What idiots, so Hummer is the only GM brand that they are willing to get rid of? Latest News http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/Saab-Concepts/235995/ Wagoner: 'Saab is not for sale' 12 November 2008 General Motors does not intend to sell any of its brands except Hummer, company CEO Rick Wagoner has confirmed. Asked whether the company was going to disperse its brands, Wagoner told Automotive News: “Our focus right now in this regard is exclusively on Hummer. We want to see how that plays out. We are getting some interest in it.” Wagoner said that the company has not had any offers for Opel-Vauxhall or GM of China. “We’ve got some other assets that we’re looking at selling,” he said, “but not brands.” That means Saab, whose future within GM has at times looked distinctly uncertain – and which has had the launch of its critical new 9-5 model pushed back until 2010 - will stay as part of the car maker’s portfolio. The Detroit car makers are lobbying for financial assistance this year, authorised by the current ‘lame duck’ Congress, before Barack Obama becomes president on 20 Jan 2009. Wagoner made clear that GM is willing to sign up to the same business restrictions that the banks have accepted. >> Read more on the GM crisis: buy, hold and sell “We’ve studied the taxpayer protections that have been employed with the financial sector support payments,” he said, “and those seem to be reasonable expectations, whether that’s warrants or restrictions on executive compensation.” The incoming Democrat administration is working behind the scenes to secure financing for the auto industry beyond the $25bn in soft loans set aside for investment in new, environmentally friendly technologies. The efforts to secure emergency loans have stalled at the desk of treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who is adamant that any aid given to car makers must ensure their viability. He believes that the $700bn rescue package authorised in October should be limited to financial institutions. Despite GM’s vast involvement in the US economy, any taxpayer-led rescue package would garner considerable opposition across the US. Many of the car maker’s current running costs are linked to healthcare provision for GM’s current and past employees, leading many to complain that a bail-out would leave them subsidising other people’s healthcare bills in a country without a national health system. Ed Keohane
It'd also be idiotic to sacrifice your short-term viability for the sake of your long-term viability. In the short-term, they might be dead. As a taxpayer, if they have to choose between selling their future and selling my future, I'd rather they sold their future.
Keep Chevy and Cadillac. Get rid of every other brand. The successful car companies have a max of one regular brand and one luxury brand. - Honda, Acura - Toyota, Lexus - Nissan, Infiniti GMC, Saturn, Buick, Saab, Pontiac all need to go asap. GM needs to tranform into a lean and efficient company. I could easily see Cadillac compete with Lexus and BMW. See http://www.automotive.com/future-cars/90/94394/112-0812-cadillac-future-vehicle-lineup/index.html
Sell Saab, Pontiac and Hummer (though I think you'd have a hard time giving them away at this point) Merge Buick with Cadillac Merge GMC with Chevy Keep Saturn but only churn out low-end cars.
Get rid of Hummer because it is a sign of stupid excess and embarrassment. I suppose you could make a Prius sized car and call it a "Hummer" but what would be the point. The Hummer H 2009. I agree that they don't need so many brands. Sell them if they have a lot of value, but not in a down market. Shut down the production lines of those that aren't selling well. Sell the name later. You could have the Toyota "Buick" but who would care? Is this brand issue really a major issue for their economic problems?
. Ed Keohane[/QUOTE] Why don't the auto makers push for National Health Care? Is it because the execs are conservatives who have drunk the free enterprise Kool-Aid? Is it because they like to use their poor employees/ retirees as an excuse to bail our their management failures? I don't know.
it causes confusion and bad marketing you have marketing campaigns for two cars that are exactly the same, but branded for different customers. plus you are confusing the customers. you have a bunch of GM brands battling each other for one customer with the same car. look at pontiac g5 and chevy cobalt, its the same car. i think saturn has a version of that car too. you have the customer being targeted by 3 brands from the same company. look at honda, there's the civic, specific for a certain customer and the accord, specific to a certain customer. no duplication of the same car. look at clothing. you have old navy for the cheap stuff gap for the moderate stuff and bannarepublic for the expensive stuff GM can't have 3 brands targeting the same audience. its dumb.
Saab sells like crazy overseas. Just because a lot of people here in the states do not have them does not mean that they suck.
Why not let one of the sovereign funds in Abu Dhabi make an investment and cash infusion in GM? Their oil is going to run out in ~30 years, and they've already taken the steps to diversify their economy with the $8B JV with GE and the Foundry Co. deal with AMD.
Easy. Depending on the % investment in the company, Abu Dhabi could conceivably hold a good chunk of the seats on the board of directors at GM. They could even get that loser CEO, Wagoner, booted.
why would they want to? GM is on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars of liabilities. what do they gain from getting a company that loses over a billion per month?
AMD manufacturing operations has been bleeding money for abuot 9 quarters now, and probably won't turn a profit for at least 10 years. Abu Dhabi is interested in long term investments just to diversify their economy. GM would provide that, and ideally eventually they'd build a new plant ou there. Meanwhile, they don't care about losing money.
