PDA

View Full Version : GM going bankrupt?



Cueless Joey
11-17-2005, 12:24 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10075026/
Sad!

DebraLiStarr
11-17-2005, 12:47 PM
GM consistently fails in an area referred to as "Change" Management. At the heart of change management lies the change problem (GM has many), that is, some future state must be realized, some current state must be left behind, and some structured, organized process for getting from one to the other must be utilized. They are not implementing the changes properly. GM is blaming Wagoner, yet their is a whole team of incompetents that share in the blame of their failure. The decisions of finance and marketing and creative are not successfully implementing any of their strategies. If this was Disney, these people would have been fired long, long ago.

In the case of GM, the changes were not implemented in a timely fashion, nor were they monitored correctly during the change process. It causes those of us in the business sector wonder who is consulting them on their changing market. There is something wrong in their management which is being seen in their loss of earnings domestically and internationally (their international sales were not mentioned or referred to in this article - they are losing big on a shrinking export market for US automakers). Any company that is losing $4 Billion annually is being mismanaged at some level. The UAW needs to take a step back and look at the structure that GM has in place - and realize that they are in just as much trouble as GM.

Cueless Joey
11-17-2005, 01:09 PM
Maybe they should put their execs on commission basis pay.
GM dun't make money, they don't make jack. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r
11-18-2005, 06:08 AM
This is all Bush's fault and the rich people running GM are screwing the poor people. GM going bankrupt is a great example of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer.

eg8r <~~~sarcastic this morning and wanted to beat the left to it

DickLeonard
11-18-2005, 07:05 AM
Eg8r I have to agree with for once. GWB took us to war and as usual the price of gas went thru the roof. As I have pointed out before we elected two Presidents from Texas and Lee Harvey Oswald elected the other. And they all took us to war Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin and sonny boy lied about weapons of mass destruction. The father didn't listen to Saddam's arguement that Kuwait was drilling sideways to steal Iraq oil.

Gm was the last car maker to enter into the SUVS just at the time Gas was going thru the roof.

The one way for GM to get out from under is to start their own heatlh care co. they have million customers before they open the door for business. The second company they should open is the Investigating of Health Care Fraud they could retrieve millions in settlements from Drs who take to cheating the Insurance Companies.

I am sending my resume along with my ideas to solving their
problems. I am also in contact with Gayle to bring her aboard.####

Gayle in MD
11-18-2005, 07:38 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I'm ready....

Love,
Gayle

Rich R.
11-18-2005, 07:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> This is all Bush's fault and the rich people running GM are screwing the poor people. GM going bankrupt is a great example of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. <hr /></blockquote>
I'm glad to hear that you have finally come around. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Here is my guess. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

GM, and a lot of other large American companies, are being controled by salesmen, accountants and other MBA types. They know almost nothing about the product they are making.
They look a demographics, marketing, sales and profits.
They don't look at the quality of their product.
In the case of GM, they continue to lose their market to both Asian and European companies, who are building better cars a competitive prices.

supergreenman
11-18-2005, 11:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> eg8r &lt;~~~sarcastic this morning and wanted to beat the left to it <hr /></blockquote>

He's pulling a fast one on you people. But it still brings a smile to my face to see him type it.

As for GM, making bigger trucks and more powerfull engines when gas prices are so high is a recipe for disaster.


James.

DebraLiStarr
11-18-2005, 04:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr>

Here is my guess. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

GM, and a lot of other large American companies, are being controled by salesmen, accountants and other MBA types. They know almost nothing about the product they are making.
They look a demographics, marketing, sales and profits.
They don't look at the quality of their product.
In the case of GM, they continue to lose their market to both Asian and European companies, who are building better cars a competitive prices.
<hr /></blockquote>

I disagree with some of what was in your post. As a CMA (Certified Management Accountant), I have certain responsibilities within the company I work for. I don't see how accountants are running companies. We don't have half the power you give us credit for. I'll explain what I do for Walt Disney World Resorts, to give you an inside look at how something like this happens within a company such as GM.

