Can you beleive these CEO's...including Ford?

[gcg2503]

but is that $1.5m debt free and unencumbered though!

[ebxr8240]

Originally Posted by gcg2503

but is that $1.5m debt free and unencumbered though!

Still a portfolio % 30 negativly geared which is salery sacrificed into my super...
It doesn't matter the point is I need a manager !!
The Mrs is enough !!!LOL<<<<<

[mik]

Nicely put Sourbarsted, and if fuel price had`nt gone up x amount over a couple of year`s we probably would`nt be having this thread. i would be much dirtier on oil companies and exec`s for plight the world is now in, world domination and greed = oil companies .

[JG66ME]

Originally Posted by flappist

Lets analyse this a bit.....

Sell the jet in a time of economic trouble so you can turn a 20++ million dollar asset into maybe 5 million, provided of course you can find a buyer. Yep clever.

Let your very expensive and very important decission makers waste large amounts of time in an airport and then on a commercial flight where they cannot use their phones or network connections. Yep real productive and clever.

Buy extra tickets for their PAs and infrastructure staff and have them waste large amounts of time as above. Yep that is a good way to save.

Ensure all meetings are at destinations that are served by direct flights so you do not have to change planes several times and make sure all meetings coincide with flight schedules and that the aircraft are not late.

Have any of you actually travelled in a corporate jet? It is not like what you see on TV. Corporate aircraft are normally very basic and are usually floating meeting places. A long time ago I actually used to fly one (PA31 not a jet).

Have any of you actually travelled on a jet in USA or Australia other than on holidays? Ever missed tha last flight in or out of Sydney/Tulla/Brisbane and had to spend the night at ridiculous expense and then wasted half the next day as all the mornig flights are booked out?

If someone said that all city people could not drive their cars to work and must take the bus or train to save carbon credits you would all scream your tits off and quote a zillion reason why it can't work.

The average greeny idiot who lives in a commune in a tree would not agree but he would have no idea what he was talking about would he? Except for the greenie members of parlement who would make a huge song and dance for the media so the dumb people would think they actually care.

Exactly.

[Gobes32]

One thing I need to get off my back is this,

Australia and America have been hung out to dry by the media for producing gas guzzling, large emissions, vehicles that up until two years ago, WERE AT THE TOP OF THEIR MARKET!!!!! Both countries share the same characteristic of long open highways that these large gas guzzling cars are built for. Now we are accused of letting the world go by because we do not produce small, fuel efficient cars. Herein lies the problem, up until two years ago, Falcon, Commodore, F-Series etc were the sales leaders in their respective markets then all of a sudden, fuel almost doubled and consumer sentiment shifted towards small, green cars. Now even if Ford decided on the day fuel doubled to start making green cars, hybrids etc, It will take at least three years before they have a prototype and almost 5 years before its a mass production reality.

Now the Japanese are being lauded for producing small, fuel efficient cars. HELLO, they have been making them for the last thirty plus years. In Japan the average speed traveled is something ridiculous like 20km/h!!!! And they have to stop driving a car once it reaches a certain age. Now what would you rather have to outlay every few years?, 20k for a corolla or 40k for a falcon? So of course they have been making cheap, fuel efficient cars, because that's what their country demands they make.

[Cabbage]

If these CEO's go cap in hand to the government asking for taxpayers money to assist their industry, then I think our representatives have the right to ask a few questions even if they are bit provocative. It just looks bad, particularly GM who by all reports are only months from running out of money. If you had been laid off recently by any of these carmakers you would be a little ****ed!

[OzJavelin]

All 3 CEOs of the major car companies, turned up in Washington to beg for money, having ALL FLOWN IN SEPERATE PRIVATE CORPORATE JETS to the hearings.

They should have all been forced to fly (private jet if they like) to LA and issued with the highest selling model of whatever car they sold .. then drive it to Washington.

I'm sure after dealing with whatever POS frontwheel drive cr@pbox they are happy to sell to the Average American, they wouldn't bother asking for money from the Govt as they would finally understand that they have lost their way in the automotive wilderness ..

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

I retired 20 minutes ago at 30. I win cause I is so awesum!!11

I might return to work on Monday as part of my triumphant return tour.

Contests of bigdickmanship on the internet rarely get anywhere nor solve anything.

Now, uncle bastards reality process begins.

GM/Ford/Dodge are companies of immense size, they dont change direction in days, not even in years. You cant pull up a company that hires 100's of thousands of people, that produce products for 100's of countries, in hundreds of different currencies that undulate, in a global market killed by oil speculation, and a financial sector devoid of all sanity that will not lend to you, in a few hours, and just say "Today we will make hybrids." and now its all good.

