Car Chat General discussion about Lexus, other auto manufacturers and automotive news.

New GM bankrupcty proposal: Kill "bad GM" so "good GM" can live?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-29-09, 10:00 AM
  #16  
mmarshall
Lexus Fanatic
 
mmarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
Posts: 91,477
Received 88 Likes on 87 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Iceman
Whatever happened to the free market and letting companies survive, prosper, or fail on their own? Why does the government have to step in instead of letting the laws and regulations we already have on the books do their job?

You're an Acura fan, aren't you, Iceman? Would you feel the same way if Honda management were about to cut the Acura Division?
mmarshall is offline  
Old 03-29-09, 10:50 AM
  #17  
-J-P-L-
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
 
-J-P-L-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mmarshall
You're an Acura fan, aren't you, Iceman? Would you feel the same way if Honda management were about to cut the Acura Division?
The big difference is that Honda/Acura don't need a bailout. And Acura is still selling more than half the luxury divisions out there.
-J-P-L- is offline  
Old 03-29-09, 11:11 AM
  #18  
IS-SV
Lexus Fanatic
 
IS-SV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: tech capital
Posts: 14,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by JLSC4
The big difference is that Honda/Acura don't need a bailout. And Acura is still selling more than half the luxury divisions out there.
Exactly, we are talking about making sound business decisions, not trying to appease a handful of Saturn loyalists that have failed to buy Saturn cars in the last 5 years.

GM cannot afford (since they are virtually a walking bankrupt company already) to hang onto a money losing division just because back in the good old days (the 90's) they had flashes of brilliance that never achieved any long term business success.
IS-SV is offline  
Old 03-29-09, 05:49 PM
  #19  
mmarshall
Lexus Fanatic
 
mmarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
Posts: 91,477
Received 88 Likes on 87 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by IS-SV
Exactly, we are talking about making sound business decisions, not trying to appease a handful of Saturn loyalists that have failed to buy Saturn cars in the last 5 years.
I'm not necessarily a dyed-in-the-wool Saturn loyalist (though I like the Aura). To suggest that I am one is a mistake. However, as an auto enthusiast, I know a good thing when I see it.....and classic Saturn WAS a good thing.....till the managers lost sight of what made them great.

GM cannot afford (since they are virtually a walking bankrupt company already) to hang onto a money losing division just because back in the good old days (the 90's) they had flashes of brilliance that never achieved any long term business success.
Well, depends on what you mean by "long-term". Saturn was a smashing success for most of the 90's. it was only GM's management.....and stupidity.....that caused the downturn. In my book, if the managers cause a company's failure, then the managers should go, not the company. You are trying to punish the Indians for the sins of the chiefs.....that's just not the way to do it, even if you try to disguise it as a "sound" buisness decision. Sound decisions don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
mmarshall is offline  
Old 03-29-09, 07:13 PM
  #20  
FKL
Lexus Test Driver
 
FKL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mmarshall
It may offer roadster fun, but it is cheaply made, with second-rate materials, has a difficult-to-operate top, and is, despite the different styling, essentially a clone of the Pontiac Solstice. It has also, according to Consumer Reports, been unreliable.

The Mazda Miata and Honda S2000, in many ways, are far better roadsters.
.
Sounds like every Saturn of the late 90s and early 00s. Sorry, but reliability ratings don't make the cheapness and design shortcuts any more expensive. Build quality on that era of cars has long been deplorable. Driving dynamics were second rate. Engineering and drivetrains was also-ran status.

Today's current Saturns, whatever their reliability ratings say, are vastly improved products in nearly every dimension.
FKL is offline  
Old 03-29-09, 08:44 PM
  #21  
IS-SV
Lexus Fanatic
 
IS-SV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: tech capital
Posts: 14,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by FKL
Sounds like every Saturn of the late 90s and early 00s. Sorry, but reliability ratings don't make the cheapness and design shortcuts any more expensive. Build quality on that era of cars has long been deplorable. Driving dynamics were second rate. Engineering and drivetrains was also-ran status.
I agree, and safety ratings were subpar in the 90's too.
IS-SV is offline  
Old 03-29-09, 08:52 PM
  #22  
IS-SV
Lexus Fanatic
 
IS-SV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: tech capital
Posts: 14,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by mmarshall
I'm not necessarily a dyed-in-the-wool Saturn loyalist (though I like the Aura). To suggest that I am one is a mistake. However, as an auto enthusiast, I know a good thing when I see it.....and classic Saturn WAS a good thing.....till the managers lost sight of what made them great.



