[Buickman]

look in his eyes, disregard the corporate photography and watch the body language.

http://money.cnn.com/video/#/video/fortune/2008/06/06/fortune.GM.Taylor.fortune

 

[Aprime]

I don't know what's to blame for the immense slump in sales specifically, but I know there was a shift to smaller car predicted in the past. It just seems that they've accelerated those plans according to the current economical situation at the pump.

I know when you're talking about marketing you're not only refering to the advertisement, but the brands and their equity. This is one problem this year that I was hoping would be solved within 09.

So what else could be blamed for the huge deficit? Could it possibly be R&D dollars? I have no idea, I'm not an investor and I don't know how this company's run. But I know that it's been criticized numerous time for being extremely bureaucratic (as GM even cut into its white collar work force?). We're seeing Dearborn move on from the Bill days relatively quickly and turn the ship around over here... I don't know, I'm worried about Wagoner not being competent enough to pull this one off correctly.

We've got the product guy and the designers, but dealer relations aren't that great and some brands are being not being fed adequately for instance, Chevy might not have the best vehicles right now (with numerous new exceptions) but it still has the vehicles to compete in numerous segments, surely not with certain levels of equipment appreciated in competitors' cars but it's still better than not having an entry or leaving a brand with 3 vehicles, with only one that's really worth buying.

I believe what he says, I mean... Who excepted truck sales to slump THIS quickly (based on the numbers he pointed)? Their planning should've been adequate but now they just make it look like they're reacting at the last minute (as typical of GM - well, they are reacting to the changing market but it's basically just accelerating the original plans.). I do believe that every company should have an adequate car lineup with numerous entries (none of which canibalizing the other model's sales - it doesn't matter that it's not a bloody rebadge job, if the car's the same thing as the other one only with a different exterior and interior it's extremely likely to cannibalize the original car's sales if it doesn't offer anything else different (take for instance the Astra and Cobalt - they're just platform mates, they don't feel the same or drive the same, and there is no sedan Astra), this is why I was happy when I saw the triplets, I thought it would've brought Geo back in some way by offering Chevy 3 new entries in the small car segment, all of which looking handsome and cool, however, they were unsure about bringing any of them over here, while it would've been logical to, just not in extreme numbers at first (reactive production does make sense).

I also wish they'd have invested in a manufacturing process like Honda's (except you'd have BOM plants and UB plants (Body On Frame, UniBody), but I think the UAW would probably fight against it considering it cuts the number of plant workers pretty dang short.

(tl;dr: poorly constructed post about my thoughts right now)

 

[Hitman1970]

I saw a lot of blinking and some forceful chops to emphasize points, but nothing that screams complete incompetence.

His answers were reasonable, but he did dance around the shutdown of Hummer too much.

 

[fp115]

You seem to only want to point to the most miniscule things and make them seem as huge things. You may not like Rick and have failed to answer my previous posts, what did you think of Roger? I know a hell of a lot more about the company from the inside-out, you get all that reaches the media and information made available to investors.

So really answer me this Buickman:

Perfect, no. But it takes a hell of a lot of courage, dedication and belief in your own plan to turn a company around as he is doing with Robert. Give it 2 more years and the hard times will be history. But GM should never let its guard down as it did again, continue to innovate and continue to act as if you must restructure the company, ensure it stays out on top all the time.

Are you going to contradict all the financial analysis made by financial experts? Are you going to be contradicting some of GM's numbers when you know those can't be forged. What makes you so sure GM "won't last 2 years" apart from the fact that all you seem to focus on is marketing? Do you know what GM intends to do with future marketing?

 

[Buickman]

You seem to only want to point to the most miniscule things and make them seem as huge things. You may not like Rick and have failed to answer my previous posts, what did you think of Roger? I know a hell of a lot more about the company from the inside-out, you get all that reaches the media and information made available to investors.

So really answer me this Buickman:


Are you going to contradict all the financial analysis made by financial experts? Are you going to be contradicting some of GM's numbers when you know those can't be forged. What makes you so sure GM "won't last 2 years" apart from the fact that all you seem to focus on is marketing? Do you know what GM intends to do with future marketing?

do you know the man has lost $50 Billion the last three years? don't tell me it's not cash...had we any profit the tax loss carryforward would have saved us cash. he won't say when we'll ever be profitable again and keeps closing, selling assets, and borrowing money like it's free. Red Ink Rink has driven us to the brink.

