Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?

191012141580

Comments

  • graphicguygraphicguy Member Posts: 14,135
    Steve....one of my best friends is an engineer at a local Ford transmission plant.

    When Ford's stock hit $2, I told him I was going to buy in. He recommended I wait.

    Spoke to him a couple of days ago, and asked him if he felt the bottom had been hit (again, close to a buck and a quarter per share). He said if it was his money, he still wouldn't do it.

    Now, when an employee of the company advises not to buy his company's stock, on the cheap, I take that as a good indication not to.

    As you say, GM isn't far behind. Either some investors are going to get very rich off of these stocks (may take awhile), or they're going to look like buffoons for investing in them. There's going to be no in-between.

    Dealerships haven't done much in the way of consolidation around my part (SW OH) in recent years. There have been some that have changed hands, but nothing of the wholesale variety. I don't know if the inevitable closures are just around the corner. Or, if the dealerships around me have prepared themselves well for this downturn.

    All of them have plenty of stock, that's for sure.
    2024 Kia EV6 GT-Line AWD Long Range
  • sellaturcicasellaturcica Member Posts: 145
    From what I've read, not having been around at the time, AMC essentially took over Chrysler from within- a lot of the people running Chrysler in the late 80s early 90s came over from AMC. Again, never having been around the cars firsthand, I've always had a soft spot for AMC. The amalgamated underdogs taking on the Detroit 3 thing and fighting to the bitter end kinda appeals to me. I like the original Javelin, AMX and Rebel Machine- but a lot of AMC cars were very distinctive. I think if you modernized a Gremlin with better handling and power, it would be pretty darn cool.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Well of course if new buildings are put up, then the old ones may not be dealerships, as you need X number of dealerships for the population/demand of the area.

    So as long as people want to buy autos then there will be factories, workers, sales, mechanics and suppliers in the auto industry. So long as there is enough demand in a geographical area there will be some sort of auto dealer brand(s).

    The thing that we should be focusing on is how to stimulate demand and spending. And I don't mean we push vehicles to people who can't afford it. And if people choose not to buy the Big3 vehicles as they have been doing, with the Big3 market-share continuing to decline, there is nothing that can be done, other than the U.S. taxpayer subsidizing the companies forever.

    In order for the Big3 to increase market-share they need to build vehicles we like, with good quality of all sorts, and prices we like. Increasing prices a couple of months ago as GM did, such that a base Impala is $23K, is crazy if you want to succeed. I really contemplated that GM's management is intentionally trying to bankrupt themselves, to break their contracts and obligations.
  • sellaturcicasellaturcica Member Posts: 145
    One thing that was brought up earlier was how BMW and Mercedes can charge a premium because of their reputation. This reminds me of something I have wondered about for a while: why did none of the Big 3 ever make an all out attempt to have the best car in a mass market segment. I am exempting the Corvette and Viper- those are world class in their way. It seems to me the goal for American car manufacturers was always to "get close enough" and then entice people to buy based on price. What they really should have done after their various meltdowns in the 70s and early 80s was take a loss if necessary but build a fantastic car. I assume they didn't because they couldn't. In the 50s and 60s, things like Cadillac and Lincoln really were some of the best luxury cars in the world. Cadillac probably is again, but maybe too late...
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Heck, AMC pretty much invented the crossover when it came out with the Eagle wagon back in the day.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Don't forget the Imperial. The 1950s-60s Imperials were truly fantastic automobiles. I would LOVE to have one of those Imperial limos built by Ghia.
  • sellaturcicasellaturcica Member Posts: 145
    Renault
    Fiat at some points
    Lada
    British Motor Corporation

    "I'd be curious to see examples of successful, government-owned & operated automotive manufacturers. I can sure think of one notable example that wasn't. "
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    And Wagoner should be talking to Lullaly (sp?) about how he did it.

    Ford, in my mind, is a totally different conversation. I have no problem if we set up a "line of credit" for Ford. Ford has made the hard decisions and are acting with a sense of urgency. GM needs to start doing this NOW! They are truly a product of the credit crisis. GM and Chrysler.....they can talk to the government for help after a Chapter 11 filing.
  • sellaturcicasellaturcica Member Posts: 145
    I don't see the huge differences between Ford and GM, other than size. GM is in a worse position because all of its brands are redundant. It costs them a ridiculous amount to downsize, and they are hamstrung by labor contracts and dealer relations. The amount they had to spend on killing Oldsmobile was immense. Ford is fortunate in that they're relatively streamlined. GM has quite a few good mileage cars, they're going to bring over European-esque vehicles and the Volt has a legitimate shot at being a market leader. Ford will also be bringing over the Euro vehicles, but GM may be out of time because of their size and the rate at which they're bleeding.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,242
    I'll give you 50% credit - how many of those are still in business AND doing well?

