NCAAbbs

Full Version: Obama fires Rick Wagoner
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Quote:The Obama administration used the threat of withholding more bailout money to force out General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Rick Wagoner, marking one of the most dramatic government interventions in private industry since the economic crisis began last year.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12383609...od=testMod
Barack Hussein/Chavez/Putin/Mao/Castro Obama
this was a decision best left to shareholders.
the answer to GM's woes lie in bankruptcy, not another bailout.
of course, I'm not surprised 'the one' thinks this will make GM viable.
The new CEO of General Motors

[Image: BarackObamaCapitol.jpg]
Purely done for appearances. Cheap politics. BHO is demonstrating that he is anything but "a new kind of president".

The company and its plight are pathetic.

Put the pig in receivership!
Well the world markets are frightful of this move and they are tanking.

However, I do applaud Obama sticking to his guns in regards to the automakers providing a viable plan. Now I have no idea what they presented or what Obamas idea of a good plan is, but it seems it would revolve around green cars and the corporate cost structure (hello unions!).
From Drudge Report:
GM: Government Motors
MARCH 30, 2009, 10:54 A.M. ET
U.S. Forces Out GM CEO Wagoner
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123841609048669495.html

By NEIL KING JR. and JOHN D. STOLL

The Obama administration used the threat of withholding more bailout money to force out General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Rick Wagoner and administer harsh medicine to Chrysler LLC, marking one of the most dramatic government interventions in private industry since the economic crisis began last year


The administration's auto team announced the departure of Mr. Wagoner on Sunday. In a summary of its findings, the task force added that it doesn't believe Chrysler is viable as a stand-alone company and suggested that the best chance for success for both GM and Chrysler "may well require utilizing the bankruptcy code in a quick and surgical way."

The move also indicates that the Treasury Department intends to wade more deeply than most observers expected into the affairs of the country's largest and oldest car company.

After more than a month of analysis, the administration's auto task force determined that neither company had put forward viable plans to restructure and survive. The verdict was gloomier for Chrysler. The government said it would provide Chrysler with capital for 30 days to cut a workable arrangement with Fiat SpA, the Italian auto maker that has a tentative alliance with Chrysler.

If the two reach a definitive alliance agreement, the government would consider investing as much as $6 billion more in Chrysler. If the talks fail, the company would be allowed to collapse.

Despite the grim view of Chrysler, the task force said it had no intention of replacing CEO Robert Nardelli. Unlike Mr. Wagoner, who had been at the helm of GM since 2000, Mr. Nardelli is considered an auto-industry outsider who has only been in charge at Chrysler since the company was acquired by Cerberus Capital Management LP in 2007.

In addition to pushing out Mr. Wagoner, the task force said GM is in the process of replacing the majority of its directors. Kent
Kresa, a longtime director, will serve as interim chairman. Mr. Wagoner will be replaced as CEO by Chief Operating Officer Frederick "Fritz" Henderson.

The administration said it would provide the company sufficient working capital for 60 more days, during which a revamped GM board and top management has to put forward a much more rigorous restructuring plan than it submitted last month.

"The administration is prepared to stand by GM throughout this process to ensure that GM emerges with a fresh start and a promising future," according to term sheets released by the White House Monday morning.

Administration officials made it clear that an expedited and heavily supervised bankruptcy reorganization was still very much a possibility for both companies. One official, speaking of GM, compared such a proceeding with a "quick rinse" that could rid the company of much of its debt and contractual obligations.

The clearest losers appear to be the thousands of bondholders and lenders to both GM and Chrysler. In both cases, administration officials said that the companies were burdened by inordinate amounts of debt that would have to be scrubbed. Chrysler's survival, the administration said, would require "extinguishing the vast majority" of the company's secured debt and all of its unsecured debt and equity.

To assure consumers reluctant to buy GM or Chrysler cars, the government plans to take the unusual step of guaranteeing all warrantees on new cars from either company. These guarantees would lapse back to the companies once they return to health.