 

[TriShield]

He should have been out five years ago, it's amazing that he's been able to keep his position for this long despite everything that's happening to GM.

 

[fp115]

do you know the man has lost $50 Billion the last three years? don't tell me it's not cash...had we any profit the tax loss carryforward would have saved us cash. he won't say when we'll ever be profitable again and keeps closing, selling assets, and borrowing money like it's free. Red Ink Rink has driven us to the brink.

I am very much aware of losses, but look at the state GM was in when Rick took over 5 years ago. It wasn't the best of states to take over and that was around the same time GM's stock was given a junk status. This is not something he did himself, but it was due to poor management in the past which all resulted into this. You cannot solely blame this on Rick and what I do not understand is why you haven't given him any credit for returning 15b to the cash flow. He was also responsible for hiring Robert Lutz and Frederick Henderson, which both have done a great job in revitalizing the portfolio.

You're giving us $50 billion dollars worth of loses as a number, but how much of it was directly because of him, how much of it was Smith's fault? I know I don't have numbers with me, but I can almost see that the majority of that $50 billion was due to John Smith and much of the rest was due to one time costs and other costs to turn the company back around. He won't tell when the company will be profitable, it will make things worse if a bump in the market comes around again and would have to delay reportings in the black. Which makes most certainly a lot of sense, the same was done with the Volt.

 

[91 s-10baja]

Fortune Magazine really? please.
There are too many variables in this market to put the blame only on him. You guys are smarter than this. Granted the domestic autos have been ***** for far too long, but they have completely turned around, you all drank that kool aid when the new products come out. Which brings me to Americans buying foreign product, they aren't giving us brands a shot anymore. Gas Prices, that was quite stunning the immense increase recently, even though the cost of energy will never be what it used to be, we understood it was going to forever increase, but as quickly, how is that Ricks fault. Hey you know what Toyota is having issues too people trying to sell trucks, and decrease in sales. Sorry, I forgot this was a 'it's your fault Rick' post.

 

[t-rex]

He looked to me like he kept squanching forward, as though he were trying to hold in a fart...

 

[2002 Caddy]

Who excepted truck sales to slump THIS quickly (based on the numbers he pointed)? Their planning should've been adequate but now they just make it look like they're reacting at the last minute.

Several forum members have been posting about GM's lack of a "nice" and competitive small car and wonky "truck focus" for at least 3 years. The reporter noted that SUV sales peaked 3 years ago. Most economists have been predicting this for over 5 years now... A few have been sounding the warnings for 8.

The answer EVERYONE expected truck sales to slump... The only people who didn't were Rick and the current GM board.

The issue was not that GM shouldn't have cashed in on Trucks.... BUT YOU DON'T bet the freaking FARM on ONE market segment. Which is what Rick did. Not only did they shut down car production at exactly the time economists were warning about "peak oil" and the middle east was becoming even more unstable... But they transfered all design, R&D and marketing resources to the trucks too.

This will go down in history as one of the stupidest things ANY CEO has EVER done. (OK, not quite as stupid as NEW COKE but a close second)

 

[2002 Caddy]

I am very much aware of losses, but look at the state GM was in when Rick took over 5 years ago. It wasn't the best of states to take over and that was around the same time GM's stock was given a junk status. This is not something he did himself, but it was due to poor management in the past which all resulted into this. You cannot solely blame this on Rick and what I do not understand is why you haven't given him any credit for returning 15b to the cash flow. He was also responsible for hiring Robert Lutz and Frederick Henderson, which both have done a great job in revitalizing the portfolio.

You're giving us $50 billion dollars worth of loses as a number, but how much of it was directly because of him, how much of it was Smith's fault? I know I don't have numbers with me, but I can almost see that the majority of that $50 billion was due to John Smith and much of the rest was due to one time costs and other costs to turn the company back around. He won't tell when the company will be profitable, it will make things worse if a bump in the market comes around again and would have to delay reportings in the black. Which makes most certainly a lot of sense, the same was done with the Volt.

You are aware that before Rick was the CEO he was the CFO... His tenure as a Senior Officer at GM goes back at least 16 years... BTW CFO stands for Chief Financial Officer... They are usually responsible for the financial well being of the company. At least where I work they are often the Second or Third in command and it is their job to tell the CEO that he is about to do something financially stupid....

