Q1 GM reports $3.3 Billion Loss

[nsap]

At this point I won't be surprised if the Board of Directors considers a new CEO. I'm not convinced that it isn't a good idea either.

[VCDJ]

Originally Posted by andy82471

Look yourself in the mirror if you want to see the definition of ineptitude. We have been hearing for five years that GM is about to turn a corner. Market share gains and profits are coming soon. Blah blah blah. And five years later they are in a bigger hole than before. And now GM can't even predict when they will be profitable. While companies like Toyota topples them in sales number and profits and is laughing all the way to the bank. I am sure the Chairman of Toyota is praying that GM keeps Wagoner for a long time to come.

Yes that is exactly what i was saying. CEO of toyota is happiest guy on earth as long as Rick and Lutz are running gm. How can you lose over 10% of market share in 10 year. Lose billions each year. Invest in bad product like truck and suvs and ignore cars. Ignore hybrids for so long, not improve quality fast enough i can just keep going. I do not know how anybody who cares about gm can support idiots like rick and lutz. Ford is making money and they started turn around plan after gm. Ford is worht more as a company then gm. This guy rick lost over 50 billion of share holders value. What more reasons do you need to fire this guy????

[VibenPontiac]

Originally Posted by windvale

So Ford made $100 million, and GM is still losing money ? YEARS are slipping by, and GM keep losing money - Lots and lots of money. Billions in fact. How long is it going to take to turn GM around ?

If Rick and his team can't get it done, then maybe they need to get some folks in there that can. Alan Mulally seems to be able to turn a profit...

Yes but Ford didn't have a strike at a plant that cost them $800mm, doesn't own 49% of a company that has huge mortgage investments, and doesn't still have a former supplier siphoning money away. That been said, even the adjusted loss is pretty bad and obviously worse than Ford's performance. The turnaround doesn't happen overnight in a company the size of GM, especially when it has had so far to go. However...

I am beginning to think it may be time for Wagoner to hand the reigns over. Its not so much out of blind disgust and non-knowledge of GM's past problems, the current economy etc... ala VCDJ but more rational. I was very pleased with Rick's performance when GM was in crisis (I will still disagree with Buickman and VCDJ vehemently on that one ) but, so far, he hasn't seemed to handle the back end of the turnaround as well. It seems he's quite good at solving the really big issues (Union contract, over capacity etc...) but can't seem to fix the "smaller" but still very important ones GM needs to in order to complete the turnaround - ex. marketing.

[tgagneguam]

Originally Posted by windvale

So Ford made $100 million, and GM is still losing money ? YEARS are slipping by, and GM keep losing money - Lots and lots of money. Billions in fact. How long is it going to take to turn GM around ?

If Rick and his team can't get it done, then maybe they need to get some folks in there that can. Alan Mulally seems to be able to turn a profit...

You don't understand, windvale. This is "only a paper loss, they need to shrink to be profitable."

Or at least that's how some who understand financing no better than I will explain away another quarter of poor performance.

At some point, there's gotta be more money coming in than going out. Cars are still not bringing in money for the General.

[VCDJ]

Originally Posted by tgagneguam

You don't understand, windvale. This is "only a paper loss, they need to shrink to be profitable."

Or at least that's how some who understand financing no better than I will explain away another quarter of poor performance.

At some point, there's gotta be more money coming in than going out. Cars are still not bringing in money for the General.

What about last 8 years. IS that all paper loss????
Is 10% of market share loss in 10 years paper loss too?
Nobody can support this guy. You should stop embarising your self for making excuses for this guy.

[VCDJ]

Originally Posted by VibenPontiac

Yes but Ford didn't have a strike at a plant that cost them $800mm, doesn't own 49% of a company that has huge mortgage investments, and doesn't still have a former supplier siphoning money away. That been said, even the adjusted loss is pretty bad and obviously worse than Ford's performance. The turnaround doesn't happen overnight in a company the size of GM, especially when it has had so far to go. However...

I am beginning to think it may be time for Wagoner to hand the reigns over. Its not so much out of blind disgust and non-knowledge of GM's past problems, the current economy etc... ala VCDJ but more rational. I was very pleased with Rick's performance when GM was in crisis (I will still disagree with Buickman and VCDJ vehemently on that one ) but, so far, he hasn't seemed to handle the back end of the turnaround as well. It seems he's quite good at solving the really big issues (Union contract, over capacity etc...) but can't seem to fix the "smaller" but still very important ones GM needs to in order to complete the turnaround - ex. marketing.

LOL its ok you can disagree with me as long you so agree with me hahaha. Do you see now. I was being attacked on this site for saying that rick and lutz need to go. I was even being blocked from this site. But in the end i was right. DO you see why i was saying all of this for so long. I have seen it coming. Next move for gm will be bankruptcy . Trust me on that.

[tgagneguam]

Originally Posted by paul8488

...Anyone STILL think that GM is going to find the cash to properly fund 8 North American brands?

Yes, because the money that will need to be used to close down those divisions/dealerships will be better spent on finally building cars and trucks that people want. A smaller GM means less revenue to address fixed costs. If GM shaves three divisions-which would run literally in the billions of dollars, I might add-you can assume, as Oldsmobile very readily demonstrated, that conquest sales will be quite low. The result will indeed be a small NA GM that is still incapable of meeting high fixed costs; the problem of financial losses will continue. Just because you jettison a division doesn't mean the costs follow, too. That's a simple, unimaginative, lazy approach to building a business.