Accountants traditionally concentrate on recording what has happened financially in the past; however, managerial accountants (ME) are responsible for formulating policy for business organizations, providing information for decision-makers and creating "frameworks" for making those decisions. We relay this data/information to the people that actually make the decisions, the executive branch. These executives should make decisions based on our recommendations. They don't always follow our advice. If they do not follow my advice on an issue, I have it in writing that they were forewarned with a detailed report and a graphic to go with it. During my day to day activities, I monitor financial accounts that identify and assist in the process of decision making within my area of responsibility. That's my job. Examples of this would include determining which business ventures/ideas were least profitable and then making a decision about whether or not to continue with these activities, or estimating future revenues in order to aid decision-making TODAY. I don't make the decisions, I make recommendations to continue or discontinue. This is where "change management" comes into the picture. That is why I suggested that GM has a problem with "change management". Obviously there is a communication problem in this process within their company. It is either a communication problem or a leadership issue. There have probably been problems for a very long time. A $4 Billion loss doesn't happen because of new problems. It was probably caused by a snowball effect of long term inefficiencies within their decision making process combined with ineffective leadership.

In order for any organization to succeed in meeting or exceeding its goals, it must be able to control expenses and operate efficiently. One of the more effective ways of controlling expenses is to use and adhere to operating budgets. An operating budget reflects management's operating plans and should consist of detailed listings of projected selling and general and administrative expenses for a company. The participants in the budget process (Financial analysts, accountants, etc) will be concerned with carrying out the plan. Operating budgets should not be ammended, they should be adhered to. That is how any Fortune 100 company should be operating from an account management persective (I would hope). This is how any company should operate their budgeting process:

1) planning,
2) communicating company-wide goals to subunits,
3) fostering cooperation between departments,
4) maintaining control by evaluating actual figures to budget figures, and
5) revealing the interrelationship of one function to another.

Our "numbers" cannot determine quality of product, customer service, or customer loyalty. These are the issues that are contributing to GM's problems. Don't attach blame to accountants or "MBA types".

In the company I work for, budgeting is essentially a top -down process. I can safely say that there must be some very frustrated financial analysts at GM that are ready to jump out a 30th floor window at this point. It is extremely frustrating to map out a forecast of future revenues only to have a spend-happy executive in purchasing shoot it down before it hits the desk of someone that should see it first. That happens in every company I have ever worked for. It starts small and it snowballs.

As accountants, we can only work with the data that is presented to us. We can make recommendations but in the end, accountants do not make the executive decisions that lead companies into bankruptcy. It comes down to leadership in the implementation of their projects, big or small. Blame it on collective mismanagement. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I completely agree that they have lost touch with the consumer. They are losing steam against the non-union Asian automakers in product quality and customer satisfaction. GM has lagged far behind for their lack of interest in marketing hybrid technology. A decision was made to allow other companies to test the market, and for that decision they are paying dearly. That is a creative decision, a marketing decision, with financial consequences. Every decision has either a positive or negative financial consequence. Accountants are just the people that either count the gains or the losses. Executives blame accountants for not accurately forecasting when in reality its consumers that decide the success or failure of the product/services.

Stretch
11-19-2005, 06:14 AM
Thankyou for the very educational read Debra. You put a very complex buisness relationship into an easy to understand overview. well done!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif St.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DebraLiStarr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr>

Here is my guess. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

GM, and a lot of other large American companies, are being controled by salesmen, accountants and other MBA types. They know almost nothing about the product they are making.
They look a demographics, marketing, sales and profits.
They don't look at the quality of their product.
In the case of GM, they continue to lose their market to both Asian and European companies, who are building better cars a competitive prices.
<hr /></blockquote>

I disagree with some of what was in your post. As a CMA (Certified Management Accountant), I have certain responsibilities within the company I work for. I don't see how accountants are running companies. We don't have half the power you give us credit for. I'll explain what I do for Walt Disney World Resorts, to give you an inside look at how something like this happens within a company such as GM.