GM/Ford/Dodge's current positions are the results of decisions made a decade ago, when circumstances were vastly different globally, and locally in the US market. The good times enabled them to diversify, and buy many euro car companies, but diversification protects against single threats, not threats in all markets at once.

The problem is larger than any executives pay or benefits. If these companies go down, those 100's of thousands of people will cause a massive downturn in spending in the economy when they enter the unemployment queue, which in turn will trigger the next wave of depression in the US, which will then hit everywhere.

Economics. People who dont spend money due to market uncertainty, dont buy. Companies that dont sell product because people dont buy, dont spend. Companies that dont spend, sack people. So spending decreases more. When this happens, to stop the economy going into free fall, our governments step in, and spend money. Its the braking system, without it, your shares will be worthless, your retirement will become unfunded, and you will be sitting in the gutter. Noone evades global economic downturn, no matter how smart they think they are.

Are engineers more important than a CEO? No. All the technical innovation in the world wont sell something that noone wants to buy. Generals decide when and where to fight, the soldiers do the fighting. Regardless, the product isnt the issue, the market is the issue. No CEO can control a market that doesnt want to buy, ask mitsubishi about how easy it is to remodel yourself in less than a year, and bring a product to market that sells during oil speculation.

Sell the corporate jet and take a pay cut? Purely cosmetic tripe, and unlikely to effect any eventual outcome. The market has lost billions, only Billions will bring it back, and the government has to spend this money to stimulate growth, as the market refuses to.

Blame blame blame blame. Dont we just love to allocate blame.

Anyone who can do better running GM/Ford/Dodge/Government, send your resume in to president@whitehouse.gov

Agreed, but I think what those on this forum who don't agree with what these CEO's did are referring to the symbolism/perception. Of course not taking a private jet or reducing your salary to $1 a year will not save a company or turn it around. But it does send a message to the politicians, the public (taxpayers who are going to help you out) and the workers of your company (that are working less shifts, taking pay cuts or have been put off completely) is that you as the head of the company are going to lead by example, that you, the same as the lower paid workers, are going to roll up your sleeves and (excuse the pun) put your money where your mouth is to turn the company around. The symbolism of this is important. I think that the difference between true leadership and leadership in name only.

PS: I can't believe you ate 400 maxibons!!

Clinton

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Meh, I'll join in on mine too......

That sir, is one high horse!!

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by XWGT

Yes I realsie all of that. I also realise that that CEO of Japan Airlines, one of only a handful of profitable airlines in the world arrives at work everyday, by bus, and is paid an equivalent salary of around $USD 90,000.

Unfortunatly westerners and the asians have different mindsets in running their comapnies. The Japanese have a very long term plan for their companies while the BIG 3 will only look at product cycle and profits made for the stock holders. Unfortunatly westerners are very greedy people and will be apart of their own downfall.

Originally Posted by flappist

For those who think they can do a great job as a CEO I offer this challange:

Yeah well its very easy to critisise someone, but when you have to do it yourself then thats another story.

Originally Posted by Wally

It is their repsonsibility to make the structure that allows them to go home at night and weekends, spend time with the family, etc. That they don't do it is the nature of these type of people who fear losing influence if they share the load.

Really, so they will run a company that is all around the world withing the 9am-5pm timeslot. Thats American time BTW. You have to deal with high end managers around the world. If people running small businesses are working long hours what makes you think a CEO of a multi-billion doller comapny is gonna have a short day at work.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Really, so they will run a company that is all around the world withing the 9am-5pm timeslot. Thats American time BTW. You have to deal with high end managers around the world. If people running small businesses are working long hours what makes you think a CEO of a multi-billion doller comapny is gonna have a short day at work.

Well this is one of the excuses CEOs make when negotiating their packages. A boss who legitimately wants to have me time would realise he is the boss and his line managers around the world can stay up late on their time to be in synch with his time zone. The truth is that being the boss is a drug to some and they can't handle the wind down.

Small business owners might work long hours, but those who have the necessary skills don't. And that is the crux of the matter, it takes a certain skill set to run a business, delegate, manage, etc and only about 1% of people have that natural ability, the others either have no idea or have tried to learn it via a tertiary course. Those same 1% know when a rival is poorly managed and profit from it. That might grate to hear, but it's the truth.