GMNA has been cutting and cutting and cutting and cutting and cutting for the past two decades, yet we are still hearing about losses. I wonder why that is? Maybe it's time for a strategy change. Maybe shrinking to profitability isn't working. Maybe it's time to look to overseas success, where increasing sales are nicely married to profits, where stronger product is married to sales and financial success.

GM's in a difficult situation, and the costs will be high no matter what the plan is. But I think the MBA-directed solution of cutting staff, cutting a division, cutting R&D, laying on incentives, and cutting marketing hasn't really panned out so well. What do you think?

[johnstarnes]

I wonder if the CEOs will be keeping those huge salary increases they "earned" as thousands of workers lose their livelihoods?

[Will123w]

Originally Posted by paul8488

Anyone STILL think that GM is going to find the cash to properly fund 8 North American brands?

No but whenever I say that around here I get called names so I've given up.

[tgagneguam]

Originally Posted by VCDJ

What about last 8 years. IS that all paper loss????
Is 10% of market share loss in 10 years paper loss too?
Nobody can support this guy. You should stop embarising your self for making excuses for this guy.

Clearly, the nature of being facetious is completely lost on you.

[VCDJ]

Originally Posted by tgagneguam

Yes, because the money that will need to be used to close down those divisions/dealerships will be better spent on finally building cars and trucks that people want. A smaller GM means less revenue to address fixed costs. If GM shaves three divisions-which would run literally in the billions of dollars, I might add-you can assume, as Oldsmobile very readily demonstrated, that conquest sales will be quite low. The result will indeed be a small NA GM that is still incapable of meeting high fixed costs; the problem of financial losses will continue. Just because you jettison a division doesn't mean the costs follow, too. That's a simple, unimaginative, lazy approach to building a business.

GMNA has been cutting and cutting and cutting and cutting and cutting for the past two decades, yet we are still hearing about losses. I wonder why that is? Maybe it's time for a strategy change. Maybe shrinking to profitability isn't working. Maybe it's time to look to overseas success, where increasing sales are nicely married to profits, where stronger product is married to sales and financial success.

GM's in a difficult situation, and the costs will be high no matter what the plan is. But I think the MBA-directed solution of cutting staff, cutting a division, cutting R&D, laying on incentives, and cutting marketing hasn't really panned out so well. What do you think?

GM needs to put hummer, saab for sale. They do not need any of those brands. Just by doing that it will make gm much better off. IF gm can get 500 million for 2 of those brands that means it did no cost gm anything to cut 2 devisions. Plus gm needs to change saturn name to opel and bring all opels here. That eliminates another devision. Third Change pontiac name to holden and bring all holdens here. That way another devision will be gone. So that way you do not have to waste money on saab, hummer, saturn and pontiac. You would just have. Holden, Opel, caddy, chevy, gmc and buick. So gm would go from 10 devisions to 6 and it would not cost them anything.

[tgagneguam]

Originally Posted by johnstarnes

I wonder if the CEOs will be keeping those huge salary increases they "earned" as thousands of workers lose their livelihoods?

The salaries should be tied to the overall health of the company and its financial performance, not to whether or not the company lays off people, per se, as unfortunate as the loss of livelihood may be for assembly line workers, johnstarnes.

Nonetheless, GM's continued financial performance and its executive compensation seem puzzling to me. Sure, Wagoner et al. have accomplished a lot, but it still doesn't seem to be enough.

[Hurricane]

Adjusted profits from GM's global automotive operations improved, with first quarter 2008 earnings before tax of $392 million on an adjusted basis (reported earnings before tax of $68 million), compared to $231 million in the year-ago period (reported earnings before tax of $186 million).

While still losing money in NA, it is nice to see that overall they are showing a profit selling cars. Might be a while before GMAC turns around, though...and Delphi seems to be the gift that keeps on giving...

[Evo69]

Originally Posted by tgagneguam

Yes, because the money that will need to be used to close down those divisions/dealerships will be better spent on finally building cars and trucks that people want. A smaller GM means less revenue to address fixed costs. If GM shaves three divisions-which would run literally in the billions of dollars, I might add-you can assume, as Oldsmobile very readily demonstrated, that conquest sales will be quite low. The result will indeed be a small NA GM that is still incapable of meeting high fixed costs; the problem of financial losses will continue. Just because you jettison a division doesn't mean the costs follow, too. That's a simple, unimaginative, lazy approach to building a business.

GMNA has been cutting and cutting and cutting and cutting and cutting for the past two decades, yet we are still hearing about losses. I wonder why that is? Maybe it's time for a strategy change. Maybe shrinking to profitability isn't working. Maybe it's time to look to overseas success, where increasing sales are nicely married to profits, where stronger product is married to sales and financial success.

GM's in a difficult situation, and the costs will be high no matter what the plan is. But I think the MBA-directed solution of cutting staff, cutting a division, cutting R&D, laying on incentives, and cutting marketing hasn't really panned out so well. What do you think?

Damn good post.

[aa2]

Maybe GM could go with my plan in the future, Ford and GM merge, with Mulally being CEO.

Hell we need all struggling industry in America under Mulally's control.