Accountants traditionally concentrate on recording what has happened financially in the past; however, managerial accountants (ME) are responsible for formulating policy for business organizations, providing information for decision-makers and creating "frameworks" for making those decisions. We relay this data/information to the people that actually make the decisions, the executive branch. These executives should make decisions based on our recommendations. They don't always follow our advice. If they do not follow my advice on an issue, I have it in writing that they were forewarned with a detailed report and a graphic to go with it. During my day to day activities, I monitor financial accounts that identify and assist in the process of decision making within my area of responsibility. That's my job. Examples of this would include determining which business ventures/ideas were least profitable and then making a decision about whether or not to continue with these activities, or estimating future revenues in order to aid decision-making TODAY. I don't make the decisions, I make recommendations to continue or discontinue. This is where "change management" comes into the picture. That is why I suggested that GM has a problem with "change management". Obviously there is a communication problem in this process within their company. It is either a communication problem or a leadership issue. There have probably been problems for a very long time. A $4 Billion loss doesn't happen because of new problems. It was probably caused by a snowball effect of long term inefficiencies within their decision making process combined with ineffective leadership.

In order for any organization to succeed in meeting or exceeding its goals, it must be able to control expenses and operate efficiently. One of the more effective ways of controlling expenses is to use and adhere to operating budgets. An operating budget reflects management's operating plans and should consist of detailed listings of projected selling and general and administrative expenses for a company. The participants in the budget process (Financial analysts, accountants, etc) will be concerned with carrying out the plan. Operating budgets should not be ammended, they should be adhered to. That is how any Fortune 100 company should be operating from an account management persective (I would hope). This is how any company should operate their budgeting process:

1) planning,
2) communicating company-wide goals to subunits,
3) fostering cooperation between departments,
4) maintaining control by evaluating actual figures to budget figures, and
5) revealing the interrelationship of one function to another.

Our "numbers" cannot determine quality of product, customer service, or customer loyalty. These are the issues that are contributing to GM's problems. Don't attach blame to accountants or "MBA types".

In the company I work for, budgeting is essentially a top -down process. I can safely say that there must be some very frustrated financial analysts at GM that are ready to jump out a 30th floor window at this point. It is extremely frustrating to map out a forecast of future revenues only to have a spend-happy executive in purchasing shoot it down before it hits the desk of someone that should see it first. That happens in every company I have ever worked for. It starts small and it snowballs.

As accountants, we can only work with the data that is presented to us. We can make recommendations but in the end, accountants do not make the executive decisions that lead companies into bankruptcy. It comes down to leadership in the implementation of their projects, big or small. Blame it on collective mismanagement. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I completely agree that they have lost touch with the consumer. They are losing steam against the non-union Asian automakers in product quality and customer satisfaction. GM has lagged far behind for their lack of interest in marketing hybrid technology. A decision was made to allow other companies to test the market, and for that decision they are paying dearly. That is a creative decision, a marketing decision, with financial consequences. Every decision has either a positive or negative financial consequence. Accountants are just the people that either count the gains or the losses. Executives blame accountants for not accurately forecasting when in reality its consumers that decide the success or failure of the product/services. <hr /></blockquote>

Rich R.
11-19-2005, 06:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DebraLiStarr:</font><hr> I don't see how accountants are running companies. <hr /></blockquote>
Debra, just to clarify my misguided thoughts, I was really referring to current CEO's, who began their careers as accountants, salesmen and MBA types. I was not referring to those, like yourself, who are currently working in those positions. I am talking about those making the final decisions.

Chopstick
11-19-2005, 07:06 AM
Well, that's one point of view. Management can't do it all and so cannot be blamed for it all. GM has long been held up as an example of American product manufacturing. "What's good for GM is good for the country." Remember that. The simple fact is that they don't make a good product. I own one now and I will never buy another as long as I live.

As an American icon it has come to reflect the attitudes of the everyday American worker. People just want to get through the day with as little effort as possible. When it comes to producing a quality product, it really has become the United States of Whatever.

Deeman3
11-19-2005, 07:07 AM
I worked for GM for a good deal of my career, mostly in overseas locations.