Mr. Wagoner had managed the company through some of its most difficult moments. The company hasn't logged a profit since 2004, reporting losses since then of $82 billion. It nearly ran out of money at the end of 2008 before the Treasury Department provided emergency loans. GM's stock was trading above $70 when Mr. Wagoner took over as CEO in June of 2000. The shares closed last week at $3.62, placing the company's market capitalization at $2.21 billion. In Monday-morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange, GM shares were down 89 cents, or 25%, to $2.73.


Mr. Wagoner's tenure came amid extraordinary challenges that weren't entirely of his own making--including costly retiree benefits and union contracts that predate him, and the recent deep recession. Yet GM by most measures performed worse than other auto companies. Among the key decisions that hurt the company: a huge bet on trucks and sport-utility vehicles that piled up on dealers' lots unsold as high gasoline prices drove Americans to look for more fuel economy offered by rival companies.

Mr. Wagoner was asked to step down on Friday by Steven Rattner, the investment banker picked last month by the administration to lead the Treasury Department's auto-industry task force. Mr. Rattner broke the news to Mr. Wagoner in person at his office at the Treasury, according to an administration official. Afterward, Mr. Rattner met one-on-one with Mr. Henderson, who will fill in as GM's CEO.

"On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with administration officials," Mr. Wagoner said in a statement released by GM. "In the course of that meeting, they requested that I 'step aside' as CEO of GM, and so I have."

GM spokesman Steve Harris declined to comment.

In a statement released by GM Sunday night, Mr. Kresa said: "The Board has recognized for some time that the Company's restructuring will likely cause a significant change in the stockholders of the Company and create the need for new directors with additional skills and experience."

Plan for Viability
President Obama plans Monday to lay out the administration's interim conclusions on the companies' viability and the many steps that need to be taken to return the companies to health. The president will hold off on granting the companies the $21.6 billion in new loans they requested last month.

In remarks Sunday, Mr. Obama said that he intends to extract "a set of sacrifices from all parties involved--management, labor, shareholders, creditors, suppliers, dealers." The industry, he said on CBS's "Face the Nation," must "take serious restructuring steps now in order to preserve a brighter future down the road." The two companies "are not there yet," he added.

Mr. Wagoner's removal shows that the sacrifices could cut deep. The departure of the company's top executive promises to further shake up a company that has already been through considerable change over the past six months. The 56-year-old executive had been scrambling to craft a strategy aimed at maintaining leadership in the global sales chase with Toyota Motor Corp. and making big profits in emerging markets.

But Mr. Wagoner's plans came crashing down in the second half of 2008 as the company ran short of cash and was forced to ask the government for billions of dollars in aid. At the same time, his executive team started dismantling several parts of the company, including a plan to shed several brands, slow the pace of new-product introductions and sell stakes in international operations.

Industry's Outlook
The president's auto task force has spent more than a month digging into the restructuring plans that GM and Chrysler submitted last month. The team has struggled to make two determinations: when will the steep plunge in car sales end and what will the market look like once it revives.

GM has based its revival plans on the U.S. market rebounding to sales of 14.3 million vehicles a year in 2011, up from a rate of about nine million vehicles so far this year. Many analysts now consider GM's short-term forecasts to be overly optimistic.


The two companies received a total of $17.4 billion in government loans in December and have requested another dose to keep them going through this year. Of the $21.6 billion, GM is seeking $16.6 billion more, while Chrysler has asked for $5 billion more.

Among challenges the administration faced leading up to this weekend's decision, foremost were the efforts to draw steep concessions from the United Auto Workers union and from the bondholders.

Attempts to solidify deals with the UAW and bondholders were slowed by disagreements by both parties over how exactly the other party needed to budge. The UAW, for instance, insists it already made health-care concessions in 2005 and 2007, and argues that the bondholders have never been asked to concede anything.