Well, depends on what you mean by "long-term". Saturn was a smashing success for most of the 90's. it was only GM's management.....and stupidity.....that caused the downturn. In my book, if the managers cause a company's failure, then the managers should go, not the company. You are trying to punish the Indians for the sins of the chiefs.....that's just not the way to do it, even if you try to disguise it as a "sound" buisness decision. Sound decisions don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Thanks for pointing out you are not a died-in-the-wool Saturn fan, because all your posts don't support that, but you clarified your posiiton I see. But I believe you because like almost everybody here you failed to support Saturn by actually buying their cars over last 10 years. Certainly not a car for the enthusiast as people like us failed to buy these cars.

I agree, GM mismanagaed this division to it's near death status today. I don't agree that Saturn was a smashing success from a business standpoint as proven by its consistent monetary losses. Sound business decisions are needed to restore the health of the company, despite the concerns of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Wagner can go with the bathwater too and he won't be missed.
IS-SV is offline  
Old 03-29-09, 09:07 PM
  #23  
BLK98GS3
Lead Lap
 
BLK98GS3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I think its GM fault that they are in the situation they are in right now and they should just be allowed to go under. They need to fire all the people at the top and start over.
BLK98GS3 is offline  
Old 03-30-09, 06:48 AM
  #24  
Iceman
Lexus Champion
 
Iceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mmarshall
You're an Acura fan, aren't you, Iceman? Would you feel the same way if Honda management were about to cut the Acura Division?
I would, actually. In fact, I have wondered if perhaps Honda is thinking of doing just that given the lack of corporate focus and attention Acura has gotten in recent years!

What I do think is that GM (or AIG, or whatever) should be allowed to fail if they fail under the construct we have in place. And if there is a "good GM" or whatever, then other investors will come in and resurrect it. If not, then that business entity doesn't have a place in today's market.
Iceman is offline  
Old 03-30-09, 07:19 AM
  #25  
4TehNguyen
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
4TehNguyen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 26,059
Received 51 Likes on 46 Posts
Default

GM has way too many brands, need to merge GMC under Chevy, get rid of Pontiac and hummer, possibly merge Buick and Cadillac under a single luxury brand
4TehNguyen is offline  
Old 03-30-09, 08:09 AM
  #26  
tex2670
Lexus Champion
 
tex2670's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Southeastern PA
Posts: 10,124
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by IS-SV
Thanks for pointing out you are not a died-in-the-wool Saturn fan, because all your posts don't support that, but you clarified your posiiton I see. But I believe you because like almost everybody here you failed to support Saturn by actually buying their cars over last 10 years. Certainly not a car for the enthusiast as people like us failed to buy these cars.

I agree, GM mismanagaed this division to it's near death status today. I don't agree that Saturn was a smashing success from a business standpoint as proven by its consistent monetary losses. Sound business decisions are needed to restore the health of the company, despite the concerns of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Wagner can go with the bathwater too and he won't be missed.
Those people failed to buy the cars because Saturn ruined them. They took a decent competitive product, failed to continually update it to remain competitive with the Japanese competition (as was the original goal), and turned to the tried and true GM style of merely rebadging other cars from the GM family.

Don't blame "Saturn loyalists" for failing to continuing to blindly drink the Kool Aid--by being loyalists, they were driven away because what they thought of as a "Saturn" was not what Saturn was churning out anymore. If Saturn continued to be a "Different Kind of Car Company, A Different Kind of Car" instead of "Better Looking than the [Fill in the GM division name here] Version of our Car (or not) Car Company", maybe they wouldn't be on the ax list.