GM is struggleing in a very competitive market where a lot of their competitors by nature of their location, average age of workers and benefits do not have the very large overhead cost GM has. In the "good years" GM and the others of the big three gave away pension, health care and salary concessions they all knew would come home to roost one day. They, indeed, could produce other vehicles that would have better gas milage, etc. However, they have, for the most part, been rewarded for producinglarge gas hogs as the market has rewardsed them for doing so. They made several decisions to leave the smaller car market to the others as their profits have been large for the SUV's and most of their small cars have been ecconomic losers.

When you are selling $40,000 SUV's with a $10,000 mark-up, it's very difficult to convince a company to swith to vehilces that have been losers, intheir history. The MBA's have had a negative impact on GM but that's only because that's who's in the driver's seat. Given the rewards system at GM, any management group would make the same decisions, knowing they were trading today's profits for tomorrow's losses. After all, the unclassified executives get paid for what they do now, not what future performance will be. Wagoner is told to secure the future of GM but all his rewards are for now as are everyone elses.

If you compare what the costs of hourly employees up through executives, along with health care costs and other associated expenses with producing in North America, you can see why they are in trouble. Everyone at GM and elsewhere knew this was coming. However, a lowering of gas prices and an upswing in the market will let GM make profits agin for a while. There will be no incentive to chage if this happens. If it doesn't, they will be in bad shape anyway. Hybrids are not saving anyone. Developing them is a luxury being a Honda or Toyota has being a profitable automobile manufacturer. If there is eventually a good market that is profitable, those who could afford the risk will benefit.

GM is just a large gasping beast that will survive only in good times. They have plenty of the most talented people in the business but much too high a cost structure for not really paying the bills over the years. There is plenty of blame to go around, the Union, the poor long term choices. However, no one at GM is really in charge of the long term, they are just all trying to get by on the back of the dinasaur until they can bale out and hope their parachute works.


Deeman

Chopstick
11-19-2005, 07:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> ....they are just all trying to get by on the back of the dinasaur until they can bale out and hope their parachute works.


Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

I think that can be said about any company today. Hey Deeman here's an interesting stat.

What's the most expensive item in the cost of making a car?






The healthcare for the individuals who built it, amounting to 65% of the cost of the vechicle.

Deeman3
11-19-2005, 07:33 AM
Chop,

Yep, I knew that Heathcare as number one but, of course, that's only for the big three. The rest of us have considerable lower health care cost, therefore, we are more competitive.

Deeman

DebraLiStarr
11-19-2005, 09:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chopstick:</font><hr> Well, that's one point of view. Management can't do it all and so cannot be blamed for it all. GM has long been held up as an example of American product manufacturing. "What's good for GM is good for the country." Remember that. The simple fact is that they don't make a good product. I own one now and I will never buy another as long as I live.

As an American icon it has come to reflect the attitudes of the everyday American worker. People just want to get through the day with as little effort as possible. When it comes to producing a quality product, it really has become the United States of Whatever. <hr /></blockquote>

That is what I meant by what stating what accountants are not responsible for. There are several factors that are not measuarable, nor can they be accurately "determined" by financial analysis, These issues include:

1) customer loyalty,

2) development of intellectual properties,

3) speed to meet customer expectations,

4) employee development, and

5) product/service quality.

GM is failing in all 5 areas consistently.

Disney just relased its full fiscal year and Q4 FY05 financial results.

Disney 05 Fiscal &amp; Q4 Earnings (http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/earnings.html)

PDF Fiscal &amp; Q4 05 Earnings (http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/quarterly_earnings/2005_q4.pdf)

There is also an mp3 file of the conference that was held on Thursday 11/17/05 - The Walt Disney Company is comprised of several sectors, and we are now entering the wireless market, and expanding with Hong Kong Disneyland. Disney invests internally and externally, which is why the company has continued to expand.

GM has backed itself into a corner, and needs to change some roles at the top. They are no longer innovative in their approach, and it shows. I have added the Disney information to show the diversity of the company's investments.