A little about me:- I've been around corporations most of my life. One company I established on behalf of some old money shareholders grew into the dominant player in Australia within two years and is now close to the dominant company in that industry worldwide twenty years on albeit now owned by a German parent.... I got to the office at 8.30am, always had a lunch break and knocked off at 5.30pm. I have never gone into work on a Saturday or Sunday.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Wally

Well this is one of the excuses CEOs make when negotiating their packages. A boss who legitimately wants to have me time would realise he is the boss and his line managers around the world can stay up late on their time to be in synch with his time zone. The truth is that being the boss is a drug to some and they can't handle the wind down.

The thing is they do, but there are alot of people around the world. You make it out that it is easy to do, but in actual fact it isn't. Some CEO's actually work hard to try and get the company running well. Mullaly seems to be turning Ford around (like he did to Boeing), if he saves the org and makes it profitable then he is worth the money.

[Wally]

I don't know what happened there, I was typing away and somehow I was in edit mode..weird.

[Hillbilly F Truck]

Having a face to face sit down when asking for large sums of cash is the probably the best approach, considering the scale of the potential crisis looming. For the jet setters to do nothing would be grossly negligent, and lets face it, on their salaries they probably have enough money saved to walk away and say 'bugger you Jack i'm alright', and let the companies fall. The jet has already been purchased so why not use it. To leave it on the tarmac would be even more of a waste. Having said that, some CEO's salaries are obscene. As one forum member drew the analogy of Generals and soldiers on the battlefield, it's the soldiers who have to do the dying.

[Bossxr8]

Media beat up. GM supposedly only lease the jets, they don't own them, and they have recently cut the number from 5 to 3.

As for exec salaries, Ford wanted the best in Mullaly to help get them out of trouble, to get the best you need to pay the best, and he's done a great job so far. Before the economic crises he had steered the company back into the black for a quarter before everything hit the fan, but he prepared for it by selling off assets a while ago for these situations. He spent money on product development to increase sales, invested in making small cars in the US in previously truck and SUV plants (Fiesta goes on sale in the US soon). He's made some smart moves.

2nd in charge Bill Ford, from what I can remember doesn't even get paid money, he just takes stock, probably not a smart move now cause its worth bugger all but he doesn't need the money cause his family owns a controlling interest in the company, he's already loaded. He does this out of obligation to his families company.


I don't agree with executive bonuses for CEO's of companies who are going down the toilet, they should only recieve bonuses as a reward for making them successful. Banking and finance CEO's who paid themselves bonuses out of the US governments bailout money should have all their money stipped from them and used to cover their companies losses.

Executive bonuses haven't been paid by Ford for a few years now, all the execs agreed to it to help them out. So its not like Ford aren't trying to save money where they can.

[Dr Smith]

I think we're all forgetting one simple point. All CEO's in every public company are hired by a board of directors. If their CEO isn't preforming it's their responsbility to remove them. However if the company goes backwards for a few years and the CEO is still there then it's the boards fault just as much. The CEO is publically humiliated when they resign or are sacked, often with huge payouts negotiated before they even joined the company. How many boards are similarly "removed" because the damage certainly happened under their stewardship. The board usually approves a CEO's plans so ultimately they are responsible, yet how come they are not being held accountable in this particular situation?

[gcg2503]

Originally Posted by Wally

It is their repsonsibility to make the structure that allows them to go home at night and weekends, spend time with the family, etc. That they don't do it is the nature of these type of people who fear losing influence if they share the load.

Surely you cant be serious?

These are the type of comments that I would expect from someone who had NO EXPOSURE to the corporate world

Or maybe from someone who has read the "Seven Minute Manager" and got a little carried away

Hello I am CEO of GM - I will only work 40 hr weeks...... :

[guzzis3]

Long post. Much has been said over the weekend

Wally:

Then the CEO's of today shouldn't be getting the bonus' of yesterday's CEOs, they are being paid in advance for forecasted earnings years from now?

If the corporation is so inflexible why the reward? Why hasn't management made the corporation dynamic to adjust direction rapidly to a rapidly changing world? The Jap car makers seem to cope pretty well with change.

The truth is that these three companies were on the slippery slope many years ago and just blustered their way ahead producing vehicles the public were fed up with. They thought they could tell the consumer what they wanted and the gamble didn't pay off.

Me:

Quite right. Toyota and VW are as big as any of these yet they have had the right products together with the right marketing. Consider the prius. It in no way enviromentally sound but they have convinced people to pay throough the nose for it just as effectively as GM et al have conviced people NOT to buy their product.