They did the same thing to Saab-- the 9-3 Malibu, the 9-7 Trailblazer and the 9-2 Impreza. They turned it from a "niche" automobile (which is what they want to do to Pontiac) to "nothing really special or competitive" auto.
tex2670 is offline  
Old 03-30-09, 08:53 AM
  #27  
nthach
Lexus Champion
 
nthach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: California
Posts: 3,350
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 4TehNguyen
GM has way too many brands, need to merge GMC under Chevy, get rid of Pontiac and hummer, possibly merge Buick and Cadillac under a single luxury brand
Make GMC the commercial brand, move the Express panel vans and their Class B trucks under the GMC umbrella(even though Toyota owns part of Isuzu who makes their cab-overs). Chevy is mainstream, Buick is "aspirational" and Caddy to be the luxury brand.
nthach is offline  
Old 03-30-09, 09:38 AM
  #28  
IS-SV
Lexus Fanatic
 
IS-SV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: tech capital
Posts: 14,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by tex2670
Those people failed to buy the cars because Saturn ruined them. They took a decent competitive product, failed to continually update it to remain competitive with the Japanese competition (as was the original goal), and turned to the tried and true GM style of merely rebadging other cars from the GM family.

Don't blame "Saturn loyalists" for failing to continuing to blindly drink the Kool Aid--by being loyalists, they were driven away because what they thought of as a "Saturn" was not what Saturn was churning out anymore. If Saturn continued to be a "Different Kind of Car Company, A Different Kind of Car" instead of "Better Looking than the [Fill in the GM division name here] Version of our Car (or not) Car Company", maybe they wouldn't be on the ax list.
I agreed with Marshall that GM drove Saturn into the ground, I didn't blame the Saturn loyalists. I just stated that Saturn loyalists failed to buy the products in the last few years. And look how long GM has taken to fix/eliminate the problems, unbelievable.
IS-SV is offline  
Old 03-30-09, 11:05 AM
  #29  
rdgdawg
Pole Position
 
rdgdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lake Country, WI
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

In speaking with a DC contact earlier this morning... the removal of Wagoner does not bode well for GM's survival as the new CEO is the hand-picked former CFO by the Administration's Auto Task Force (ie Bankruptcy break-up/LIQUIDATION)... and quote, "Kiss Chrysler good-bye"...
rdgdawg is offline  
Old 03-30-09, 11:19 AM
  #30  
rdgdawg
Pole Position
 
rdgdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lake Country, WI
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Text of Obama's speech this morning- decide what was said for yourself...

TEXT - President Obama's remarks on U.S. car industry

Print Story (Reuters) - Following are excerpts from President Barack Obama's Monday remarks about the U.S. auto industry's restructuring effort:

In recent months, my Auto Task Force has been reviewing requests by General Motors and Chrysler for additional government assistance as well as plans developed by each of these companies to restructure, modernize, and make themselves more competitive.

Year after year, decade after decade, we have seen problems papered-over and tough choices kicked down the road, even as foreign competitors outpaced us. Well, we have reached the end of that road.

We cannot, we must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish. But we also cannot continue to excuse poor decisions. And we cannot make the survival of our auto industry dependent on an unending flow of tax dollars. These companies -- and this industry -- must ultimately stand on their own, not as wards of the state.

That is why the federal government provided General Motors and Chrysler with emergency loans to prevent their sudden collapse at the end of last year -- only on the condition that they would develop plans to restructure. In keeping with that agreement, each company has submitted a plan to restructure.

But after careful analysis, we have determined that neither goes far enough to warrant the substantial new investments that these companies are requesting. And so today, I am announcing that my administration will offer GM and Chrysler a limited period of time to work with creditors, unions, and other stakeholders to fundamentally restructure in a way that would justify an investment of additional tax dollars; a period during which they must produce plans that would give the American people confidence in their long-term prospects for success.

What we are asking is difficult. It will require hard choices by companies. It will require unions and workers who have already made painful concessions to make even more. It will require creditors to recognise that they cannot hold out for the prospect of endless government bailouts. Only then can we ask American taxpayers who have already put up so much of their hard-earned money to once more invest in a revitalized auto industry.

GENERAL MOTORS

So let me discuss what measures need to be taken by each of the auto companies requesting taxpayer assistance, starting with General Motors. While GM has made a good faith effort to restructure over the past several months, the plan they have put forward is, in its current form, not strong enough.

However, after broad consultations with a range of industry experts and financial advisors, I'm confident that GM can rise again, provided that it undergoes a fundamental restructuring. As an initial step, GM is announcing today that Rick Wagoner is stepping aside as Chairman and CEO. This is not meant as a condemnation of Mr. Wagoner, who has devoted his life to this company; rather, it's a recognition that it will take a new vision and new direction to create the GM of the future.