SnakebyteXX
11-19-2005, 09:52 AM
Even Disney has a few problems. Hardly any company manages to get everything right all the time. Seems like they had a little problem with the Michael Eisner deal too if I remember correctly.

Duds drive Disney films to 180m loss

David Teather in New York
Saturday November 19, 2005
The Guardian

A string of box office duds dragged Walt Disney's film business down to a $313m (182m) loss in the fourth quarter. The entertainment group chiefly blamed its Miramax division as it cleared out the production backlog put together by the Weinstein brothers, who have left to set up a new company. Poorly performing titles included The Brothers Grimm and The Great Raid. Losses were higher than the $250m to $300m expected in September.

Disney hopes for a change in fortunes with the recent release of its first home-generated computer animation feature Chicken Little and the first instalment of the Chronicles of Narnia, due for release next month. Chicken Little has so far taken $83m at the box office despite a lukewarm reception by critics. Another big hope is the summer release of the first of two sequels to Pirates of the Caribbean.

In a conference call late on Thursday, accompanying the release of the fourth quarter figures, chief executive Robert Iger said the company was focused on restoring its reputation in animation. It would be "trimming costs and managing budgets more closely".

Mr Iger said talks are continuing with Pixar, the studio behind films including Toy Story and The Incredibles, to renew the lucrative distribution deal that fell apart under his predecessor Michael Eisner. He declined to comment on Wall Street rumours that Disney might try to buy Pixar outright.

At group level, Disney said profits had fallen 26% to $379m. Its shares sank 83 cents to $25.16 in early Wall Street trade.

ABC, the television network, continued its dramatic turnaround with the hits Lost and Desperate Housewives generating strong international sales. As a result Disney's broadcasting division reported operating profits of $48m, compared with losses of $75m a year earlier.

Operating income at the cable division, which includes ESPN, reached $584m, up from $523m a year earlier. In the full fiscal year, Disney reported profits of $2.5bn, up from $2.3bn.

web page (http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,16781,1646137,00.html)

Row as Disney names new boss

Mark Tran
Monday March 14, 2005

Robert Iger, Disney Chief Executive

Rebel Disney shareholders today objected to the board's choice of the company president Robert Iger to succeed Michael Eisner as chief executive.

If Disney thought harmony would return to the Magic Kingdom with the departure of Mr Eisner, who is stepping down a year earlier than planned, it was mistaken.

The two former directors who led a 2004 shareholder protest against Mr Eisner reacted furiously to the board's choice. Roy Disney, the nephew of the company founder Walt Disney, and Stanley Gold, said investors had been "conned" and accused the board of failing to find good outside candidates.

Mr Eisner, who has led Disney for 20 years, is leaving the company under a cloud. Although he revitalised Disney, the end of his tenure was marked by a faltering business, high profile lawsuits from former Disney executives, and a shareholder protest that saw a 45% vote against him at the 2004 annual meeting.

The 63-year-old Mr Eisner will step down as chief executive in September this year instead of September 2006, although he will stay on the board until then. He will take home his full pay for the next year. Since 1984, Mr Eisner - once the highest-paid executive in the US - has earned more than $1bn (521m) in salary, bonus and exercised stock options.

"As much as I have loved nearly every minute of my tenure at Disney, two decades is enough time to spend as a chief executive officer of one company," he said.

With his early retirement, Mr Eisner's contract says he is eligible to receive annual "post-termination bonuses" of at least $6m for three years. He will also be able to take advantage of many perks he received as chief executive.

Last year, for example, he was entitled to about $734,000 in personal protection and security fees, access to corporate jets, a health club allowance, and free admission to Disney theme parks.

Mr Iger, the board's preferred successor, is a former TV weatherman who worked his way to the top of Disney after the company bought the ABC television network.

Mr Iger is credited with helping turn around ABC and managing much of Disney's day-to-day operation, as well as putting a new focus on technology and expansion in Asia, where Disney is building one theme park and considering others.