    I'll give you Renault (Lada is part of the same group and is much weaker)

    BMC - went downhill and merged with British Leyland, one of the lousiest companies of all time. Ever.

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
    Review your vehicle

  • sellaturcicasellaturcica Member Posts: 145
    Some of those were supposed to be funny.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,242
    That makes me feel better about your sanity, since none of them are top international raging success stories :)

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
    Review your vehicle

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Well of course if new buildings are put up, then the old ones may not be dealerships

    Well, another example would be dealer consolidation, some of which has already happened. You may still need the same number of mechanics but lots of other jobs (and buildings) would be redundant.

    If we go through a prolonged downturn and people start driving beaters longer, I wonder if at some point the whole love affair dies and we wind up with a declining automobile population like Japan? Can't really see that, but I think someone is going to have to come up with a new angle to get people really excited about cars again. Excited enough to open their wallets, not Edmunds excited about cars. :shades:
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    As you might expect, there's a lot on TV with the CEO's & Gettlefinger in front of Congress today. Saw one item where they were speaking with a large dealer talking about how far sales were off. He talked about Hummer... two years ago 110 per month, now 10. Cadillac sales off 45% from a year ago. BUT... on the used car and maintenance & repair side, things are at record high levels.

    Now aren't those the real money making items on the dealership side?

    Another thing they were questioning a lot on CNBC is why Gettlefinger and the union weren't getting grilled as hard as the CEO's.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Someone mentioned the states issuing their own bonds if they want to help the automakers. How about an even more direct approach? GM stock is about $2.60 per share right now. There are 610.5 million shares of GM floating around out there. That's 6.1 million 100 share blocks of stock that would cost a mere $260 plus commission to buy. Think we could find 6.1 million purchasers to lay out the $300? What do you think the effect on the price of the stock would be if those buy orders started coming in? :P

    If you truly believe in the company and its future, it seems like a time to jump in, does it not??
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    It's tempting.

    Lot of people got burned thinking K-Mart would turn it around too. (K-Mart did turn around, but not after banko and wiping out all the shareholders).
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
    Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check

    First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
    That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.
    Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.
    The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

    Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.
    Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

    The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
    In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,038
    Lot of people got burned thinking K-Mart would turn it around too. (K-Mart did turn around, but not after banko and wiping out all the shareholders).

    Yep, count me in that crowd. Now immediately after the bankruptcy, once they reorganize and issue a new stock I might be tempted to jump in, but you couldn't pay me to take their stock right now.
  • graphicguygraphicguy Member Posts: 14,135
    sell...actually, it was the other way around. Chrysler took over AMC. AMC's last ditch effort to stay afloat came when Renault invested in them and they jointly developed the "dud" Alliance car.

    Chrysler gobbled them up, mainly for the Jeep brand. They made a stab at marketing some cars AMC had pretty far in development (called Eagle). Supposedly, Eagle was going to go "head-to-head" with the European makes. But, that dream was short lived and Chrysler eventually did away with the Eagle brand, leaving nothing but Jeep as a remnant of the old AMC.

    Chrysler then revamped the Jeep Toledo, OH plant. Chrysler then did a total redesign of the Grand Cherokee, which went onto very good success.

    The last remnants of any AMC involvement with Jeep went away when Chrysler scuttled the old in-line 6 motor that had powered the Cherokee and Grand Cherokee for many years. That was awhile ago, though.
    2024 Kia EV6 GT-Line AWD Long Range
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    This is purely opinion as is most of what I post here:
    from CNN today:
    Consumer Reports considers GM reliability to be much improved, but it's not as consistent as that of other brands, like Ford. GM has made huge strides, however, in the "perceived quality" of its vehicles.

    In more recently designed GM vehicles interiors are more attractive and feature richer-feeling materials. Ride and handling qualities are also more sophisticated.

    The target keeps moving for quality. What is average today far exceeds above average from 3 years ago. We would rather see our own countries company fail than to accept quality from it that exceeds the best of Japan from a few years ago.

    two types: real and perceived quality.