You know, like the Fiat deal.

 

[Buickman]

You are aware that before Rick was the CEO he was the CFO... His tenure as a Senior Officer at GM goes back at least 16 years... BTW CFO stands for Chief Financial Officer... They are usually responsible for the financial well being of the company. At least where I work they are often the Second or Third in command and it is their job to tell the CEO that he is about to do something financially stupid....

You know, like the Fiat deal.

man we must be distant cousins or something 'cause we exhibit simialr DNA.

 

[fp115]

You are aware that before Rick was the CEO he was the CFO... His tenure as a Senior Officer at GM goes back at least 16 years... BTW CFO stands for Chief Financial Officer... They are usually responsible for the financial well being of the company. At least where I work they are often the Second or Third in command and it is their job to tell the CEO that he is about to do something financially stupid....

You know, like the Fiat deal.

Yes I know quite well what CFO means and all of Rick's background. I know current CFOs within GM, heck there is one in our family, not going to tell you which one. But you should also know its not the CFO's job to make sure of that, but the board. The CFO can simply bring it up, but if the board does not approve, it does not get done. But by what you are saying is that the current CFO, Mark, is fully responsible for this said $50b. The state of the company when Rick took over was planned poorly, not from a financial perspective but from a planning perspective. Smith and the previous CEO (his name slips past me) moved GM towards a truck and SUV based organization. Legacy costs have gone up significantly due to poor future planning. There are not due to Rick's decisions, but past CEOs and past board members.

You have yet to provide me with a breakdown to which any of this $50b is directly caused by Rick's poor management as a CEO. Prove me wrong Buickman and I will be quiet, but I have yet to see anything of the sort. You are great to make very lengthy and grueling posts on his so called poor performance but I have yet to see any proof, numbers or anything to back up your claims. I've seen where most of this money has gone to and as I have said, many were one time costs and costs used to fix the past. Other costs include strikes such as American Axle and a very small portion was due to mismanagement from the current board of directors.

If we look at the present, GM is on track to become profitable and have turned the company around for the future. Their product lineup has increased dramatically. The focus is no longer on trucks and SUV or even fleet vehicles. GM makes great use of Global processes which cuts costs dramatically. All of these were things that did not exist pre-Rick era. You may not know the effects of making things Global, but you will in the future. All current actions done by GM will benefit the future, not the present.

 

[Buickman]

Red Ink Rick became CFO in 1992 (with no accounting degree, why? who's the big fish? people are clueless that this man has been pulled up intentionally...but by who?), our financials still are inaccurate. per his own admissions there are "material weaknesses regarding internal controls". Wags also started running North American Operations in 1994. he flunked that also, this time in spades. he has allowed the worst marketing in the industry to drive us downward annually. he has lost over $50 Billion in shareholder value since becoming Chairman. need I continue? the guy is the single biggest disaster in GM history and quite possibly in American history.

lastly I will say..."Channel This"!

 

[2002 Caddy]

Yes I know quite well what CFO means and all of Rick's background. I know current CFOs within GM, heck there is one in our family, not going to tell you which one. But you should also know its not the CFO's job to make sure of that, but the board. The CFO can simply bring it up, but if the board does not approve, it does not get done. But by what you are saying is that the current CFO, Mark, is fully responsible for this said $50b. The state of the company when Rick took over was planned poorly, not from a financial perspective but from a planning perspective. Smith and the previous CEO (his name slips past me) moved GM towards a truck and SUV based organization. Legacy costs have gone up significantly due to poor future planning. There are not due to Rick's decisions, but past CEOs and past board members.

You have yet to provide me with a breakdown to which any of this $50b is directly caused by Rick's poor management as a CEO. Prove me wrong Buickman and I will be quiet, but I have yet to see anything of the sort. You are great to make very lengthy and grueling posts on his so called poor performance but I have yet to see any proof, numbers or anything to back up your claims. I've seen where most of this money has gone to and as I have said, many were one time costs and costs used to fix the past. Other costs include strikes such as American Axle and a very small portion was due to mismanagement from the current board of directors.

If we look at the present, GM is on track to become profitable and have turned the company around for the future. Their product lineup has increased dramatically. The focus is no longer on trucks and SUV or even fleet vehicles. GM makes great use of Global processes which cuts costs dramatically. All of these were things that did not exist pre-Rick era. You may not know the effects of making things Global, but you will in the future. All current actions done by GM will benefit the future, not the present.