Disney investors will be looking to Mr Iger to mend fences with Pixar Animation Studios, the maker of box office hits Toy Story and The Incredibles. Pixar's decision to end its partnership with Disney was seen as a big setback for Disney and a key factor behind investor dissatisfaction with Mr Eisner.

But the fact that Mr Iger has been Mr Eisner's loyal lieutenant and his anointed successor has drawn criticism from Roy Disney and Mr Gold. They said Mr Eisner influenced the selection process heavily - a contention the board has denied.

Charles Elson, director of the Centre for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, said the board's decision was not as transparent as he would have wished and would not calm critics.

"Having gone within the company to someone closely associated with the current CEO, and that the current CEO will be there a bit longer, will only fuel dissent," he told Reuters.

Mr Iger has been president and chief operating officer of the company since January 2000. His career at ABC started in 1974 in New York as a studio supervisor. In 1996, he joined Disney after the company acquired ABC.

George Mitchell, the former US senator and Disney's chairman, told reporters that Mr Iger deserved partial credit for the company's recent stock market gains and financial improvement.

Disney shares fell between 1998 and 2002, but rose 43% in 2003 and 19% last year. The shares are off about 1% so far this year. "We believe Bob Iger represents the right blend of continuity of very successful performance ... and a recognition of needed change" in the areas of new technology and expanding the company's business in Asia, Mr Mitchell told reporters.

He also said the succession process was thorough and the vote for Mr Iger was unanimous despite "vigorous discussion" by directors.

web page (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1437333,00.html#article_continue)

SnakebyteXX
11-19-2005, 10:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>

GM is struggleing in a very competitive market where a lot of their competitors by nature of their location, average age of workers and benefits do not have the very large overhead cost GM has. In the "good years" GM and the others of the big three gave away pension, health care and salary concessions they all knew would come home to roost one day. They, indeed, could produce other vehicles that would have better gas milage, etc. However, they have, for the most part, been rewarded for producinglarge gas hogs as the market has rewardsed them for doing so.

<font color="blue">They have been rewarded for going after short-term profits while failing to develop an effective long term market strategy. By catering to the status symbol, conspicuous consumption driven demand for high profit margin but grossly inefficient SUV gas hogs they have been behaving AS IF the price of world oil supplies was not in danger of going through the roof. Selling environmentally unfriendly gas hogs to consumers willing to ignore the prospect of escalating oil prices and diminishing supply becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. When the inevitable oil/gas price crunch hits (as it has - and will continue) the demand for their high profit margin products evaporates. This is not a very foreword thinking approach insofar as positioning themselves for long term business success. </font color>


They made several decisions to leave the smaller car market to the others as their profits have been large for the SUV's and most of their small cars have been ecconomic losers.

When you are selling $40,000 SUV's with a $10,000 mark-up, it's very difficult to convince a company to swith to vehilces that have been losers, intheir history. The MBA's have had a negative impact on GM but that's only because that's who's in the driver's seat. Given the rewards system at GM, any management group would make the same decisions, knowing they were trading today's profits for tomorrow's losses. After all, the unclassified executives get paid for what they do now, not what future performance will be. Wagoner is told to secure the future of GM but all his rewards are for now as are everyone elses.

<font color="blue">This is the same idiotic short term thinking that allowed Japanese auto makers to enter the American market back in the 70's. Eventually via selling cars that didn't constantly break down - got relatively good gas mileage and consequently held their resale value the Japanese made tremendous inroads in the traditionally 'American-made cars only' U.S. market. The Japanese took the long-term view. Their American counter parts took the short term high profit margin approach continuing to sell inneficient, poorly built gas hogs long after the hand writing was on the wall. </font color>

If you compare what the costs of hourly employees up through executives, along with health care costs and other associated expenses with producing in North America, you can see why they are in trouble. Everyone at GM and elsewhere knew this was coming. However, a lowering of gas prices and an upswing in the market will let GM make profits agin for a while. There will be no incentive to chage if this happens. If it doesn't, they will be in bad shape anyway. Hybrids are not saving anyone. Developing them is a luxury being a Honda or Toyota has being a profitable automobile manufacturer. If there is eventually a good market that is profitable, those who could afford the risk will benefit.

