Why GM's Latest Moves Aren't Enough

Steps that could persuade skeptics that GM is on the road to recovery

By Rick Newman

Posted: July 15, 2008

General Motors chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner addresses the media during a news conference in Detroit, Tuesday, July 15, 2008 with Product Development Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, right.

GM chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner and Product Development Vice Chairman Bob Lutz (R) address the media in Detroit.

These are grim days for a storied company, but General Motors is finally taking some of the radical steps it needs to survive. Up till now, GM has been following a gradual turnaround plan, focusing on recasting its product lineup, securing more favorable terms with its unions, and doubling down on a few breakthrough technologies. Right ideas. Wrong pace. A wheezing economy and the ramifications of $4 gas have simply transformed the auto market far faster than GM foresaw.

So with its sales and share price in a free fall—and analysts starting to worry about the company running out of cash in 2009—CEO Rick Wagoner has devised yet another overhaul plan. The company will cut its white-collar workforce, eliminate bonuses, suspend its stock dividend, sell some assets, and take other steps to improve its cash reserves by $10 billion through 2009. The moves reflect adjusted expectations of oil prices staying in the range of $130 to $150 per barrel and depressed annual auto sales of 14 million in 2008 and 2009, about 15 percent below recent trends.

Although the markets have cheered the moves, be prepared for yet another big announcement (or two, or three) down the road. Analysts still think GM has a way to go before it gets healthy. Here are some of the steps that would really persuade critics that GM is on the road to recovery:

Killing a couple of brands. GM has already said it wants to sell its Hummer franchise (although no buyers have materialized), and it probably needs to divest some other brands, too. GM has eight vehicle brands, and at least half of them—Saab, Saturn, Pontiac, and Buick—are struggling. Saturn, Pontiac, and Buick cars are mostly redundant "badge jobs" with the same underpinnings as Chevrolet, GMC, or Cadillac vehicles, and Saab is a low-volume niche brand that most likely loses money. The problem is that getting rid of a division costs a lot of money, mainly to buy out dealers. In its latest announcement, GM said it's considering the sale of unidentified assets to help raise $4 billion to $7 billion. That could include Saab. Stay tuned.

Accepting a smaller market share. Another reason GM won't kill off any of its mainline brands is that it will instantly lose market share, since there's no guarantee a Pontiac or Saturn customer will automatically become a Chevrolet or GMC customer. So GM is effectively sustaining underperforming divisions to keep its market share up, and no company can succeed for long by paying for market share. GM's new plan assumes a U.S. market share of about 21 percent, but even that might be optimistic. If GM fixates on sustaining that number, it will have no choice but to keep offering rebates that cut into margins.

Building competitive small cars. GM knows it has to offer small cars just as good as Hondas and Toyotas. Maybe even better, since GM is so far behind its Asian rivals in this segment. GM has greatly improved the quality of its passenger cars, and some new small entries are on the way. Recent plans call for shifting even more resources from trucks and SUVs, which are rapidly falling out of favor, to smaller cars. Honda and Toyota have a huge lead, though, and even with some killer offerings, it will take years for GM to challenge them.

Investing even more in breakthrough technology. GM hopes that the plug-in Chevrolet Volt, due in 2010, will be a buzz-mobile that helps it regain industry leadership. While cautious of GM hyperbole, analysts and industry experts are buying it—so far. If GM cuts funding for the Volt or stumbles, it will be a major credibility blow. But if GM delivers—on time—the Volt could signify a resurgence in Detroit.

Aggressively waiting. The most agonizing part of GM's recovery—if it happens—is that huge savings from a deal reached last year with the unions won't begin to materialize until 2010. That's when GM will finally start to deal with its mountainous healthcare obligations to retirees. While not exactly saying so, GM leaders seem to have been putting off other big changes while hoping the retiree fixes that are on the way will help solve many of its problems. It's now clear that GM needs a lot of other surgery before then.

The Truth

I support Gm and i think that everone should buy from them

of @ Jan 06, 2009 09:31:38 AM

Auto Crisis: "The 15% Solution"

(Sidenote: While GM is on hard times they are taking out full page ads in the Boston Globe pleading their case)

'The 15% Solution"

One possible approach to dealing with the auto crisis -- The federal government could give any one who buys a fuel efficient car from the Big 3 a 15% instant rebate back on the selling price. This program could have an 18 month time limit.

The total of the rebate dollars might then constitute a loan the auto makers would have to pay back.

If effective, this solution would immediately jump start US auto makers by giving them a huge advantage over the competition while they work on the remaining legacy issues. Auto makers would stay employed and no money would go directly to the car makers.

The feds might also think about underwriting an extended car warranty program for this period. Again, the total dollars to do so, could constitute a loan to the auto makers.

If the dollars don't proof out, the concept still might we worth exploring.

Joseph Hare

Hingham, MA.

More.....

A quick direct "15%" instant government rebate (say averaging around $3,000) from the Dept of Treasury paid to consumer with purchase of a US auto maker lower mileage car might make these cars especially attractive,

The problem with the fed using IRS tax return deductions is you only get indirect value (a lower tax payment) and but once a year (April 15).... and higher wage earners get more real dollar benefit.

I thinkt this rebate program would get consumer attention/visibility. Hey, If you could buy a Camry priced today at $20,000 for $20,000 versus a Malibu priced today for $20,000 for $17,000 (plus get a10 year warranty), which would you buy?

Such a program, if it worked, would give auto makers an instant dramatic jump start while they work on getting

more cars that would sell (without rebate program) developed and while they deal with worker legacy issues.

Giving a bailout just keeps them from going bankrupt while they try to get a higher % of americans to buy their cars. They have not suceeded in doing that over the last 20 years. Assuming Americans were motivated to buy fuel efficient Gm-Ford-Chrysler cars, the biggest stumbling blocks might be that the auto makers could not retool fast enough to produce enough low mpg cars to get profitable, that they could not get rid of their gas guzzlers, and that the union entitlement are still choking them..

Joseph Hare of MA @ Nov 17, 2008 23:03:40 PM

BIG TRUCK

I,m trying to buy a 2008 gmc 3500 duelly . The dealer is ho

lding out for the last dollar. You would think they would want to sell it fast????????

neal of MA @ Jul 16, 2008 22:17:52 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

U.S. News Rankings & Research

Best Places

Search for the perfect place for you and your family.

Best Careers

Careers that offer strong outlooks and high job satisfaction.

Car Rankings & Reviews

Make an informed choice when shopping for your next car.

advertisement

Slide Shows

15 Government-Heavy (and Recession-Resistant) Cities

Cities that have lots of government workers have proven recession-resistant.

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!