"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8a5gc2h1b73qck3o095spum42i0o405oph@4ax.com...

>
> The CEO of Ford made $22 million in 2004. the CEO of GM made $10
> million. I don't think the CEOs of Honda or Toyota are anywhere near
> that. You will excuse me if I question who is being overcompensated
> at the domestic companies.
>

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much a capitalist, but I do believe you've hit
on something here Gordon that hasn't been hashed about much in this
discussion. It's not just an automotive industry issue either. It's a
cultural issue that is hurting the corporate world across industry segments.
Executive compensation has gotten out of hand and the plans are too focused
on factors that provide short sighted "good" for the shareholders. The long
term well being of the company, the well being of the employees, concern and
commitment to the employees, all have fallen out of favor. Customer
satisfaction, which ensures these things has become a point issue which is
addressed in response to problems instead of a goal which drives the
production process of the company. Cost is what drives the company. The
CEO of today is compelled to make cost cutting his number one objective and
his financial success is directly tied to that effort. While a valid
management concern, cost containment is only one part of a long term success
formula. For short term objectives, it is usually the driving element of a
formula.
But - the shareholders like their dividends, the CEO has his own ego driver
that wants to be recognized among his peers for having lead a successful
company, and the stock market has too much influence on business today. It
results in executive packages that encourage and reward short sighted
business practices. Good for the executive pay, not so good for every thing
else in the business.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

Jeff wrote:

> Whose fault is that? Not the bean counters.
>
> Who was stupid enough to give the bean counters the final word?
>
> Jeff
>
>

The Board of Directors, which is hand picked by the CEO, which Board in
turn theoretically hires or fires the CEO.

It really is a mess. The last brilliant CEO GM had was Sloan. He
developed a system which balanced strict financial control from the top
with delegated control of most other things to the division presidents.
After he left, the replacement CEOs took that strict central finance
control and used it to gut the power of the divisions to the point where
they don't exist anymore.

John

 

Jeff wrote:

> Whose fault is that? Not the bean counters.
>
> Who was stupid enough to give the bean counters the final word?
>
> Jeff
>
>

The Board of Directors, which is hand picked by the CEO, which Board in
turn theoretically hires or fires the CEO.

It really is a mess. The last brilliant CEO GM had was Sloan. He
developed a system which balanced strict financial control from the top
with delegated control of most other things to the division presidents.
After he left, the replacement CEOs took that strict central finance
control and used it to gut the power of the divisions to the point where
they don't exist anymore.

John

 

Jeff wrote:

> Whose fault is that? Not the bean counters.
>
> Who was stupid enough to give the bean counters the final word?
>
> Jeff
>
>

The Board of Directors, which is hand picked by the CEO, which Board in
turn theoretically hires or fires the CEO.

It really is a mess. The last brilliant CEO GM had was Sloan. He
developed a system which balanced strict financial control from the top
with delegated control of most other things to the division presidents.
After he left, the replacement CEOs took that strict central finance
control and used it to gut the power of the divisions to the point where
they don't exist anymore.

John

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:

>
> The CEO of Ford made $22 million in 2004. the CEO of GM made $10
> million. I don't think the CEOs of Honda or Toyota are anywhere near
> that. You will excuse me if I question who is being overcompensated
> at the domestic companies.
>

Pretty much all of the employees from top to bottom are being overpaid
by competitive standards.

John

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:

>
> The CEO of Ford made $22 million in 2004. the CEO of GM made $10
> million. I don't think the CEOs of Honda or Toyota are anywhere near
> that. You will excuse me if I question who is being overcompensated
> at the domestic companies.
>

Pretty much all of the employees from top to bottom are being overpaid
by competitive standards.

John

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:

>
> The CEO of Ford made $22 million in 2004. the CEO of GM made $10
> million. I don't think the CEOs of Honda or Toyota are anywhere near
> that. You will excuse me if I question who is being overcompensated
> at the domestic companies.
>

Pretty much all of the employees from top to bottom are being overpaid
by competitive standards.

John

 

Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm very much a capitalist, but I do believe you've hit
> on something here Gordon that hasn't been hashed about much in this
> discussion.

I agree. The circular way in which CEO's pick Boards of Directors who
then in turn compensate the CEO is a major problem. In theory the Board
represents shareholders, but in practice this isn't true.

John

 

Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm very much a capitalist, but I do believe you've hit
> on something here Gordon that hasn't been hashed about much in this
> discussion.

I agree. The circular way in which CEO's pick Boards of Directors who
then in turn compensate the CEO is a major problem. In theory the Board
represents shareholders, but in practice this isn't true.

John

 

Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm very much a capitalist, but I do believe you've hit
> on something here Gordon that hasn't been hashed about much in this
> discussion.

