BioInvestor

GM Slashes Benefits: One Bad Decision After Another

Rocky_08, thanks for the post, but you're addressing issues that I didn't raise.

I won't take your word for it that GM will survive--that's meaningless. I buy arguments, not personal opinions.

I believe GM will have to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy: costs continue to rise; GM is burning through cash; the company has problems generating revenues. It's easy to connect the dots and realize what will happen within the next 12 to 18 months.

No one can know for sure if the company will survive. Lower oil prices could help. I'd like to see the company do well, but based on the track record of current management, I don't hold out much hope for a major turnaround. Bankruptcy isn't a pleasant experience, but if it's coupled by a culling of the top management of GM, I'd be in favor.

You certainly do invest capital where products are sold, but the challenge in Asian markets is that margins will be smaller. Asian and European manufacturers arrived in the US markets with high end products because they were highly profitable margins. It's a pity that GM has ceded that market to foreign competition.

I agree with the argument you appear to be making about CEOs. I am not as interested in the salary as with performance: it a management team isn't performing, it should be removed. The problem at GM is management.

I do agree that people lower down in the ranks suffer from the incompetence of senior management. I would like to see some mechanism to remove management. I am not sure what that could be--boards should be more accountable.


On Jul 23 08:09 AM Rocky_08 wrote:

> Bio ... I think you should set your interests outside GM. Mark my
> word, GM will survive. GM has and will continue to downsize untill
> they have themselves right-sized for U.S. market conditions. Will
> GM go broke? I don't think so. They have partnered themselves with
> in other Auto corporations here in the US and abroad as well. GM
> does well in other markets. CEO management has never been good at
> multi-managing all their markets. GM has a habit of letting one market
> founder while investing in another. This has not served them well
> but the U.S. is not really a surging market anyway. In this business,
> you invest capitol and build your best products where your products
> can be sold. The market here is flooded... so it makes sense that
> all vehicle manufacturing will take a hit. GM being the largest is
> taking it on the chin. GM could have done a lot better.... but who
> says it really matters to them? People are just a casulty of war
> in big business competition. Nothing will change till CEO's are held
> accountable. When they continue to get paid 10 million a year to
> run corporations in the red, then they see themselves as doing all
> the right things. It's like committing a crime and never getting
> punished for it.
>
> Maybe we can agree on this: The pattern of paying CEO's for blundering
> markets will continue and the people on the lower end of these corporations
> will continue to pay for these blunders. CEO's will lose nothing.
> Their pay should be based on total performance of the Corporation.
> We know that won't happen... don't we?

The US Auto Crisis

Thanks for the post, but I'd respectively discount the article as personal opinion.


On Jul 24 12:32 PM Gino Lattarulo wrote:

> Bio Investor, "Factual Documented Information" as released by the
> media is just that. I am giving you information based on 15 years
> of working inside these companies. Take from it what you do or do
> not wish to believe. In any case, I applaud your convictions.

The US Auto Crisis

Not really a valid argument. Women are fired in all companies; that's not news. Men are too--no news then.

As for the discussion about people in women's dresses, what a minimalist argument to make. State something substantive; something meaningful; something relevant! Please. This is a site for investors.


On Jul 24 11:09 PM Joey wrote:

> BioInvester, women were fired. Check your records. It was several
> contractors in the advertising field across the country that were
> fired or demoted. The RDMMs made the recommendations. Also, if women
> do not make a difference, then why did you have the engineers at
> GM be forced to dress up in women's dresses to experience the Acadia
> from a woman's point of view?

The US Auto Crisis

Gino Lattarulo, I am not sure why you wrote the article. It has, at best, only moderate benefit to investors.

The article also contains serious factual errors. The failure rates among different brands--and consumer preferences--are well documented. Companies like Honda and Toyota have consistently manufactured cars that perform better. You actually talk about the quality problems in US cars in your article; I don't see how you can conclude that there is no difference in quality among the different brands.

The US Auto Crisis

paulk8756, a lot more than your case seems to be resting--or not functioning.

Your comments don't reflect women, they reflect who you are and what you attract.


On July 21, paulk8756 wrote:

Let's see...

If you were a woman being polled, you'd say you were in charge of the buying decisions. And if you were a man, and your wife and/or girlfriend was in earshot, you'd say the same thing, wouldn't you?

My former wife and present girlfriend don't know where to check the oil in a vehicle, much less make a sensible decision on which to buy or how to finance one.

I rest my case.

The US Auto Crisis

Joey, your argument lacks logic. People don't buy cars based on the management team!

I don't buy your argument that getting rid of women has had an adverse affect on sales. In fact, I don't believe what you wrote about GM firing women.

Finally, the problems at GM aren't related to gender, they're more related to fenders. GM doesn't make cars that people want to buy. It doesn't matter who is in management, on the board, on the production line, or in sales in market: GM doesn't have a product that people want to buy.