    How is the fact that the dealer mechanic is sitting around doing nothing a selling point? Maybe they charge too much.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    You left out the part about "It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research..." link

    management as is must go

    I'd give Mulally a bye - he came to Ford from Boeing, trained as an engineer, and seems to be doing a good job with what has to work with.

    new labor agreements to align pay and benefits

    You run back into the ageism thing. Workers at the Big 3 tend to be older than the workers at the upstart auto factories down in the South. Their costs theoretically will go up unless they can figure out how to dump the older workers without running afoul of discrimination laws. I'd be curious to see if the Nissan plant in Smyrna TN has higher labor costs than the Canton plant, since it's been around since the 80's.

    Tennaco, world's biggest maker of auto exhaust systems, is closing 4 factories and cutting 1,000 jobs. The CEO is on the radio blaming the credit crunch and loss of consumer confidence. He thinks a 1/3rd shake-out of suppliers is possible in a worse case scenario.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    You have to give Mullaly a bye. He's doing all the right things. It would be a shame to lose him to a "throw the bums out" mentality. wagoner's another story. Nardelli as well.

    Meanwhile, for the AMC nostalgic..... I've got a friend who knows zip about cars. Back when he and his then wife bought a Pacer. Oh, my what a horrible car. One day it died and their chief decider in what to get next was where the nearest dealer was since tehy were likely walking there and driving back. They ended up in an Alliance. Ouch!
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    fezo: Meanwhile, for the AMC nostalgic..... I've got a friend who knows zip about cars. Back when he and his then wife bought a Pacer. Oh, my what a horrible car. One day it died and their chief decider in what to get next was where the nearest dealer was since tehy were likely walking there and driving back. They ended up in an Alliance. Ouch!

    If that isn't jumping from the frying pan into the fire, I don't know what is...
  • mattandimattandi Member Posts: 588
    Yet another take on the happenings.

    The Environmental Motor Company

    The evil subplot to use the loans as leverage to remake US automakers into bastions of green. ;)
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    Yeah, I know. He did finally get the idea that Toyota makes reliable cars and bought an Echo. Then his died died a couple of years ago and left him his Camry. Things have been loads quieter since then.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    "Nothing new to see here, move on folks. This is capitalism. It's the model that our economy is built on. It's been this way for 230+ years."

    Somehow, I doubt that Alabama "competed" with Michigan 230 yrs ago. They were too far apart for that.

    The problem this country faces now is that technology makes this country smaller and smaller by the day. You think if a person gets a job in Ala. at the expense of someone in Mi. especially a lower paying job, that it's a good thing for the US??? That's foolish. What's good is that BOTH people get a good paying job.
  • joel0622joel0622 Member Posts: 3,299
    why did none of the Big 3 ever make an all out attempt to have the best car in a mass market segment.

    What are you talking about??? :confuse:

    F150 #1 seller for 31 years, will be 32 here in a month or so

    Taurus #1 selling car in the world for years

    In the late 90's we had 6 of the top 10 selling cars in country. Having the best car in a segment has never been the problem.
  • wheelmanwheelman Member Posts: 52
    Only word I recognize on the menu is chardonnay....so sign me up for a gallon or two. Pass on the cake, I'm trying to lose weight.

    WheelMan
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    n the late 90's we had 6 of the top 10 selling cars in country. Having the best car in a segment has never been the problem.

    The problem is it's not the late 90's anymore. Ford blew all that they gained during the 90's. I think they are back on the right track, but it might be to late.
  • ponderpointponderpoint Member Posts: 277
    "Chrysler bought AMC in 1987. So yes, while the nameplate disappeared, in essence the name lives under the Chrysler umbrella."

    They keep it alive every five years (I think it's five years) in nonsensical legal "paper posting" which is meant to keep someone else from using the name again. It's quite ridiculous and territorial..... Trust me, AMC is really dead and gone.

    Saying it (AMC) still exists in some form is ridiculous, I have not seen a brand new Javelin crusing down the street, until that happens it's a nerd world argument.

    Nothing lasts forever, and I'm not for throwing money at it because it can't make a decent competitive product anymore.