Your logic escapes me. When Rick was the CFO the financial screw ups weren't his fault, it was bad planning and a screwed up board? So your point is that as the CFO he was incapable of going his job. Now that he is the CEO its not his fault its because of historic Officers, CEO's and the Board (of which he was one).

We have to ignore the fact that he has had this job for 6 years and not counting the last three weeks he did little to reverse mistakes of the past... Other then the UAW deal he did NOTHING... It was stay the course, shut down car production, kill Oldsmobile (a mostly car division) be "dumb" with GMAC, dummer with fiat, extra super dumb with Delphi/Delco and just ignore every expert on the planet and BUILD SUV's and TRUCKS!

Your opinion is that the board is responsible for most of these mistakes... That too is terrible news. Google the GM board... Half of the board has tenure back to the mid 90's... Only two have joined in the last couple of years... This is a STAY THE COURSE board... If you are right, that it is historic CEOs and the board who is to blame WE ARE DOOMED!

And just to add salt in the wound...
Rick has been on the board of directors since 1998 (10 years) He's been at the Directors table for 10 Years... And he has done NOTHING...

I'm going to bookmark this thread and I'll bring it forward in June 2010... If Rick is still in charge... My predictions... GM's market share in North America will be 3% less then it is today (22% -> 19%) . And the shares will be trading around $12.50 a share.

You will note that I hold GM stock... Why you ask? I was hoping that they would go up when Lutz took over design and shifted the focus back to "cool cars"... Well that never happened. Now I hold the shares based on the knowledge that they will double in value the second they fire Rick.

 

[fp115]

Your logic escapes me. When Rick was the CFO the financial screw ups weren't his fault, it was bad planning and a screwed up board? So your point is that as the CFO he was incapable of going his job. Now that he is the CEO its not his fault its because of historic Officers, CEO's and the Board (of which he was one).

We have to ignore the fact that he has had this job for 6 years and not counting the last three weeks he did little to reverse mistakes of the past... Other then the UAW deal he did NOTHING... It was stay the course, shut down car production, kill Oldsmobile (a mostly car division) be "dumb" with GMAC, dummer with fiat, extra super dumb with Delphi/Delco and just ignore every expert on the planet and BUILD SUV's and TRUCKS!

Your opinion is that the board is responsible for most of these mistakes... That too is terrible news. Google the GM board... Half of the board has tenure back to the mid 90's... Only two have joined in the last couple of years... This is a STAY THE COURSE board... If you are right, that it is historic CEOs and the board who is to blame WE ARE DOOMED!

And just to add salt in the wound...
Rick has been on the board of directors since 1998 (10 years) He's been at the Directors table for 10 Years... And he has done NOTHING...

I'm going to bookmark this thread and I'll bring it forward in June 2010... If Rick is still in charge... My predictions... GM's market share in North America will be 3% less then it is today (22% -> 19%) . And the shares will be trading around $12.50 a share.

You will note that I hold GM stock... Why you ask? I was hoping that they would go up when Lutz took over design and shifted the focus back to "cool cars"... Well that never happened. Now I hold the shares based on the knowledge that they will double in value the second they fire Rick.

I never did say it wasn't his fault, but a lot of the screw ups made before his term at GM (more around 5 years, he's been on since May 2003) were planning issues less than financial ones. No need to iterate over the screw made before Rick was made CEO, but if you have a good look at the past you will see that UAw/CAW contracts introduced huge legacy cost to the infrastructure, much of this legacy cost was what got GM's stuck to go down and for profit to turn into losses. These all snowballed to which we can add the increased cost of steel, oil and the poor performance of the US economy.

Oldsmobile was killed in 2000 if I remember correctly, 3 years before Rick was made CEO. How can you say he was "dumb" with GMAC? What was so dumb about a company losing millions upon millions of dollars and GM not wanting to have it under its belt any longer? Fiat again was started in 2000, under John Smith, Rick was stuck fixing this and ended up spending $2b in order to fix it, but you may even argue that the $2b was still under John's name since it was done in April, a month before Rick was CEO. As for Delphi, yes that was a bad move handing over a $2b loan. But GM does also rely on them a lot in order to produce much needed parts. Until GM can manage to be less dependent of them, they will always have them dragging them down everytime something happens. The SUV and truck dependency began in the 90s under Roger Smith, was emphasized some more in the mid 90s under Robert Stempel and then finally still under John Smith. Robert and John have invested most of GM's portfolio to be trucks and SUVs. When Rick was put at the top there was nothing to do but continue and at that point the market crashed and began turning around to cars. How can one blame the truck and SUV position on Rick, when the company was already focused on those. It takes at least one product cycle (5 years) to be able to switch a part of your portfolio, but will take 2 product cycles to do it fully.