On July 21, Joey wrote:

Well written analysis by the author. Women do represent 65% of new car buying decisions yet GM's management is over 90% men. GM should have started to change its employee makeup to accomodate for targeting their new buyer to the industry - women (this should have occurred 20+ years ago). I remember in 2006, GM took its advertising contractors and fired and demoted almost every women in the advertising field and replaced them with men. GM's men wanted to work with male advertising executives. The result, GM's sales for the brands affected by the switch dropped by more than 40%. So why are these men who made this terrible business decision still there? Is this fair to GM stockholders, especially since so many women who own GM stock? If getting rid of women decreases sales, what would getting rid of the men and adding women to GM do for sales? Would GM finally see a positively changing sales track? Would GM's stock that dropped so much so quickly finally turn around because their target market is being taken care of and their needs met?

GM Slashes Benefits: One Bad Decision After Another

duster/bee, how do you conclude the Free Trade isn't working? Where's the evidence?


On July 22, duster/bee wrote:

all these people have one thing to think about,when you buy any article from a forieng country. That country takes in all the profit from the article. so if it is a auto that country gets the profit.They build school's, park's and infrustructure in thier country so please buy American when making a purchase. There are American products in the stores look at the product to see where it was made. Talk or call your Senator's In Washingon, tell them free trade is not working.

GM Slashes Benefits: One Bad Decision After Another

Rocky_08, you guessed wrong.

Your comment about the assembly of parts is not relevant. If the parts are poor but assembled correctly, so what? If a GM car is poorly made, it's still a GM car. The company made the decision on how the car would be built, which companies to have as partners and the quality systems to employ. Regardless of how the car is constructed, it's a GM vehicle.

For what it's worth, I didn't comment on the abilities of GM employees in the plants. My concern is with management. You introduced topics that I didn't discuss.



On July 21, Rocky_08 wrote:

Bio... I would guess that you really don't know that GM employees only put the vehicles together. Many, if not almost all of the parts are supplied by way of "OUTSIDE" suppliers. Many of these parts are not GM parts at all but they are often and with hope, the best that GM can find. But also they are the in and among the lowest cost parts, via bid offerings. This often equates to cheap parts.

In that I say that the cars are built very well by GM employees with the parts GM selects which have been in past, sub standard. The line workes don't get to select the parts they install. Being forced to insytall cheap parts cannot be blamed on the workers who build the cars.

For example: I have an 04 GM pick-up with a power window in the rear that works only intermittently. That is not a manufacturing problem. GM does not build window motors, window regulators, window relays and so on.... They build cars. This is a component problem via cheap part. Incidently, the window has been used very little. No one sits back there. The mileage is low at 15k and the vehicle is out of warranty being an 04. Again... this is not a manufacturing problem. GM employees do a great job but the parts and components are another issue GM deals with. GM has had to learn the hard way that a cheap part is often not the best. I do hope that I have cleared up what you seem to think makes no sense.

GM Slashes Benefits: One Bad Decision After Another

Rocky_08, your first statement doesn't make a lot of sense. Actually, it doesn't make any sense. Cars that are built well don't have component failures.

US consumers make the ultimate vote on cars; at is stands GM isn't doing that well. I don't buy the statement that GM cars are built well.

I agree whole-heartedly that listening to consumers and responding appropriately is the way to sustained profitability. As a company GM has failed. GM has failed because management has failed.

GM does need to change, but I don't believe that it has. I don't have confidence in the current management team--based on performance.

I want to see GM succeed and thrive; I don't believe it's going to happen.



On July 20, Rocky_08 wrote:

And Bio, you are clearly motivated by your personal self-interest as well. If the business had not been allowed to flounder, everyone would be content. The employees, the share holders and most of all... the customers. The object in this business is to sell vehicles. It's nice to make money at it too but you can't make profits first and hope to get repeat buyers if you fail in the customer's demands. Our most recent GM vehicles were built well. GM's manufacturing process is very good. The floor level of GM has made leaps and bounds in improvements but we have had and still have parts and components failures in our GM vehicles. Again, GM made cuts in this area to keep profits up and in so doing frustrated the customers with trips to the dealer where often repairs were only half A## attempted. This has gone on for decades. GM has a poor track record of caring for the customer. Instead they wrapped themselves around short term profits by way internal cuts. You can't cut your business to profitability. You must meet the customer's demands. Having said that, GM would be a full contender here in North America if they had just listened to the cry of the customers and responded to that cry. I only hope they have finally changed their ignorant ways of treating the customer. We have 2 vehicles that need major work right now. One is a 04 and the other is an 03. Both are out of the warranty but still considered with low mileage in comparison to vehicles that have less issues over 100k miles. One has 15k miles on it. GM uses cheap parts. They need to get away from that. Their independant dealers have abused the customers but the GM is taking the heat for all this. We need a new car but we will buy what fits our budget and one that Consumer Reports gives high ratings to. GM has a long way to go to swoon the buyers now. It's easier to keep a customer than to try to win him back after he has been stung.