I agree. The circular way in which CEO's pick Boards of Directors who
then in turn compensate the CEO is a major problem. In theory the Board
represents shareholders, but in practice this isn't true.

John

 

In article <yfIxg.17744$pu3.351347@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
"Bassplayer12" <perettij@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

> Aren't Impalas fuel efficient cars? Here in Canada, they are rated at around
> 40MPG.
> BTW, if you think it's too optimistic, remember that Canadian and US gallons
> are different.
They will get that on highway driving.
In urban driving their milage reflects their weight and engine size, the
same as similar competition.

 

In article <yfIxg.17744$pu3.351347@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
"Bassplayer12" <perettij@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

> Aren't Impalas fuel efficient cars? Here in Canada, they are rated at around
> 40MPG.
> BTW, if you think it's too optimistic, remember that Canadian and US gallons
> are different.
They will get that on highway driving.
In urban driving their milage reflects their weight and engine size, the
same as similar competition.

 

In article <yfIxg.17744$pu3.351347@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
"Bassplayer12" <perettij@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

> Aren't Impalas fuel efficient cars? Here in Canada, they are rated at around
> 40MPG.
> BTW, if you think it's too optimistic, remember that Canadian and US gallons
> are different.
They will get that on highway driving.
In urban driving their milage reflects their weight and engine size, the
same as similar competition.

 

jg wrote:
> "dbltap" <DoubleTap@37.com> wrote in message
> news:G0Bxg.3225$gF6.1123@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>>http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...plate=printart
>>
>>Foreign cars pass Big 3
>>
>
> .............
>
>>"The trick for the domestic automakers is going to be that they need to
>> development dollars across every development segment in which they
>>want to compete, and that includes cars and trucks," Wardlaw said.
>>
>
> Even including cars & trucks huh? Observations like that one from an
> "expert" might give some insight into why they are losing ground.
>
>

It seems like an oxymoron, yet isn't when you consider the product lines
of GM, Ford and Chrysler. At any given time over the past 10 years
none of them have had compelling products in all of the markets they
compete in. Ford, for example, had put the vast majority of it's
investment into it's trucks and SUVs over the past 1-2 decades and has
never once in that time fielded top class vehicles in each of the car
categories. It even gave up on the mid-size car class all together when
the Contour failed to meet sales expectations.

GM has the problem of too many brand as well. At any given time GM is
busy investing in one or two of it's brands while the other languish.

If you can't be one of the best in category, then you shouldn't bother
playing. However, if you are one of the top three vehicle makers in the
world then you need to play in a big way in every significant segment.
Toyota does so. GM, Ford and Chrysler do not.

Honda takes another tact. Honda knows it is not one of the biggest, so
they rifle shoot at markets where they feel they can place extremely
competitive products. Consequently, Honda's hit rate is much higher
than any of the US makers enjoy. Every one of Honda's present US
offerings consistently lands among the best-in-class ratings visa-vis
competitors. GM and Ford are lucky if they land one or two vehicles on
such lists.

John


John

 

jg wrote:
> "dbltap" <DoubleTap@37.com> wrote in message
> news:G0Bxg.3225$gF6.1123@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>>http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...plate=printart
>>
>>Foreign cars pass Big 3
>>
>
> .............
>
>>"The trick for the domestic automakers is going to be that they need to
>> development dollars across every development segment in which they
>>want to compete, and that includes cars and trucks," Wardlaw said.
>>
>
> Even including cars & trucks huh? Observations like that one from an
> "expert" might give some insight into why they are losing ground.
>
>

It seems like an oxymoron, yet isn't when you consider the product lines
of GM, Ford and Chrysler. At any given time over the past 10 years
none of them have had compelling products in all of the markets they
compete in. Ford, for example, had put the vast majority of it's
investment into it's trucks and SUVs over the past 1-2 decades and has
never once in that time fielded top class vehicles in each of the car
categories. It even gave up on the mid-size car class all together when
the Contour failed to meet sales expectations.

GM has the problem of too many brand as well. At any given time GM is
busy investing in one or two of it's brands while the other languish.

If you can't be one of the best in category, then you shouldn't bother
playing. However, if you are one of the top three vehicle makers in the
world then you need to play in a big way in every significant segment.
Toyota does so. GM, Ford and Chrysler do not.

Honda takes another tact. Honda knows it is not one of the biggest, so
they rifle shoot at markets where they feel they can place extremely
competitive products. Consequently, Honda's hit rate is much higher
than any of the US makers enjoy. Every one of Honda's present US
offerings consistently lands among the best-in-class ratings visa-vis
competitors. GM and Ford are lucky if they land one or two vehicles on
such lists.

John


John