Author Topic: GM CEO Rick Wagoner and his aides were “sequestered” and “insular,”  (Read 1289 times)

Offline articsteve

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Location: ON
  • Posts: 15055
  • Carma: +31/-163
    • View Profile
  • Cars: Hobbie Car: 1990 944S2
Neil Roland
Automotive News
October 21, 2009 - 10:46 am ET
UPDATED: 10/21/09 4:22 p.m. ET


WASHINGTON -- Former General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner and his aides were “sequestered” and “insular,” presided over a “lack of financial discipline” at the company and blamed everything but their own management for the company's demise, the former chief of the Obama administration's auto task force said.

In a speech today, Steven Rattner said Wagoner, who also was GM chairman, was subject to little oversight by the GM board, which was “utterly docile in the face of looming disaster.”

“At GM's Renaissance Center headquarters, the top brass was sequestered on the uppermost floor, behind locked and guarded glass doors,” Rattner told a National Press Club audience. “Executives housed on that floor had elevator cards that allowed them to descend directly to their private garage without mixing with lower-ranking colleagues.

“In that insular world, Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner and his team appeared to believe that virtually all their problems resulted from some combination of the financial crisis, oil prices, the yen-dollar exchange rate and the UAW,” Rattner said.

He said that virtually all senior GM executives “came up through the ranks.”

At the same time, Rattner added, Wagoner is “a decent, honorable, hard-working, intelligent, well-meaning guy.”

In a first-person account today on Fortune magazine's Web site, Rattner also said Wagoner set a tone of “friendly arrogance” that pervaded the company. GM had “perhaps the weakest finance operation any of us had ever seen in a major company,” he said.

Rattner's blunt public comments about Wagoner's management and management style are a departure from what Obama administration officials have said about the former GM executive. When Wagoner stepped down in March under pressure from the administration, officials were much more guarded in their remarks.

Wagoner did not immediately respond to an e-mail today asking for his comment. GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said, “From what we understand, he is not responding.”

Wagoner was CEO from June 2000 to March 2009 and chairman from May 2003 to March 2009.

Rattner, an investment banker who headed the Obama task force from February to July, also defended the administration's role in securing Wagoner's departure.

"It seemed obvious that any CEO who had burned through $44 billion of cash in 15 months should not continue,” he said.

Critics have said the government was heavy-handed.

At the time of Wagoner's ouster, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., said the executive was a victim of a double standard.

"Mr. Wagoner has been asked to resign as a political offering despite his having led GM's painful restructuring to date,” McCotter said. “Mr. Wagoner has honorably resigned for the sake of his company's working families.”

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., also criticized the administration over Wagoner's firing.

“They had to look like they were doing something,” Corker said at the time. “And then now, in essence, they have taken over these companies.”

Rattner said Wagoner had also cautioned him against hiring an outsider at GM to replace him, citing the example of Ford Motor Co.

"'Alan Mulally called me with questions every day for two weeks after he got to Ford,'" Rattner quoted Wagoner as saying.

Wagoner formally retired in August with a package worth $8.6 million.

Today at the National Press Club, Rattner said GM's finances were something he felt particularly qualified to assess.
“Frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency,”     Billions for jets and pennies for vets; Harponi is MAGNIFICENT.

Offline safristi

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Location: Bethlehem
  • Posts: 40872
  • Carma: +141/-51
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
..Please Sequester & Insulate   ME...I'll accept 7,9MK$$$$ :rofl2:
THERE IS NO CURE FOR "LOTUS"......ONLY TREATMENT.....

Offline PJungnitsch

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Location: Edmonton, AB
  • Posts: 3042
  • Carma: +8/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Travel in Africa
It's a pretty interesting read, explaining why they did what they did:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/21/autos/auto_bailout_rattner.fortune/index.htm

Offline Leviathan

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Location: Vancouver
  • Posts: 3195
  • Carma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • member
    • View Profile
Good read. Thanks.
Chris Matthews, CNBC: "You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour"
Jon Stewart: "This guy is one scotch away from being Ron Burgundy"

Offline Flinter

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Location: Ottawa, ON
  • Posts: 942
  • Carma: +17/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2011 BMW 128i, 1996 Corolla, 2007 Suzuki SX4
Very interesting insiders account of the restructuring process. Sounds like lots of people were in serious denial about the reality of the situation. Thanks for the link.

Offline Roddy

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Location: Calgary
  • Posts: 91
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
 
Quote
GM had “perhaps the weakest finance operation any of us had ever seen in a major company,” he said.

That sounds about right

Offline PJungnitsch

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Location: Edmonton, AB
  • Posts: 3042
  • Carma: +8/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Travel in Africa
The Chrysler comments were pretty much what the insider at Allpar has been saying all along, that Daimler was the one that killed Chrysler, and there wasn't much Cerberus could do:

Badly run after Daimler bought it in 1998, Chrysler had been sold nine years later at the peak of private equity mania to Cerberus Capital Management. Larded up with debt, hollowed out by years of mismanagement, Chrysler under Cerberus never had a chance. We marveled, for example, that Chrysler did not have a single car that was recommended by Consumer Reports.

It was in such bad shape that many on the task force were determined to kill it, but the fallout to the economy was deemed too great. Still....

Financially, however, GM was actually in worse shape than Chrysler. One simple indicator of that was the amount of capital the government ended up injecting: $12 billion into Chrysler and $50 billion into GM, a higher proportion for GM in comparison with its revenue.

Offline Roddy

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Location: Calgary
  • Posts: 91
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
The ultimate question is why cerebus thought buying Chrysler would be such a great idea.

Offline articsteve

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Location: ON
  • Posts: 15055
  • Carma: +31/-163
    • View Profile
  • Cars: Hobbie Car: 1990 944S2
Because they were just a bunch of swindlers/hustlers dressed in $2000. suits that finally ran out of luck.  Nothing extraordinary about these guys except they made John Snow, Dubya's Treasury Secretary (Dubya being the most fiscally irresponsible President in recent history), their CHAIRMAN.  ::)

 In May 2004, it was revealed that Snow's brokers had bought $10 million of debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the day and day after Snow was sworn into office as Treasury Secretary. Snow claimed this was done without his knowledge in February 2003. When Snow found out, he divested the debt holdings. A Treasury ethics lawyer has found that the holdings did not represent a conflict of interest but had the potential to do so in the future 

Offline Patate

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Location: Boucherville, QC
  • Posts: 111
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
The ultimate question is why cerebus thought buying Chrysler would be such a great idea.

Because Chrysler wasn't worth anything.

Therefore it was a high-risk investment.  You don't always do moves like this in your portfolio, but when one of those work, you get more than doube what you paid for.

Offline safristi

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Location: Bethlehem
  • Posts: 40872
  • Carma: +141/-51
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
..U acan get a "DOUBE'h" fer Chrysler...............fair exchange then  Phhtttt!!!! :drool: :fall:....but that mutli headed DOG THINGY...I'm be wantin' some magic mushrooms there.......... :-* :foil: :eye:

Offline Roddy

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Location: Calgary
  • Posts: 91
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
The ultimate question is why cerebus thought buying Chrysler would be such a great idea.

Because Chrysler wasn't worth anything.

Therefore it was a high-risk investment.  You don't always do moves like this in your portfolio, but when one of those work, you get more than doube what you paid for.

A high risk investment is a gross understatement. I don't know how they thought that it could possibly be a good idea. They would have been better to take their investors money to the casino. The other top contender - ol Frank of magna has expressed on numerous occasions how lucky it was that his bid for the company wasn't the winning one.