GM Slashes Benefits: One Bad Decision After Another

It's exactly the way it should be. Just as, I hope, retirees are motivated by self-interest. The trick is to try and assure that the goals of a self-interested management are aligned with those of shareholders. For GM, I think that there's a good argument to make that this alignment hasn't occurred.



On July 18, User 228489 wrote:

As a General Motors retiree I feel they are the pits. Those worthless ASSES at the top care only for themselves,typical of american CEO`s the broom pusher is always the blame. If all these retirees say screw you from now on we buy only Toyota`s and Honda`s I wonder what kind of an affect it would have on GM. Hopefully it would get those bastards fired.

GM Slashes Benefits: One Bad Decision After Another

Where do you get this drivel? I don't understand how people can come up with such specious reasoning? In a way, I am happy: if people are coming up with this nonsense--and in fairness, it's one of many, many posts--and using it as a basis for investment decisions, it makes for more opportunities for me!

If you make big claims and want to be taken seriously, give evidence to support your position.


On July 17, Thinker notTalker wrote:

What is obscene is that we are being trained that making good on our commitments to Americans is somehow unpatriotic. The deceive and thieve conservatives have succeeded in making it logical for those who have gained the most from our nation to be the least responsible for its continued economic success, and making it look as if if Americans who have performed the labor that produced that wealth simply have no right to expect the promise of the American dream should ever be realized.

GM Slashes Benefits: One Bad Decision After Another

What's the relevance of the comment? The kernel of the issue is an obligation that GM might have to its retirees; Toyota may have contracted a different arrangement.

On July 17, BLoy wrote:

Mr Cara,
Do you have any idea how much Toyota, Honda & Nissan are paying their retirees?

General Motors: General Malaise

hoffman23, you're ignoring the facts! Check out the financials for GM: it's pretty clear that the company is in serious trouble.

I don't accept that GM reacts quickly to change; at least, I don't see any evidence to support the claim.

The quality argument is a myth. For example, if you check out the JD Power website, you'll see that the big three receive the first place ranking in dependability in only five out of nineteen categories. Read the survey results from Consumers Union and you'll see that the Big Three perform much worse. The quality may have improved, but it's still not on par with competitors.

For the record, Peter Lynch may have advocated buying what you know but he insisted on looking at the financials of companies too.


On July 9, hoffman23 wrote:

When does this stupidity end? GM has a very bright future. First look at the overseas business. It's booming!!!! Next, look at how quickly this company is reacting to the current dramatic change in the market. As a veteran of 30 years in this industry, GM used to take YEARS to react. Now they can change within weeks. And PLEASE stop lumping GM and Ford together. The situations are completely different. FORD has put up the entire company including the Blue Oval as collateral on its loans!!!! GM will survive and eventually prosper. Ford and Chrysler are quite a different story. Why don't you write about Toyota and their
Tundra-Texas factory fiasco. How about how much the Europeans are losing money on their American sales due to the crappy dollar? If you went out into the marketplace and compared the quality of the various vehicles, you would have a very different tune. Try the Peter Lynch theory of actually getting out of the ivory tower and going among the masses. It will open your eyes!!!

Big Three Automakers: Recapitalization or Bankruptcy?

What you wrote doesn't make a lot of sense. The issue is reorganization under bankruptcy laws; it's not a question of the company disappearing.

The purchase of company stock by insiders is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who owns the shares; that's not the issue. The issue is cash and how GM, as an example, can repair its balance sheet. If the current trend continues, GM will have to enter C11.


On July 11, Richard Wendling wrote:

I agree with this article. It would be far better for these companies to survive then go bankrupt. I also believe that they will survive based on the internal accumulations of stock by insiders as these issues achieve their lows in the coming weeks. For more information on how those accumulations happen click on my site and read the stock reviews on these issues and the articles on how they are being manipulated.

Why GM Should Embrace Bankruptcy

mags, it depends on what happens during the bankruptcy proceedings,

GM could be unburdened from paying debtors; that could put the company in a better competitive situation.

Shareholders are last in line, as it were, during bankruptcy. It is entirely possible that shareholders will walk away with nothing. The value of the shares could go to zero. Bankruptcy isn't a good situation for shareholders.




On July 8, mags wrote:

Excuse me, I am not a bankruptcy expert.

How would GM filing for bankruptcy affect other competitors, specifically Ford? Would this hurt them, considering that GM would then have an "advantage"?

When in Chapter 11, are union contracts always renegotiated?

If GM files chapter 11 and you are a shareholder, are you always given the opportunity to convert old shares into the reorganized company shares, given they are not cancelled?

The idea of GM spinning off Chevy is very interesting. Would they be able to spin off both Chevy and Cadillac (as stated in a previous comment) and leave the other brands to die?