    One of the big three needs to get absorbed into the remaining big two......
  • sellaturcicasellaturcica Member Posts: 145
    Yeah but Francois Castaing and I believe some others who rose pretty high at Chrysler came from AMC. That was my point.
  • sellaturcicasellaturcica Member Posts: 145
    I said "best CAR in the segment."
    I'll give you the Taurus- kind of. They didn't improve it, and it had serious problems with things like engines from what I understand. It was certainly innovative, but I doubt it was the best car in its segment at the time (One of the Camcords, likely at that time). Trucks certainly don't count, as focusing on that is what got the Big 3 in this mess. What were the other 5 bestselling cars?
  • mattandimattandi Member Posts: 588
    Ya know, from a certain perspective, being number 1 may indeed be a part of the issue. General Motors has been the global sales leader for how long? All three have had segment leaders for ages. Now the "too big too fail" thingy gets tossed around frequently.

    An air of invincibility can lead to complacency and bad decisions.

    Dynasties do come to their end.
  • ck90211ck90211 Member Posts: 161
    Just because F150 and Taurus were #1 in the market don't mean they were the best. F150 was a big seller and it's a nice truck (I don't dispute that), but Chevy's C/K1500 is comparable, and probably has better resale value. Regarding Taurus, I would venture to say that no less than 50-100K/year went directly to rental/corporate/government fleet. Take them out and Taurus probably did not outsell Camrys or Accord by too big of margins.

    I think the best way to judge "Best in Class" is to look at their resale. A good car will always fetch more. Having said that, Vette is the only American car I really consider "Best in class". And its resale shows.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Just judging by the reactions I saw on CNBC I'm not sure the CEOs made ANY kind of case in front of Congress. One specific reaction I recall was all about how they thought Waggoner had no plan to deal with anything at GM.

    Not the result he intended would be my guess.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    That was my impression. I thought they left less likely to get help than when they went in - particularly Wagoner.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Give em the old song and dance I suppose :sick:

    Consider this moment that probably doesn't happen if TV cameras aren't in the room..

    "There's a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hands," Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.) advised the pampered executives at a hearing yesterday. "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high-hat and tuxedo. . . . I mean, couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here?"

    The Big Three said nothing, which prompted Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) to rub it in. "I'm going to ask the three executives here to raise their hand if they flew here commercial," he said. All still at the witness table. "Second," he continued, "I'm going ask you to raise your hand if you're planning to sell your jet . . . and fly back commercial." More stillness. "Let the record show no hands went up," Sherman grandstanded.


    I'd like to see more reality and specifics rather than showboating, but I'm not holding my breath
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Yeah, I watched some of the CEO testimonies and to me it confirmed what I've long thought of Wagoner. I didn't see any evidence that he has any idea on how to fix GM. While I want to see our automakers survive, I'm not optimistic that the current management at GM has a clue. I don't recall any straight answers coming from Wagoner.

    This is a complete mess that appears to be heading to a complete disaster.
  • jipsterjipster Member Posts: 6,299
    Just judging by the reactions I saw on CNBC I'm not sure the CEOs made ANY kind of case in front of Congress.

    They all flew in on their nice big expensive company Lear jets. Like one congressman stated... like standing in line to a soup kitchen dressed in a tuxedo. :sick:
    2021 Honda Passport EX-L, 2020 Honda Accord EX-L, 2011 Hyundai Veracruz, 2010 Mercury Milan Premiere.
  • carthellcarthell Member Posts: 130
    "Chrysler gobbled them up, mainly for the Jeep brand. They made a stab at marketing some cars AMC had pretty far in development (called Eagle). Supposedly, Eagle was going to go 'head-to-head' with the European makes. But, that dream was short lived and Chrysler eventually did away with the Eagle brand, leaving nothing but Jeep as a remnant of the old AMC."

