โMar-21-2014 09:24 AM
โMar-21-2014 06:34 PM
MotorTrend wrote:
From the November 2006 issue of Motor Trend
editor-in-chief Angus MacKenzie
Wall Street hasn't done Detroit any favors over the years. The Street is supposed to be the hard-nosed arbiter of success for corporate America, the white-hot cauldron of capitalism that's made this country's economy the most powerful in the world, the place where the money talks and you-know-what walks. (Though having allowed Enron to happen, Wall Street seems no longer to see the difference.) And, yes, Detroit has hardly covered itself in glory over the past 30 years. But I can't help wonder whether Wall Street should share some of the blame for the decline of America's two remaining automakers.
Let's be absolutely clear up front: Few people buy stock in a company for any reason other than they expect a return on their investment, and stockholders in auto companies are no exception. But in an era where screen jockeys zap billions of dollars a day through the ether at the touch of a computer keyboard, Wall Street's institutionalized ADD has resulted in a feverish short-term view of a business whose lengthy product cycles and huge investment costs are just too damned difficult to deal with.
Maybe that's why many of today's most successful automakers--Toyota, BMW, Porsche, to name three--are those who've never had to sweat a quarterly earnings call with a posse of skeptical Wall Street analysts looking for an opportunity to make a fast buck and ready to trash the stock price when they can't see one. To these companies, the concept of shareholder value has a very different meaning: "I don't watch (the stock price)," Dr. Shoichiro Toyoda once told Toyota North America president Jim Press. "I'm not going to sell my stock. If I worried about that, the decisions that I make wouldn't reflect the fact my name is on the back of every car."
Most Wall Street analysts will tell you Toyota, famously stingy with dividends, doesn't treat its shareholders well. But its stock is worth roughly four times that of General Motors. Go figure.
As Pulitzer Prize-winning author and journalist David Halberstam records in his book, "The Fifties," Bunkie Knudsen, who ran Pontiac and Chevrolet in the 1950s and 1960s, reckoned it all started to go wrong for Detroit when Fred Donner became president of GM in 1958. Knudsen was outraged that Donner would insist on talking about GM's stock price, and what the analysts on Wall Street thought about it, at his daily meeting with the heads of GM's divisions. Before Donner, those meetings were mostly about making cars.
Financial engineering quickly replaced product engineering as Detroit's primary business. GM and Ford essentially morphed into highly profitable finance companies with an auto business attached. That meant you could easily get a great deal on a new car. Only problem was, that new car wasn't always so great anymore. But the fat earnings on the loans and lease deals made the business look good and that kept the stock price pumped.
It's a sign of how entrenched this view of Detroit's business model has become that GM's decision to unload a majority share of its finance company, GMAC, earlier this year was treated by many as something akin to selling the family farm. But the sale is good news, because it means GM is shifting its focus back to its real business: designing and engineering cars and trucks. Meanwhile, over at troubled Ford, there are rumors the company may buy back its stock, now worth barely 15 percent what it was in 1999, and become privately owned. I hope the rumors are true, because Ford will then be free to concentrate on what it needs to do best: make cars and trucks.Bunkie Knudsen, David Halberstam writes, believed in a simple concept: The people in Detroit had to make good cars, and if they did, the people in New York would take care of the stock. If only it were still true...
โMar-21-2014 05:34 PM
โMar-21-2014 04:31 PM
โMar-21-2014 01:19 PM
gmcsmoke wrote:Bumpyroad wrote:BenK wrote:
Wally World anyone? First to out source and capture significant market
share via 'cheapest at any cost' mentality...along with pure bean counter
management metrics (off shore, outsourcing, etc)
nonsense. Sam Walton bought made in the USA for many years and as long as he could compete continue doing so. finally got too expensive to make it in the USA with union labor, health benefit costs, etc. that he had to outsource to compete.
bumpy
lol who was walmart competing with? the mom and pops than ran out of business?
walmart moved to china to increase profits. GM nickeled and dimed suppliers to make a profit
โMar-21-2014 01:11 PM
Bumpyroad wrote:BenK wrote:
Wally World anyone? First to out source and capture significant market
share via 'cheapest at any cost' mentality...along with pure bean counter
management metrics (off shore, outsourcing, etc)
nonsense. Sam Walton bought made in the USA for many years and as long as he could compete continue doing so. finally got too expensive to make it in the USA with union labor, health benefit costs, etc. that he had to outsource to compete.
bumpy
โMar-21-2014 11:04 AM
โMar-21-2014 10:40 AM
Bumpyroad wrote:goducks10 wrote:
This sums up why GM did what they did.
http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=BLOOM&date=20140321&id=17455509
a write up by MSN, no thanks.
bumpy
โMar-21-2014 10:32 AM
goducks10 wrote:
This sums up why GM did what they did.
http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=BLOOM&date=20140321&id=17455509
โMar-21-2014 10:31 AM
BenK wrote:
Wally World anyone? First to out source and capture significant market
share via 'cheapest at any cost' mentality...along with pure bean counter
management metrics (off shore, outsourcing, etc)
โMar-21-2014 09:56 AM
mich800 wrote:
Noting new. I have been saying this for 15 years. I have sat down with GM on behalf of my clients listing the escalating raw material cost on some fixed priced purchase orders. There answer was always, too bad, if we change pricing for you we would need to do it for everyone. These stamping plants were closed within several weeks. This was proceed by mandates in the prior years where GM said the new price is 15% lower. We don't care how you do it but that is the price.
โMar-21-2014 09:40 AM
We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned,
so as to have the life that is waiting for us.
โMar-21-2014 09:38 AM