Bad decisions were made in the early 90s till early 00s. That is not to say it was solely CEOs to blame, but the Board does have a lot to say on the decisions and in most cases will require board approval before anything significantly large is done. Whether or not you like the present (I don't think anyone does) the future of the company looks much brighter than it does currently. Why I say this, GM is pulling its dependency from trucks and SUVs to crossovers, mid-size cars and soon will get into the entry level vehicles with the upcoming global platform with the Aveo and Delta updates.

I also hold GM stock. I want to see good performance coming out of it, but really I cannot see how the performance is to be solely blamed on Rick, when the majority of his actions were in attempt to remediate past decisions. Marketshare I don't think is nearly an important number, not unless you are profitable, but at no time should you risk profitability for marketshare (cutting fleet). While currently the problem with the market in North America is perception, GM's sales are up in nearly all its other markets, especially LAAM. $12.5 is not at all what I think the shares will be at and by 2010, I can most certainly predict it to be at least $30-35.

 

[2002 Caddy]

Your post makes perfect sense except for the annoying fact that he took over the CEO job in June of 2000. He has been the CEO for a full 8 years. You are confusing Board Chair and CEO...

Just about EVERYTHING on your list happend under his leadership.

BTW I'm not a big fan of having a CEO sit as board Chair... This is a total conflict of interest. The board chair should have as its main job to measure the performance of the CEO. Rick measures his own performance.

 

[JackDye]

If we look at the present, GM is on track to become profitable and have turned the company around for the future. Their product lineup has increased dramatically. The focus is no longer on trucks and SUV or even fleet vehicles. GM makes great use of Global processes which cuts costs dramatically. All of these were things that did not exist pre-Rick era. You may not know the effects of making things Global, but you will in the future. All current actions done by GM will benefit the future, not the present.

fp - have you seen anything that discusses how much potential savings occurs from the global platforms? I have seen the $6B savings number for operating expenses due to all the current actions, but have never seen the global piece sized on the cost of sales. I would think this would start to kick-in in 2009/2010 timeframe as well. Thanks.

 

[Aprime]

Rick measures his own performance.

That's like masturbating and asking yourself how good you did.

 

[Buickman]

Your logic escapes me. When Rick was the CFO the financial screw ups weren't his fault, it was bad planning and a screwed up board? So your point is that as the CFO he was incapable of going his job. Now that he is the CEO its not his fault its because of historic Officers, CEO's and the Board (of which he was one).

We have to ignore the fact that he has had this job for 6 years and not counting the last three weeks he did little to reverse mistakes of the past... Other then the UAW deal he did NOTHING... It was stay the course, shut down car production, kill Oldsmobile (a mostly car division) be "dumb" with GMAC, dummer with fiat, extra super dumb with Delphi/Delco and just ignore every expert on the planet and BUILD SUV's and TRUCKS!

Your opinion is that the board is responsible for most of these mistakes... That too is terrible news. Google the GM board... Half of the board has tenure back to the mid 90's... Only two have joined in the last couple of years... This is a STAY THE COURSE board... If you are right, that it is historic CEOs and the board who is to blame WE ARE DOOMED!

And just to add salt in the wound...
Rick has been on the board of directors since 1998 (10 years) He's been at the Directors table for 10 Years... And he has done NOTHING...

I'm going to bookmark this thread and I'll bring it forward in June 2010... If Rick is still in charge... My predictions... GM's market share in North America will be 3% less then it is today (22% -> 19%) . And the shares will be trading around $12.50 a share.

You will note that I hold GM stock... Why you ask? I was hoping that they would go up when Lutz took over design and shifted the focus back to "cool cars"... Well that never happened. Now I hold the shares based on the knowledge that they will double in value the second they fire Rick.

three years? well we seem to agree so often but on this there is a difference of opinion. unless GM immediately and drastically changes the marketing, this company is belly up in ONE year.