    Wasn't the Premier morphed into the Vision, Intrepid, Concorde, and the previous 300? Not all of it went away.
  • gardisgardis Member Posts: 185
    The car companies need to go into Chapt. 11 bankruptcy protection. The union contracts which have destroyed that industry must be shredded, and the workers told either you work for Toyota's wages, or we close the doors permanently. Period.
    That's it. The American people are not having any of it, folks. And do you know The Democrats are owned by the unions, and I don't see them rushing to loan the Big 3 any money, do you? They know if they do, in 2010 we replace the entire Congress again with Republicans, period.
  • jpfjpf Member Posts: 496
    If they go into bankruptcy, it's lights out. First, the bankruptcy of any one of the big three will be so complex that it may take 3 or 4 years to sort it out. Just look at the bankruptcy of Delphi, GM's primary parts supplier. Delphi went into bankruptcy 3 years ago and it still hasn't re-emerged. With an automaker, who would be willing to buy their cars and trucks while their in bankruptcy? Hardly anyone because car buyers would be concerned about the warranty. I believe the only way for this bailout to work is for the government to dictate the terms. First, the government should force GM and Chrysler to merge. The market can not simply support 3 U.S. automakers. Second, shut down all excess capacity. This would force the automakers to get rid of unpopular brands like Pontiac, Buick, GMC trucks, Chrysler, Hummer, Saab, Saturn, and Mercury This is where the government can help by assisting the automakers become leaner. Only under these conditions can 2 U.S. automakers - Ford and a combined GM/Chrysler survive.
  • gmctruckgmctruck Member Posts: 186
    I agree.... I only saw more of the same old arrogance displayed by the big 3 execs. I think the right questions were being asked, but Wagoner couldn't give any straight answers. It is very clear that he doesn't have a plan to fix GM at any cost. He can only offer lame excuses and vague answers to tough questions that a highly compensated CEO of a major corporation should be able to answer.

    It was also interesting when the execs were asked if they would take $1 for compensation.... only the Chrysler exec said yes. It is clear that the Ford and GM execs aren't willing to sacrifice any of their own personal compensation to help save their companies.

    I think Ford will survive, but it will be sink or swim time for GM and Chrysler. Bankruptcy seems to be the best option for GM, but the execs are still clinging to their arrogance and the notion that as GM goes, so does the economy. :sick:
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I would say the Democrats on both coasts do not share the doomsday scenario that many in the middle would like US to believe. I am not convinced that automaker failure would not be a real boost to the economy. People would have faith in a system that is still based on good economics and not failed doctrines. The American people want to see we are not throwing more tax dollars down the toilet. Those fat cat CEOs need to put the jets on eBay and ride a bus home. Or drive one of the cars they sell. Those are two Democrats I could vote for.

    I hope they are two of the NO votes on any kind of bailout for the automakers.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Yeah, I watched some of the CEO testimonies and to me it confirmed what I've long thought of Wagoner.

    Agree - Wagoner looked worse IMHO than any of the others. He has no vision, no plan. His idea of the restructuring he's done is to negotiate some cost reductions with UAW. No fundamental changes in the company. In fact he said that they've ALREADY done the restructuring and are just needing this bridge loan until the economy improves.

    GM needs to fire Wagoner, and demand the UAW radically modify the contracts or they'll go BK and then there's no guarantee that the UAW at GM will have any jobs at all.

    Ford is doing OK right now and I'm fine with investing in them.
    Surprisingly, Nardelli looked pretty good, although their products are still no good.
  • gmctruckgmctruck Member Posts: 186
    The government should not be involved in running the US automotive business. The big 3 are independent businesses and not government agencies that provide a service to the general public.

    The path is clear... regardless of the complexity. It's not going to be easy or pretty to watch, but hopefully the Phoenix will rise again from the ashes.
  • meglassaktmeglassakt Member Posts: 18
    The Big 3 are 'World Class' competitive !

    Did you listen to Micheal Moore.., i think he is close enough to being right !

    General Wesley Clark 'U.S. Army'(from NY Times) says the government should help the Big 3 !

    Can the Big 3(the companies) help starving people by just giving them cash.., The banks get trillions(3,000,000,000 or more, i've heard 9,000,000,000).
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Should have arrived in a couple of priuses and Escape Hybrids. Big mistake but apropos with their decision making history. No plans? What irony!

    Good luck making it past January, Wagoner!

    Regards,
    OW
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Member Posts: 4,277
    I believe Bill Ford influenced that question. I remember he recieved a total of 1$ for his salary during a good chunk of his tenure until Ford was doing better again. Of course he still got plenty through stock options, but it sure did send a message to me that they at least acknowledged there was a problem.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You got to wonder if Bill Ford and other CEOs have held onto their stock or sold while they were high.

    You could almost forgive their wasteful travel to beg, if they had offered any kind of hope for survival. They basically want the tax payer to keep them going till they figure out what they are going to do. I would rather just pay unemployment and let them start selling off their assets in bankruptcy. The sooner they get out of the auto business the sooner a viable group of automakers can fill our needs. There are millions of unsold vehicles and dealers bailing out by the droves. Their dealer networks being gone will mark the end of them anyway. Unless Wagoner plans to sell online and hire illegals to drive your new car cross country to your home.
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.