<font color="blue">I agree - hybrids are not really saving anyone much at this point in time. However, once again we have the short-term versus long-term issue. In the long run gas prices will rise as oil supplies decline (or are bought up by oil hungry nations like China). In the long run consumers will be forced to look for alternative means of affordably getting from point A to point B. Hybrids and mass transit are two of the possible areas where this future need might be met. In the meantime Honda and Toyota are developing markets for long-term profits. When the time comes for that market to mature? Chances are good that they'll be there with bells on. </font color>

GM is just a large gasping beast that will survive only in good times. They have plenty of the most talented people in the business but much too high a cost structure for not really paying the bills over the years. There is plenty of blame to go around, the Union, the poor long term choices. However, no one at GM is really in charge of the long term, they are just all trying to get by on the back of the dinasaur until they can bale out and hope their parachute works.

<font color="blue">Back in grad school we studied the ironies of how both the Japanese and the Germans unintentionally benefited by having their heavy industry bombed into smithereens during WWII. When the war ended America still had all of its heavy industry intact. Outdated and inefficient factories continued to produce. The prospect of tearing them down and rebuilding was prohibitive. Meanwhile the Japanese and Germans started from scratch. They were able to build factories that produced vehicles with higher safety standards and greater fuel efficiency and lower pollution - not to mention durability. Meanwhile we saw greedy a-holes like Lee Iacocca successfully arguing AGAINST putting air bags in Chryslers because IT WOULD COST THEM TOO MUCH to do so. Screw the fact that air bags would save lives - screw safety.

Sorry if I got carried away... Rant over.

Snake </font color>

Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

DebraLiStarr
11-19-2005, 12:07 PM
Snake...

That first article is a complete manipulation of the actual numbers. In my last post I included a link o the official Fiscal report. If you compare the ACTUAL numbers with what this person wrote, you will find that the numbers are incorrect in this article.

Here is Mr. Iger's official statement, which is included in the "official" report dated 11/17/05.

"We are pleased to report another year of strong double digit growth in earnings per share (EPS), providing further evidence that our strategy to achieve growth through great creative content, global expansion and the application of new technology is working."

"Advance is technology have changed how content is created, distributed and consumed. As a modern media company, Disney is well positioned to take advanteg of these changes by continuing to develop strong content and leverage that content across our businesses with new technologies. Our agreement with Apple to make programming available on the iPOD is a fitting example of our efforts in that regard. As the media landscape continues to change, our creative excellence and consumer focus will enable us to continue delivering benefits to our shareholders."

FY 05 and Q4 Earnings Statement (http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/quarterly_earnings/2005_q4.pdf)

Click the link and read it this time. A secind year Journalism student is not where I would get my information from. BTW, the 2nd article is inaccurate as well. They refer to Mr. Iger as a guy that was doing the weather one day and running Disney the next day. Unbelievable. Here is another link to a PDF of our latest Investor Realations Newsletter. It give a list of Mr. Iger's experience, as well as solidifying his proven track record as a leader.

Click Here for The Truth (http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/newsletter/newsletter_051003.pdf)

From article
At group level, Disney said profits had fallen 26% to $379m. Its shares sank 83 cents to $25.16 in early Wall Street trade.

This is a sad manipulation of the actual numbers for Q1 05. Look at the EPS (earnings per share) I have provided the actual data.
Q1 05 Earnings (http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/quarterly_earnings/2005_q1.pdf)

From Q1 report
EPS for the first quarter was $0.35 compared to $0.33 in the prior year quarter (Q4 04)

The higher EPS reflected operating income growth at Media Networks and Parks offset by a decrease at Studio Entertainment.
- 01-31-05 Earnings statement.