Ozmale42:

Yes, CEO's do get generous financial rewards, no doubt about that, but at huge personal cost. While most of us pack up at 5 and go home and forget work totally and be with our families the typical CEO's day has only really just begun....in the office till 8pm..then a dinner with a client or a supplier...corporate events, media interviews, home at midnight when kids are in bed....up at 4.30am to do it all over again.....Weekends are either spent in the office or they've brought a pile of work home. When they aren't working they're thinking about working. While on holiday most have to be contactible with Blackberry and Laptop on hand. You can be out the door quick smart too in an instant the minute you take your eye off the ball and make a poor decision....Having to cop the demands of shareholders, banks, consumers and the Board and maintain a balance as best you can between all stakeholders in the organisation is a huge responsibility....not to mention the detrimental impact on health.


Me:

Do you really believe there are no competant people who would do that for a fraction of the CEO's salaries ? But more to the point what do they actually achieve ? Their salaries should be a reflection of the value they add to the organisation not the hours they put in. That's why I get paid more per hour than a labourer, because the work I do adds more value than a labourers does.

And returning to my earlier argument, I put it to you that 3 engineers in GM add more to the companies value than Wagoner does. Not any 3 engineers but I believe I could find 3, in fact rather more than 3, and that assumes he's doing 180 hours useful work a week (most engineers work about 60 hr/wk). More broadly, there is a corruption across our whole society between renumeration and worth. The reality in a capitalist system is you take what you can get. You can not convince me that 40 hours driving a truck in a mine is worth more to society than 40 hours nursing the sick and elderly, but show me a nurse that makes $120k+.

Sourbastard:

I dont really care what the execs get paid. The oversight for this is the shareholders meetings, and I'm not one of those.

Me:

Absolutely, until they go cap in hand to the government asking for money. The they become accountable to the electorate.

Gobes32:

Australia and America have been hung out to dry by the media for producing gas guzzling, large emissions, vehicles that up until two years ago, WERE AT THE TOP OF THEIR MARKET!!!!! Both countries share the same characteristic of long open highways that these large gas guzzling cars are built for. Now we are accused of letting the world go by because we do not produce small, fuel efficient cars. Herein lies the problem, up until two years ago, Falcon, Commodore, F-Series etc were the sales leaders in their respective markets then all of a sudden, fuel almost doubled and consumer sentiment shifted towards small, green cars. Now even if Ford decided on the day fuel doubled to start making green cars, hybrids etc, It will take at least three years before they have a prototype and almost 5 years before its a mass production reality.


Me:

That's an oversimplification. In the US it's been really patchy. Yes SUV's and pickups have held up well but many other cars they have been making have been basket cases. If you do a detailed analysis of the market the big sedans (non specialised like sports/muscle cars and limos) have been in decline. The normal station wagon has been dying in Aus since the EA/VN came out. Conversely the 4b and ut's have been in ascendance. Whereas once everyone was happy to have the big family car now people want cars that do more, either sports cars/GT's, would be recreational velicles, or work trucks. People who buy "normal" cars have been choosing more and more the little cars. The reason the big 3 failed is they refused to believe this trend would continue, they kept building the generic big car in a multitude of styles and badges, they failed over and over to move of showrooms so they just kept selling them at a loss and makeing more of the same. You have to remember that in the US they don't just have a falcon and a commodore. Each of GM and Ford have a dozen badges and many of the cars aren't just optioned up rebadeged variants but actually very different cars. Even Crysler have several badges they sell through. So they have blown over and over development and tooling costs to build many many cars over the last 15 years that no one wanted. That is what has broken them.

Dr Smith:

I think we're all forgetting one simple point. All CEO's in every public company are hired by a board of directors. If their CEO isn't preforming it's their responsbility to remove them. However if the company goes backwards for a few years and the CEO is still there then it's the boards fault just as much. The CEO is publically humiliated when they resign or are sacked, often with huge payouts negotiated before they even joined the company. How many boards are similarly "removed" because the damage certainly happened under their stewardship. The board usually approves a CEO's plans so ultimately they are responsible, yet how come they are not being held accountable in this particular situation?


Me:

That happens. I happen to have shares in a company that fired it's board, oh, about 3 years back. The current lot are getting some pretty clear signals from the owners aswell. The problem is the public company system is a dodge. It's virtually impossible for a consortium of shareholders to even get a nominee onto the list to be voted on at an AGM. It's a boys club. Unless you own a LOT of shares you really have little say.

[vztrt]

One thing we also have to take into account in the US is the big three get stuffed over by the union's. The non-american car makers there dont have this problem, unfortunatly it's bad management in the past that is making them pay for it now.

[Wally]

Well it seems GM listened. = here


The union costs don't look all that high if you use the CEO's hourly cost as a benchmarke = here