"I don't see how the UAW will do anything until they see what the bondholders will give up," one person involved in the negotiations on behalf of the UAW said Sunday.


Bondholder Factor
The bondholders have said that they are willing to make concessions, but they have wanted to see the union make further cuts. The fact GM raised most of the unsecured debt to fund union health-care and pension costs is also seen as a reason why the union needs to take bigger steps.

With Mr. Obama potentially holding off on new loans until concessions are made, analysts said GM likely has enough cash on hand to weather at least another month before its need for more government aid becomes urgent. Chrysler may need another infusion of cash sooner. Ford Motor Co. hasn't sought federal assistance.

Both GM and Chrysler are negotiating with the UAW to accept a range of cost-cutting measures, including greatly reduced work forces, lower wages and a revamped health-care fund for retirees.

The U.S. auto industry has been reeling from a plunge in car sales over the last six months. Sales in February were down about 40% over the same month last year. The drop has sent shock waves through the hundreds of smaller parts companies that supply the big auto makers. To keep the sector afloat, the administration recently announced a $5 billion financing facility to help suppliers cover their expenses.

"We think we can have a successful U.S. auto industry," President Obama said on Sunday. "But it's got to be one that's realistically designed to weather this storm and to emerge--at the other end--much more lean, mean and competitive than it currently is."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who is nominally in charge of overseeing the auto bailout, said on Sunday the government was prepared to lend more money "if we believe it's going to provide the basis for a stronger industry in the future that's not going to rely on government support."

The original December loans were given under the agreement that all sides would strike a compromise deal by March 31, but the administration is taking advantage of a clause allowing all sides another month to negotiate. "It was unrealistic to renegotiate a new labor agreement and the unsecured debt in so short a time," said Sean McAlinden, chief economist with the Center for Automotive Research, in Ann Arbor, Mich. "That has never happened before."

GM and Chrysler are meant to submit by Tuesday assessments of where their restructuring efforts are heading. In February, both companies put forward plans for paring their operations, reducing their work forces and eliminating vehicle models.

GM and representatives for its bondholders remained in talks over the weekend about a deal that would force these investors to turn in at least two-thirds of the value of the debt they hold in exchange for equity and new debt.

This arrangement would force GM to issue significantly more stock than what is currently being traded in the market. In addition, the government is being asked to guarantee the new debt with federal default insurance in order to entice bondholders who otherwise wouldn't be interested in participating in the swap.

If GM can't eventually forge a deal with the ad hoc committee representing the bondholders, the company may be forced to issue a debt-for-equity swap without the blessing of some of its biggest and most influential unsecured investors. This would heighten the possibility of the company eventually needing to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Write to Neil King Jr. at neil.king@wsj.com and John D. Stoll at john.stoll@wsj.com
GM and Wagoner brought this on themselves by taking government bailout money. In essence, the government owns GM now.
I don't get where you people get off bitching about the government making decisions in the companies they've bailed out. Yeah, it should have been left up to the shareholders..the US Government essentially owns AIG, Citicorp, and is in the process of owning GM.
what % of GM stock does the US government own?
I have a problem with it because I don't think there should have been bailouts to begin with. Let the sorry companies fail. It happens all the time. These guys aren't special just because they're big.
(03-30-2009 06:37 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]I have a problem with it because I don't think there should have been bailouts to begin with. Let the sorry companies fail. It happens all the time. These guys aren't special just because they're big.

I can respect that point of view. Some people, however, want bailouts (especially for the banks) and then get up in arms when the government wants some input on how they are run.
I'd prefer the bailouts to be loans instead, and I think some (or most or all) of them are. However, I'm very against the government doing anything with private business. Government has no clue how to run a business.
(03-30-2009 06:37 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]I have a problem with it because I don't think there should have been bailouts to begin with. Let the sorry companies fail. It happens all the time. These guys aren't special just because they're big.

I agree. I also have a problem with the government pumping money into a failing system, then saying bankruptcy is still an option that may be good since it will allow them to restructure.

