LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteWhere's none of the the above?
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/ma...ur-theory.html
Theory 1: President Obama replaced Wagoner with Fritz Henderson as CEO of General Motors because he is convinced that Henderson will be a better corporate leader.
Theory 2: President Obama replaced Wagoner with Fritz Henderson as CEO because the A.I.G. public relations debacle taught him not to appear "soft" with corporate leaders receiving government money.
Which theory do you vote for? Which principles do you think should be governing the disposition of leadership in major U.S. corporations?
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Where's none of the the above?
I do agree with Michigan's Democratic governor. She said that Wagoner was a sacrificial lamb. This was done for appearances sake.
Shek,
With all due respect IMO Mr. Obama should not even have his hands in this as many fear the government will control alot more then what the people wish. My biggest fear is that he is taking on too much too fast and that quanity will overstep quality and the big picture will be lost for sure.:(
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Simple answer to this - stop going to the government with a begging bowl
Major,
Unfair,
I want to choose both
Is this an example of how you create your multiple choice tests
Disagree, Simple answer improve the laws regarding all US industries to protect their emplyees from the parctices of poor judgement officials.
*The govenment has no place in these and alot of other industries. All they are doing is paying back for Union votes with taxpayers money wether they are Union or non-Union.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
So basically you are saying that failed industries, which have failed to manage their affairs (and the auto industry certainly has) have the right to approach the government for bailouts on the tax payer dollar but the government does not have the right to demand oversight?Disagree, Simple answer improve the laws regarding all US industries to protect their emplyees from the parctices of poor judgement officials.
*The govenment has no place in these and alot of other industries. All they are doing is paying back for Union votes with taxpayers money wether they are Union or non-Union.
Nope, As I stated before in this thread they should have been left to their own doings and let them go under without proping them up with taxpayer money while they give golden parachutes to those that greaty contributed to their own downfall. When Obama stepped in after AIG's parachutes that was nothing compared to those that already got those parachutes with taxpayer money before Obama finally stepped in because the media jumped on it. Not out of his own iniciative. Ergo a half assed idea that wasted taxpayers money while they were being forclosed upon back at home. How is it that Ford turned down the governemnt this time around? I wonder why.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Here here...that seems like the best answer
I thought this was interesting...looks he might not get "much" at all...
From Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/30/ric...s-wagoner.html
Wagoner's Parachute: Gold Or Lead?
By Michael Maiello
Now that the White House has forced Rick Wagoner out of General Motors' top job, it's reasonable to wonder what kind of golden parachute the jet-flying, outgoing CEO has in place for himself.
GM hasn't filed a proxy for 2008 yet (expect that soon), but the proxy filed last April, covering 2007 and projecting 2008 is available, and the payout to Wagoner doesn't look too impressive.
Wagoner made $14.4 million in 2007, mostly in stock, restricted stock, and stock options that likely won't fare well as GM equity and bondholders line up to take their restructuring haircuts. He still got millions in cash and cash bonuses for 2007, but the bulk of his compensation is entirely at risk.
Then there's the golden parachute. Unless something changed in 2008, it's not so golden. For one thing, it's not entirely clear that GM's compensation committee will consider Wagoner's departure "termination without cause," which is the trigger for parachute payments.
In most cases, even when a CEO is fired they're not fired "for cause" so that severance arrangements are triggered--the only "cause" for firing in most executive employment agreements is fraud or willful negligence, not performance. In this case, it seems that Wagoner resigned, under pressure, but voluntarily. According to GM's proxy, the separation payments aren't made after a resignation.
But if GM does pay him something on the way out, it was estimated in 2007 that Wagoner would take a package worth $9.9 million. A third of that was in restricted stock, so that's obviously at risk. He had $5 million in GM shares awarded under a stock performance program. The footnote says they are surrendered after a resignation.
Even if he keeps them, it's stock and it's in trouble. He's owed $1.8 million in cash under the "annual incentive plan," but that is also supposed to be sacrificed if he resigns.
There's a chance Wagoner could leave with nothing but his pension and deferred compensation dating back to the early 1990s. If he keeps his "annual incentive plan" cash, GM's board will have to clarify whether Wagoner resigned or was fired.
I thought that was roughly what I was saying.
The previous administration should not have gone down the route of helping these guys out in the first place. Of course, there is an arguement that letting the financial system (which sort of includes insurance when done at AIG's scale) tip over would screw the whole economic framework. That logic makes sense. what does not make sense is the bailout of Bear Stearns. Tell me, why did Sec. Paulson do that again?
Another thing, the banking business is still a vialble business, if done properly (see JPMC). The way GM and Chrysler run their shops, they do not seem viable as going concerns unless they do some radical change. SO if they are going come begging, the government has every right to ask for oversight. If they have gone for private financing, they would have b een asked to do the same. In that case, they would not have the political card of job losses to force private investors. In this case, they figure they do have that card. the difference is that the government is calling their bluff and encouraging them to file for bankruptcy.
A very, very good question. Does Mr. Wagonner have any answers to that? On the other hand, I remember visiting a web site which GM published, where it took the pain to explain that this was not a bailout
The previous administration should not have gone down the route of helping these guys out in the first place. Of course, there is an arguement that letting the financial system (which sort of includes insurance when done at AIG's scale) tip over would screw the whole economic framework. That logic makes sense. what does not make sense is the bailout of Bear Stearns. Tell me, why did Sec. Paulson do that again?
*You have to look much deeper my friend. The proping up was going on long before Bush and Clinton was certainly no stranger to the monster under the sheet about to waken and chose to ignore it so blaming Bush is only a fraction of the previous that did wrong. Blame one, Blame them all.
"A very, very good question. Does Mr. Wagonner have any answers to that? On the other hand, I remember visiting a web site which GM published, where it took the pain to explain that this was not a bailout"
*To show you that Im not one sided, I wanted to see GM go under along with the rest of the ones that created these problems and unlike many here I do happen to own a 2008 GMC. Its not my dislike for the brand name its the ilk that ran it into the ground while they bailed with the gold ergo taxpayers money.Mine and yours too.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
I am totally ok with blaming all. For e.g., Truman's attempt to seize the steel industry under the pretext of "national emergency" was, in my opinion, foolish and arrogant
Letting GM go down would mean a loss of about a lot of jobs. Nevertheless, I think the government signalled yesterday that it is prepared to take the risk of bankruptcy instead of continuing to provide short term cash as it has been doing. Unlike the other automakers, GM seems to be showing a greater resistance to change.*To show you that Im not one sided, I wanted to see GM go under along with the rest of the ones that created these problems and unlike many here I do happen to own a 2008 GMC. Its not my dislike for the brand name its the ilk that ran it into the ground while they bailed with the gold ergo taxpayers money.Mine and yours too.
See, we can agree.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
I thought that GM was a private Company and not owned by the Government. What gives the President the right to have the CEO sacked and replaced by someone who the President wants. Looks like the US have got another bad President, lets just throw money at it and it will go away.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: