Comments on: GM names Edward Whitacre as new chairman

By: olds307

olds307 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:10:28 +0000

Borat: Mr. Whitacre had NOTHING to do with 1984-2006 AT&T… he was chairman of SBC, a 1984 spinnoff of AT&T, who bought other 1984 AT&T spinnoffs, and AT&T itself in 06, then THAT company bought BellSouth in 07.

By: DB9

DB9 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:40:45 +0000

lefty, with all due respect, the difference between an independent, i.e., separate, Chairman of the Board and a CEO versus a joint Chair/CEO is not splitting hairs. When the positions are separate as in GM’s case, as it used to be by the way, the terms and their functions are not interchangeable. You are in Science? What you are saying would be equivalent to me using Osmosis and Mitosis interchangeably – how would that go over? If this is ego stroking then… whatever… not for me to say;-)

DB9

By: leftwingagenda

leftwingagenda — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:21:00 +0000

lol db9, usually i agree with what you post, but you’re practically splitting hairs for the sake of your own ego stroking…

By: armstealer

armstealer — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:26:26 +0000

“Whitacre also serves on the boards of ExxonMobil… ”

…the end

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:25:04 +0000

Weird. DB9, when you do it all I see are the characters. Canadian firewalls?

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:22:28 +0000

All the posturing aside, just what is the and the supposed to do? I guess I’ll see when I submit.

By: DB9

DB9 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:15:34 +0000

Why thank-you;-) Predictable to a fault as always… it’s so… well – you:-)

Later;-)

DB9

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:54:33 +0000

No problem DB9. If I had a problem I just would have called you a f*cking pompous a-hole and have been done with it. But you see I didn’t do that so let’s just say we agree to disagree.

By: DB9

DB9 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:34:22 +0000

^That makes absolutely zero sense. What does any of what’s posted on this story have to do with the appointment of a new Chairman of the Board of Directors for GM? Well? He’s not running the company. He’s Board Chair, historically, for most fortune 500 companies they tend to be retired CEO’s and/or directors.

Funny, I’ve never seen your new found concern/frustration over GM before. Personally, I could care less but the sudden high road seems a bit much;-) What no funny(?) one-liners? Yeah, we get to hear from the select few… same old same old… just by the nic you know what follows… ON almost every freaking post/story here – do you think I’m alone in my opinion? If I see BS, an error or people just being wrong on the facts, no matter what the motive, if I choose I’ll counter it – problem?

DB9;-)

PS. Y’all have a nice night;-) First the smilies, now…

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:46:40 +0000

DB9, while I can’t speak on behalf of everyone you’re speaking down to I’m sure most of us including myself are more than aware of the respective roles. I know the CEO and the Chairman of the Board of my company on a first name basis and while I have the utmost of respect for the latter who is well into his 70s, our former CEO and a member of the Order of Canada the reality during his day is very far removed from today’s business climate. Too far removed if you ask me.

If there is to be a real change in the way GM conducts its business as they are professing to be trying to do then why are they still so stuck in conventions of the past? It obviously didn’t work then and the frustration you’re hearing from some of us is only a reflection of our concern that all we can truly expect is more of the same.

By: DB9

DB9 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:15:34 +0000

Lol:-)) This is getting to be too funny! He was appointed the Chairman of the Board of Directors – NOT -Chief Executive Officer (CEO) – Fritz Henderson. In reading some of the discussions above it’s obvious that quite a few commenting here don’t know the difference between the roles or in fact what each does! Wagoner was both Chair and CEO as was Ed Whitacre at AT&T. As with many large companies it was decided that the Chair and CEO roles would be split at GM, as they were in the past. Henderson runs GM and reports to the board that will be headed by Whitacre. At Ford, Mullaly, who is 4 years younger than Wihtacre, holds both titles. The real power is with the CEO unless the board overrule management – e.g. GM’s CEO Robert Stempel in the early nineties – look it up a good read;-)

