Pontiac Solstice Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,210 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Interesting article in Chicago Trib on GM. Last few lines suggest if there is a shake-up Lutz might gain more power over there...

Ride gets bumpy for GM leaders
Automaker's Big 3 executives likely to face directors' ire after forecast of an $850 million quarterly loss

By Rick Popely and Jim Mateja
Tribune staff reporters
Published March 18, 2005

General Motors, the world's largest automaker, is now one of the industry's biggest management headaches.

Faced with sliding market share, idled factories and rising health-care costs, GM slashed its earnings forecast Wednesday, saying it expects to lose about $850 million in the first quarter.

The news sent GM's stock into a tailspin and immediately put Chairman and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner on the hot seat, along with Bob Lutz, his charismatic vice chairman and product czar, and Gary Cowger, president of the struggling North American operations.

GM had forecast a $500 million profit this year for North America in January but said Wednesday it now expects a "significant loss."

The carmaker's stunning news raises numerous questions about how GM intends to fix its problems and whether it can do so with current management. The carmaker would not make any of the executives available for interviews, but a person close to GM's hierarchy said the company's directors could force changes at the top.

"It's pretty serious when financials deteriorate as fast as they have, and the board may ask someone to resign or retire to show they are alarmed over what's happening and that they want change," the source said.

"The board has to ask why wasn't management in tune with the market that led to the production downturn," the source said. "You can expect a lot more scrutiny from the outside directors, which has become the norm of late."

Who's likely to get blamed?

"It's hard to pinpoint scapegoats, though that's not to say the board won't find some because in this business you are only as good as your last quarterly report," the person said.

Independent analyst Maryann Keller points the finger at Wagoner and Lutz.

"I'm not sure they're going to lose their jobs, but the board of directors must be asking for a plan that will turn GM around," said Keller, author of the 1989 book, "Rude Awakening: The Rise, Fall and Struggle to Recover at General Motors."

Wagoner, 52, became chief executive in 2000, the year after GM posted record operating income of $5.7 billion. He became chairman three years later.

Keller says Wagoner inherited a streamlined production process, put in place by Cowger, which has made GM the most efficient of the domestic Big Three and helped keep it profitable.

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks crippled auto sales in 2001, GM jump-started the industry with "Keep America Rolling," the zero-percent financing program that has become a fixture of GM's marketing.

"In the early days Wagoner was seen as somebody in charge, and with `Keep America Rolling' he looked like a visionary," Keller said. "Like others who have led GM, he's not dealing with the structural issues and what might go wrong. To date, it has not been a brilliant five years."

GM cites soaring health-care costs, estimated at $5.6 billion this year, for part of its problems. Yet Keller points out that the biggest concession it extracted from the United Auto Workers union in 2003 contract negotiations was a higher co-payment for prescription drugs.

Jim Hossack, vice president of industry forecaster Auto Pacific argues: "Management gave in to the last UAW contract, but if they didn't they would have suffered substantial losses" if the union went on strike.

"GM has a good executive team; the core problem is things they can't control like legacy [retiree] costs, the UAW and especially lack of empathy from the U.S. government," Hossack said. "This isn't a GM problem, it's a problem of national importance because the welfare of U.S. manufacturing is on the table."

As health-care costs rise, sales of GM's big sport-utility vehicles, among its most profitable models, are slumping, forcing the idling of factories and workers, who collect 95 percent of their base wages.

The company contends sales are down because the vehicles are near the end of their life cycles, but Keller says GM ignored warnings about fuel economy and shifting buyer tastes. Attempting to adapt to trends, Ford Motor Co., for example, has reduced capacity to build large and midsize SUVs and shifted to car-based crossover models.

"They remained far too dependent on big SUVs for their profit and dismissed hybrids as a viable technology. Those are certainly mistakes he made," Keller said of Wagoner.

GM is counting on new large SUVs due a year from now to revive sales. But Keller has doubts.

"They're not going to boost sales unless gasoline gets real cheap," she said. "They've deluded themselves into thinking that people who spend $50,000 on an SUV don't care about the price of gasoline. Nobody wants to burn up money."

Lutz, 73, was hired as head of product development in September 2001 to add sparkle to a lackluster lineup, but Keller says he has yet to deliver.

"He has had plenty of time to turn things around and was pretty much given carte blanche on new products. They aren't working," she said.

New car models such as the Chevrolet Cobalt, Pontiac G6 and Buick LaCrosse have gotten off to slow starts, and Keller thinks they're too expensive and uninspired.

Consumer automotive Web site Edmunds.com says that in February dealers discounted their selling prices on the G6 by $4,813 on average, 20 percent below the sticker price. That was the most among new models for 2005 and unusually high for a car on the market five months. The average discount on the Buick LaCrosse was $4,010, 15 percent of retail and second highest among new models.

"If you're trying to win back market share, you have to have great products that are priced below the competition. The whole product positioning and marketing isn't working," Keller said.

But the person close to GM management said Lutz has been able to only tweak cars because of the long incubation period for new vehicles. The first model of his creation, the Pontiac Solstice roadster, is due later this year.

"Roll back the clock and you see many of the same problems at DaimlerChrysler only a short time ago, yet all it took was a couple hot products--the [Chrysler] 300C and [Dodge] Magnum--and they are right back in it," the source said.

In fact, David Cole, president of the Center for Automotive Research, says Lutz could acquire more power if there is a management shuffle.

"I don't see the board executing anyone, but I think the board may decide it needs someone with a tough-guy image to bring about some changes," Cole said. "The man who could do that is Bob Lutz because he's a short-termer."
Link: (might require subscription)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0503180200mar18,1,67518.story?coll=chi-business-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
I think Lutz having more power is probably a good thing. There still needs to be a level of checks and balances though. Just not one so bean counter heavy as GM was.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,691 Posts
brentil said:
I think Lutz having more power is probably a good thing. There still needs to be a level of checks and balances though. Just not one so bean counter heavy as GM was.
I agree. GM has always been slow and cumbersome and resistant to following the leaders too closely. A little too conservative at times but then they have in the past thought of teh stockholders first and the customers second.
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
Interesting read. I find it a little difficult on what GM should do, because its hard to tell the extent at which GM has embraced the changes Bob Lutz has been fighting for.

I think the management team is probably a good mix. Wagoner is a self-admitted bean counter, and that is why he brought in Bob Lutz. He knew he couldn’t run the company alone as a bean counter and make it work, so he went out and brought in a car guy to handle that end of the business. He at least knows what he doesn’t know, and that is better than a lot of execs at the tops of companies.

Has he made mistakes? Possibly. GM obviously miscalculated the popularity and demand for hybrids, but I also don’t think most people really thought gasoline prices were going to skyrocket as they had 2 years ago. In fact, analysts thought the prices were going to drop after we opened up Iraqi reserves. So basing your business model on new large SUV’s probably wasn’t as bad of a decision as it looks like now. The problem is, by the time gas prices went up GM was committed to the trucks, and is just now working towards getting in on hybrids.

Really, in my opinion, GM’s biggest problem at this point is public perception. People have been scarred by GM products over the last 20 years. Even though the GM vehicles of today are far better than they were, people just don’t know it, or they don’t believe it. That’s a perception that will take a long time to turn around.

Even with the best management team in the industry, GM’s market share will decline over the next few years. GM just needs to cut costs where they can, and continue to work towards improving their vehicles and making them “best in class.” If they do that, word will start to get around, and sales will rebound again. Its no easy task, and maybe they cannot do it with the profit gap they have with the top competitors, but its not impossible either.

BTW, anyone see the Cobalt review in this months Car and Driver? It was very positive, essentially saying the Cobalt was one of the best compact cars on the market. That’s definitely high praise for the Cobalt, as Car and Driver tends not to sugar coat reviews of GM vehicles (remember the Ion review a couple years ago? They called it the most disappointing new Amercian car in a decade).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,312 Posts
If you look at automotive production history, some of most inspired cars were designed and produced when companies were in a down turn or about ready to collapse completely. (Not that GM is in that position, yet anyway!) Thus emerges the great and mighty Solstice!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,691 Posts
PAS22 said:
If you look at automotive production history, some of most inspired cars were designed and produced when companies were in a down turn or about ready to collapse completely. (Not that GM is in that position, yet anyway!) Thus emerges the great and mighty Solstice!
That's one horrible thought. The Solstice emerges as the general drowns. Sort of like Studebaker Avanti. Pre M-B takeover of Chryco 300M. (new 300C drives great but not enough glass) Nissan 350Z.(yes, Nissan was in financial woe) Look at the gestation period for any new design. The Solstice is on a fast track and beat the average by coming through in about 40 months. Usually from concept to production is more like 60 months. What saved the US car industry in the 70's was realizing that they were the ONLY car manufacturers spending much bucks to change body panels and tailight designs each and every year. Once they realized the public didn't give a hoot they got on board the multi-year design program.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,729 Posts
achieftain said:
A little too conservative at times but then they have in the past thought of teh stockholders first and the customers second.
They are supposed to think of their stockholders first. That's the legal duty of any corporation. :yawn:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,312 Posts
achieftain said:
That's one horrible thought. The Solstice emerges as the general drowns. Sort of like Studebaker Avanti.

The Avanti was the first car that came to mind! GM is producing currently, or will shortly be, offering some great enthusiast rides: the V-series Cadillacs, GTO, CO6 427 Corvette, SS Chevies, etc. While Chrysler and Ford are clinging to a retro theme with the Viper, Mustang, etc. I seriously question Ford's marketing when they offer a 150+ grand car in the Ford GT clothed in 1960's styled body. If I were comtemplating spending that much on a vehicle (which I never will so I don't have to worry) I would want a modern design that makes a current statement and is not some flashback to the past. It is the concept of the Solstice that brings back memories of the Cobras of my youth, but does so it in a totally comtemporary package.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
RichSol said:
They are supposed to think of their stockholders first. That's the legal duty of any corporation. :yawn:
You don't make the stockholders any money if you don't sell what the customer wants. And the stock is worthless if you go out of business because no one buys what you're selling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,729 Posts
I agree. That certainly wouldn't please the stockholders and would breach the duty of corporate officers to them.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top