys`

weren`t very good at their own trade. Bluntly,

their forecasting sucked as bad as their

operating statements sucked.



All this may prove that Obama is the only "car

guy" on the block who can keep GM in the car

business.



Fritz`s job is to fit the `needed product line`

into a `clear balance sheet.` That dictum seems

daunting and I wish him well.



I doubt that GM has the bits and pieces on the

shelf (or even has drawing numbers and bill of

materials) to build the "needed product line."

(producible cars that will meet CAFE, buyer

desires, and also meet government profit

objectives.)



I fear there will be little room for future

model changes to Corvette. Worse, some forced

plant closures may restrict Corvette assembly to

shelf-stocks of components until vendor sources

outside the GM umbrella can be started. At that

point the `vette may price itself out of the

production car market.



Wonder what Dad`s cut is on this? (How

interdependent is Corvette on the rest of the GM

line to meet it`s Build Sheets?)



Maybe best for Corvette and for GM to sell the

whole marque.



We may find ourselves importing `gray market`

`vettes made in India by a joint venture of Tata

and Fiat. And, built to European or

Middle-eastern standards.



Possibly purchased thru the /Dick Cheney

Corvette/ franchise in downtown Abu-Dhabi but

drop-shipped into Ensenada for nighttime

delivery in Ciudad Juarez under some NAFTA waiver.



Shame this can`t be a big smiley :)



--

pj



NEXT POSTS:

> Obama now owns GM

>> Obama now owns GM

>>> OBD II Scanner for Palm

>>>> OBD II Scanner for Palm

>>>>> OBDII scan for`96 and later Vettes

>>>>>> OBDII scan software & interface for PC

>>>>>>> obligatory post to start the discussion of ...

>>>>>>>> obligatory post to start the discussion of ...

>>>>>>>>> obligatory post to start the discussion of ...

>>>>>>>>>> obligatory post to start the discussion of ...