That's exactly what people have been saying all along! Yet they insisted on giving them money. If bankruptcy is an option, why didn't we allow that to happen in the first place???
(03-30-2009 11:17 PM)LightEmUp70 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-30-2009 06:37 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]I have a problem with it because I don't think there should have been bailouts to begin with. Let the sorry companies fail. It happens all the time. These guys aren't special just because they're big.

I agree. I also have a problem with the government pumping money into a failing system, then saying bankruptcy is still an option that may be good since it will allow them to restructure.

That's exactly what people have been saying all along! Yet they insisted on giving them money. If bankruptcy is an option, why didn't we allow that to happen in the first place???
UAW
Well apparently now the word on the strasse is that BHO is aiming for an orderly bankruptcy for GM. The additional time this time isn't thought to be a solution so much as putting the flaps out, lowering the landing gear and clearing the runway.

If this is true, then good, that's what GM needs, an orderly bankruptcy.

The firing of Wagoner is still just silly. It's cheap. It's political. It is purely to say: "see this incompetent manager couldn't right the ship after we gave him your tax dollars"...

...when, in truth, the government and Mr. BHO should have known full well in the first place that an orderly bankruptcy was the solution.

We could have been so much further along at this point. It would have still cost some bailout money, yes, but not as much, and time too would have been saved.

Furthermore, what GM post bankruptcy would need would be a capable CEO who knows the business. For all we know that may be, er may have been, Wagoner.

But he sucks, a priori, you say? See! His business failed you say?

Ahhh... But you'd fail too if you were competing in an industry against the likes of Toyota with an albatross* around your neck.

*Unit labor cost differential of something around $30!! If I am remembering the CNBC graphic correctly.
(03-31-2009 09:11 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]Well apparently now the word on the strasse is that BHO is aiming for an orderly bankruptcy for GM. The additional time this time isn't thought to be a solution so much as putting the flaps out, lowering the landing gear and clearing the runway.

If this is true, then good, that's what GM needs, an orderly bankruptcy.

The firing of Wagoner is still just silly. It's cheap. It's political. It is purely to say: "see this incompetent manager couldn't right the ship after we gave him your tax dollars"...

...when, in truth, the government and Mr. BHO should have known full well in the first place that an orderly bankruptcy was the solution.

We could have been so much further along at this point. It would have still cost some bailout money, yes, but not as much, and time too would have been saved.

Furthermore, what GM post bankruptcy would need would be a capable CEO who knows the business. For all we know that may be, er may have been, Wagoner.

But he sucks, a priori, you say? See! His business failed you say?

Ahhh... But you'd fail too if you were competing in an industry against the likes of Toyota with an albatross* around your neck.

*Unit labor cost differential of something around $30!! If I am remembering the CNBC graphic correctly.
except,
that albatross was self induced
(03-31-2009 09:19 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-31-2009 09:11 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]Well apparently now the word on the strasse is that BHO is aiming for an orderly bankruptcy for GM. The additional time this time isn't thought to be a solution so much as putting the flaps out, lowering the landing gear and clearing the runway.

If this is true, then good, that's what GM needs, an orderly bankruptcy.

The firing of Wagoner is still just silly. It's cheap. It's political. It is purely to say: "see this incompetent manager couldn't right the ship after we gave him your tax dollars"...

...when, in truth, the government and Mr. BHO should have known full well in the first place that an orderly bankruptcy was the solution.

We could have been so much further along at this point. It would have still cost some bailout money, yes, but not as much, and time too would have been saved.

Furthermore, what GM post bankruptcy would need would be a capable CEO who knows the business. For all we know that may be, er may have been, Wagoner.

But he sucks, a priori, you say? See! His business failed you say?

Ahhh... But you'd fail too if you were competing in an industry against the likes of Toyota with an albatross* around your neck.