In this context, my administration will offer General Motors adequate working capital over the next 60 days. During this time, my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan.

They must ask themselves: have they consolidated enough unprofitable brands? Have they cleaned up their balance sheets or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can't make future investments? And above all, have they created a credible model for how to not only survive, but succeed in this competitive global market?

Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM. What we are interested in is giving GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed changes that will let them emerge from this crisis a stronger and more competitive company.

CHRYSLER

The situation at Chrysler is more challenging. It is with deep reluctance but also a clear-eyed recognition of the facts that we have determined, after a careful review, that Chrysler needs a partner to remain viable. Recently, Chrysler reached out and found what could be a potential partner -- the international car company Fiat, where the current management team has executed an impressive turnaround. Fiat is prepared to transfer its cutting-edge technology to Chrysler and, after working closely with my team, has committed to building new fuel-efficient cars and engines here in America.

We have also secured an agreement that will ensure that Chrysler repays taxpayers for any new investments that are made before Fiat is allowed to take a majority ownership stake in Chrysler.

Still, such a deal would require an additional investment of tax dollars, and there are a number of hurdles that must be overcome to make it work. I am committed to doing all I can to see if a deal can be struck in a way that upholds the interests of American taxpayers.

That is why we will give Chrysler and Fiat 30 days to overcome these hurdles and reach a final agreement -- and we will provide Chrysler with adequate capital to continue operating during that time. If they are able to come to a sound agreement that protects American taxpayers, we will consider lending up to $6 billion to help their plan succeed. But if they and their stakeholders are unable to reach such an agreement, and in the absence of any other viable partnership, we will not be able to justify investing additional tax dollar to keep Chrysler in business.

BANKRUPTCY

While Chrysler and GM are very different companies with very different paths forward, both need a fresh start to implement the restructuring plans they develop. That may mean using our bankruptcy code as a mechanism to help them restructure quickly and emerge stronger.

Now, I know that when people even hear the word "bankruptcy" it can be a bit unsettling, so let me explain what I mean. What I am talking about is using our existing legal structure as a tool that, with the backing of the U.S. government, can make it easier for General Motors and Chrysler to quickly clear away old debts that are weighing them down so they can get back on their feet and onto a path to success; a tool that we can use, even as workers are staying on the job building cars that are being sold.

What I am not talking about is a process where a company is broken up, sold off, and no longer exists. And what I am not talking about is having a company stuck in court for years, unable to get out.

GOVERNMENT WARRANTY

It is my hope that the steps I am announcing today will go a long way towards answering many of the questions people may have about the future of GM and Chrysler. But just in case there are still nagging doubts, let me say it as plainly as I can -- if you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always. Your warrantee will be safe.

In fact, it will be safer than it's ever been. Because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warrantee.

AUTO SALES SUPPORT

Therefore, to support demand for auto sales during this period, I'm directing my team to take several steps. First, we will ensure that Recovery Act funds to purchase government cars go out as quickly as possible and work through the budget process to accelerate other federal fleet purchases as well.

Second, we will accelerate our efforts through the Treasury Department's Consumer and Business Lending Initiative. And we are working intensively with the auto finance companies to increase the flow of credit to both consumers and dealers.

Third, the IRS is today launching a campaign to alert consumers of a new tax benefit for auto purchases made between Feb 16 and the end of this year -- if you buy a car anytime this year, you may be able to deduct the cost of any sales and excise taxes. This provision could save families hundreds of dollars and lead to as many as 100,000 new car sales.

Finally, several members of Congress have proposed an even more ambitious incentive program to increase car sales while modernizing our auto fleet.

I want to work with Congress to identify parts of the Recovery Act that could be trimmed to fund such a program, and make it retroactive starting today.

DIRECTOR OF RECOVERY

I am designating a new Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers to cut through red tape and ensure that the full resources of our federal government are leveraged to assist the workers, communities, and regions that rely on our auto industry.

Edward Montgomery, a former Deputy Labour Secretary, has agreed to serve in this role. Together with Labour Secretary Solis and my Auto Task Force, Ed will help provide support to auto workers and their families, and open up opportunity in manufacturing communities. Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and every other state that relies on the auto industry will have a strong advocate in Ed.
rdgdawg is offline  


Quick Reply: New GM bankrupcty proposal: Kill "bad GM" so "good GM" can live?



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:55 PM.