http://fin…et=&ccode=
4 CEOs since IPO, now 14-month-old CFO bails. Who’s minding the store we just bailed out?
It could mean they are finally getting their act together and cleaning house. It could mean a positive change in GM’s corporate culture.
Yes, I would buy a car from them. I don’t care if they have trouble keeping a tight leash on their corporate fat cats. All I really care about is the quality if the vehicle.
Some executives can read the writing on the wall much better than others. Don’t worry though…most large companies have twice as many executives as they need. There are an unlimited number of “store minders” at GM but the problem is finding the right minder with the right qualifications. That’s a whole new ballgame in itself. I will continue to buy GM products as long as the styling and quality of construction are there. Stories are just that in most cases…stories.
Those who claim that GM has paid us back should read this article.
If GM offered me a better car for the money I’d buy it. My experiences with GM in the past have unfortunately not been stellar. My first new car was a GM, a 1972 Vega. I really liked the car, but it turned out to be not only unreliable but unsafe. I avoided them until '95, when I bought a Saturn, hoping they’d chenged. The Saturn was a disappointment.
I remain unconvinced that GM has made any real changes in philosophy. Had we allowed them to go Chapter 11 they would have, but we instead bailed them out. Serious corporate change only happens through trauma, and we saved them from the trauma.
We bought a new GM 09 when they were at the bottom of the valley when they were practically giving cars away. We got the best deal ever and I have to smile when I think of the price that we paid. The car runs very well, thank you GM. I never lost confidence that GM would stay around in one form or another. The Chevrolet brand, for one, is too large to just throw away.
GM is coming back strong and will continue to be a major player for many years to come.
An alternative point of view would be that we bailed the union out, since they were placed in line against creditors and stockholders.
“4 CEOs since IPO”
What are you talking about? GM’s current CEO, Dan Akerson, has been in place since before the IPO.
I recognize and respect that there are varying opinions on the bailout. My own is based primarily on my personal experiences as well as my personal philosophies that using our tax dollars to bail out private companies that have failed is an inappropriate use of taxes. Taxation was never intended for this purpose.
And I believe strongly that allowing the marketplace to function as a free market system without government intervention (except to control illegal and illicit activities) provides a healthier marketplace in the long run. GM would not have closed. They would have reorganized in a meaningful manner. They would have sold off unprofitable lines. They would have drastically trimmed their management layers. They would have found alternative ways to finance.
Would I buy a car from GM?
Possibly–if I was interested in one of their models that has a decent reliability record (some Buick models, Camaro, Malibu, Traverse).
Unfortunately, their record continues to be “spotty”, with the above-mentioned models being decent, and others being…almost dismal…in comparison to the competition. (Most Cadillacs and the Chevy Colorado are not good in comparison to the competition, and the Chevy Aveo is so bad that it is in the “disposable car” category)
If I was in the market for a vehicle at this point, among the US manufacturers, Ford would be my first choice.
GM would be second in line, and Chrysler wouldn’t even be in the running.
However, before I considered any US manufacturers, I would look at Japanese and Korean makes. The name and the resume of the person holding the CEO title would not enter into my decision. Only the actual performance and reliability of a particular model would enter into my decision-making process.
(Full disclosure–I own stock in Ford Motor Company, and I own a 2011 Subaru Outback.
In reality, I am not in the market for a new car, and don’t expect to be in that position for…perhaps 9 or 10 years.)
3 of my last 4 cars were GM, and I don’t regret buying any of them. Sure, I’ll give GM products a good look when I need another car. And just how many wrenches did those 3-letter acronyms twist in the last 14 months? Anyway, The CFO seems to have left because he won’t be the Big Cheese. There’s only room for one, and he’s off to find a place where he can be the one.
As long as my friends and neighbors are still employed two blocks down, all is OK.
The 2 GM vehicles I’ve bought over the years gave me pretty good service(65 Chevelle and 91 Corsica), my step dad has been driving his 89 C1500 truck after his dad gave it to him(bought brand new I believe), my mom has had decent luck with her Cobalt(though she treats it more like an appliance than anything else), my uncle has had good luck with his GM trucks as well.
If GM made anything I was interested in, I’d be happy to buy from them
Unless I’m reading the question and article wrong, I would but for other reasons than immediate profitability. We really don’t know why companies do the things they do except for the long term, they want to be viable and profit making. Maybe it’s a long term decision.
For years, Honda gave up profitability by staying with 4 stroke marine, bike and ATV motors until times caught up with them. What ever you think of their other decisions, they always professed to be environmentally conscious. They have since begun to reap bigger rewards in those fields when the regulations caught up with them.
Just maybe GM is finally thinking farther into the future than the next dividend pay out. We can only hope. Til then, I’ll buy any reliable car that meets my needs regardless of what the name plate is.