From Q2 Report, Dated 05/11/05

EPS for the second qaurter increased 27%, to $0.33 from $0.26 in the prior year quarter, driven by growth at all operating segments led by Studio Entertainment.
Q2 Earnings Statement (http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/quarterly_earnings/2005_q2.pdf)

As far as the "rebel shareholders"... whatever. I find it funny that the writer actually says "Last year, for example, he was entitled to about $734,000 in personal protection and security fees, access to corporate jets, a health club allowance, and free admission to Disney theme parks." rotflmao... he built half of the parks - lol!!!

As far as Roy Disney and Stanley Gold, the objections were personal, not professional, therefore unfounded in the choice of choosing Mr. Iger to head The Walt Disney Company. Here is a statement by Senator George Mitchell, dated 03/13/05 - the day before Mr. Tran wrote this report... funny none of this statement is quoted in Mr. Tran's report.

Statement by Sen. Mitchell 03/14/05 - The truth (http://corporate.disney.go.com/news/corporate/2005/2005_0313_stmt_gmitchell.html)

Here is an outline of the selection process that was used to select Mr. Iger.

All non-management directors were fully and actively engaged in the process. Bob Iger recused himself from the process, and the Board consulted with Michael Eisner as appropriate.

We selected the executive search firm of Heidrick &amp; Struggles.

We carefully considered an internal and several external candidates. We evaluated a large number of individuals, in consultation with Heidrick and Struggles, and Board members met with potential candidates.

Since we began the process last September, the board has devoted 11 meetings to this subject; including 9 in-person meetings, one video conference, and one telephonic meeting. During those meetings, the Board covered the subject in the most detailed and careful manner.

During its 11 meetings on succession, the board regularly met first with Michael Eisner present and then met for an extended period of time without him present.

As I said, Bob Iger recused himself and did not participate at all in any of the meetings.

In addition to selecting a successor, we have developed a plan to achieve a smooth and effective transition.


With the guidance of Heidrick and Struggles, and the many years' experience represented by our Board members, we believe that the process we have followed has adhered scrupulously to the highest standards of objectivity and thoroughness.

We approached the selection with open minds, without preconditions or prior determinations. We acted carefully and prudently.

Our sole objective has been to identify and appoint the best leader for The Walt Disney Company, and we have done so.

The transition period of approximately six months is appropriate and reasonable, within the range of other similar processes, and in the best interest of the company. During that time, Bob will share duties with Michael Eisner.

In addition to the CEO succession process, the Board has undertaken to complete two additional tasks that we have previously announced.

We have committed to a search for an additional, INDEPENDENT director. That process will continue and we intend to identify and announce a candidate no later than the end of calendar 2005.

With regard to the role of Chairman, the Board will take up this matter in time to have a successor ready upon my retirement at the next annual meeting.

I'd like to say that, from the beginning, we've made it clear that while the process would be public, the details would be private. This is especially important when the lives and careers of other persons are concerned. It would be inappropriate for me and unfair to them for me to comment in any way that might affect anyone involved in the process.


That dispels lot of what Mr. Tran wrote in that article. It was a very thorough selection process. Mr. Iger was chosen as a result of that process, not through favoritism which is alluded to by Mr. Tran.

I just thought I would point out the inconsistencies that are in those articles and they are obviously written non-objectively and manipulate facts and in some cases outrightly ignore the truth, which is all public record.

Chopstick
11-20-2005, 01:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DebraLiStarr:</font><hr>
There is also an mp3 file of the conference that was held on Thursday 11/17/05

<hr /></blockquote>

Lemme get out my official 9bawlGirl BS bingo card out. I'm sure there's a winner in there. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

PS. I liked your other picture better.

Qtec
11-22-2005, 07:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chopstick:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> ....they are just all trying to get by on the back of the dinasaur until they can bale out and hope their parachute works.


Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

I think that can be said about any company today. Hey Deeman here's an interesting stat.

What's the most expensive item in the cost of making a car?






The healthcare for the individuals who built it, amounting to 65% of the cost of the vechicle. <hr /></blockquote>

You cant blame the workers for the high cost of healthcare.

Q

Qtec
11-22-2005, 08:02 AM
They are going to fire 30,000 people!
I think they should start with firing the execs.

Q