*Unit labor cost differential of something around $30!! If I am remembering the CNBC graphic correctly.
except,
that albatross was self induced

Pretty old too. Waay older than the current, er former, management. A large portion of that unit labor per hour cost differential is made up of what they call "legacy" costs--benefits to retired union workers.

Companies don't have retirement plans like they used to. And they shouldn't. Things are different now. Profit sharing, 401(k) matching, etc. This is the future. The days of posh pensions and working for 40 years for one employer and making over $30/hr (not counting benefits) with a high school diploma are over.
as an aside,
If American automakers would produce vehicles that are as reliable as the Japs, even if the price included a legacy cost premium,
I'd give 'em another try.

Since 1984 (with the exception of a 1998 Dakota), I have purchased only Japanese designed/produced vehicles.
I was tired of the constant repairs, both in and out of warranty. I have not been disappointed.
Even though I really like my Dakota, I've spent about half as much time/money on repairs to that one vehicle than the
combined 10 new Toyota/Nissan/Honda vehicles I've purchased [since '84].
(03-31-2009 09:39 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]as an aside,
If American automakers would produce vehicles that are as reliable as the Japs, even if the price included a legacy cost premium,
I'd give 'em another try.

Since 1984 (with the exception of a 1998 Dakota), I have purchased only Japanese designed/produced vehicles.
I was tired of the constant repairs, both in and out of warranty. I have not been disappointed.
Even though I really like my Dakota, I've spent about half as much time/money on repairs to that one vehicle than the
combined 10 new Toyota/Nissan/Honda vehicles I've purchased [since '84].

In 2000 I traded in a Firebird (GM), which used to bedevil me to no end, for a brand new Ford Explorer.

9 years later I still have the Explorer and it has given me very little trouble. I have over 140K miles on it and have driven it as far west as Needles, California as far north as Minneapolis, Minnesota, as far south as Naples, Florida and as far east as Newark, New Jersey.

I hear what you're saying oldblazer. Heck Ford might even make your apples to apples point better than referencing the Asian models.

Ford isn't taking bailout money. GM has a lot of problems no doubt. I guess my point was that BHO trying to pin it all on Wagoner is disingenuous.
(03-31-2009 09:58 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-31-2009 09:39 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]as an aside,
If American automakers would produce vehicles that are as reliable as the Japs, even if the price included a legacy cost premium,
I'd give 'em another try.

Since 1984 (with the exception of a 1998 Dakota), I have purchased only Japanese designed/produced vehicles.
I was tired of the constant repairs, both in and out of warranty. I have not been disappointed.
Even though I really like my Dakota, I've spent about half as much time/money on repairs to that one vehicle than the
combined 10 new Toyota/Nissan/Honda vehicles I've purchased [since '84].

In 2000 I traded in a Firebird (GM), which used to bedevil me to no end, for a brand new Ford Explorer.

9 years later I still have the Explorer and it has given me very little trouble. I have over 140K miles on it and have driven it as far west as Needles, California as far north as Minneapolis, Minnesota, as far south as Naples, Florida and as far east as Newark, New Jersey.

I hear what you're saying oldblazer. Heck Ford might even make your apples to apples point better than referencing the Asian models.

Ford isn't taking bailout money. GM has a lot of problems no doubt. I guess my point was that BHO trying to pin it all on Wagoner is disingenuous.
I will be in need of another vehicle soon. I'm giving Ford a discerning look.
My uncle works for Ford, so my family generally buys only Fords. I have a 2006 Taurus that has 104k and has given me no problems so far. I am hoping to get another two years out of it. My mom traded in her 97ish Explorer last year with 150-160k, and it had given her no major problems, other than regular wear and tear. My sister has a Mustang with over 100k on it and has had no major problems.
(03-30-2009 04:32 PM)Grammar-Nazi Wrote: [ -> ]GM and Wagoner brought this on themselves by taking government bailout money. In essence, the government owns GM now.

That's what I say. If you take the money then you have to be prepared for the government to interfere.
Reference URL's