This is basic Corporate Governance issues/terminology people. A high school kid in JA would know this. If you don’t, find out it’s not hard! A lot of what’s posted above is glaring in its ignorance – call it what you want by I won’t soft pedal it – just saying;-))

DB9;-)

By: leftwingagenda

leftwingagenda — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:52:17 +0000

wow you guys are bags…this guy is out of the car buying demographic? folks his age don’t buy cars? i had no idea we had so many older pedestrians in this country…oh wait, we don’t…and honestly your completely off your rocker if you think demographics should drive who the CEO is anyway…that’s like saying the CEO of Crocs should be a 9 year old girl because that market drove most of their sales…

anyway, guys like this are hired with the notion that if they are fired or have to step down a few years down the road due to lack of progress with the recovery its not as much of a hassle…think of it like the current pope…from what i understood, nobody really expects a long tenure out of this guy, he’s a transition pope…and this guy may be the equivalent…or who knows, he may actually make some good decisions and gm may improve…

By: NRG

NRG — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:49:31 +0000

@johnnycannuck, you are dead right. Edward Whitacre, JR???? He looks like a senior who could have a heart attack at anytime. The last thing I want to do is work when I am his age. When you think of new blood, which is what GM needs, this is not what I had in mind. He might not even make it past the bankruptcy phase. Doesn’t he have enough money already? There is a term for that. GREED. Some things never change at GM.

By: ahnuconun

ahnuconun — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:21:51 +0000

No, you people got it all wrong! Whitacre is knows his way around defibrillators, and he’s gonna SHOCK the Heartbeat of America back into action!

By: Madcapp

Madcapp — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:02:15 +0000

Great, somebody else who is waaaay too old to be in touch with the carbuying demographic.

By: DB9

DB9 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:00:04 +0000

Where do some people… ah forget it, I don’t have time – maybe later;-) However, a snippet…

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/technology/28phone.html?_r=1

He left on a high note… There’s a lot more if one wants to…

Lucent, NCR… lol yeah right! See British Telecom and BCE’s experience with Nortel – among others over… again could go on and on… nah!:-)

DB9;-)

By: loudpedal

loudpedal — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:58:05 +0000

Just the young blood and fresh source of ideas that the company needs…

By: shaver

shaver — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:40:55 +0000

on the boards of ExxonMobil and Burlington Northern Santa Fe, AT&T’s chairman and CEO until mid-2007 and the Boy Scouts. Thats 3 monopolies and a charity with a man-boy lover problem (allegedly).
SOS, are their no leaders under the age of 70? Jesus christ can a person who barely has a pulse have their finger on the pulse of the industry. Plz stepaside and go enjoy the billions you have been overpaid.

By: Borat

Borat — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:34:16 +0000

Whitacre wants to run GM, because while at At&T he was an attachment to a chair. AT&T had trivestiture in ’90′s because they could not cook books any longer. Separating assets and creating illusion of independent 3 companies was the only way out of self made crisis. Look at what left of those 3 companies. Lucent (which was Bell Labs) had to sell itself to Alcatel and as a result Alcatel is loosing its a$$. The thirds one was NCR. For the record, AT&T purchased NCR in late 80′s or early 90′s for huge premium over the market price to the complete surprise of everyone.
AT&T is leftover name as well. AT&T was loosing money and sold itself to Bell South and combined company took over AT&T name. There is no glory or success in this guy career except the fact that he run 2 companies into the ground: original AT&T that was broken down into 3 companies and “new” AT&T that was acquired at fire sale. Lets face it, I like Wagoner now. I don’t mind Putz either compare to this choice.

By: DB9

DB9 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:19:47 +0000

An excellent choice for Chairman; He brings an excellent reputation and leadership skills. A Chairman should be like… well… to be brief, a Yoda ( diverse wisdom/experience) – hence – why any CEO worth their salt would want the rolls of Chair and CEO split – more effective to the running of a large company. The CEO not the Chair run the company and operations. A good chair acts like a counsel for the CEO – a second opinion outside of the VP’s and COO.

IF GM still traded this would be looked upon favorably by the street in general and the analysts in particular.

DB9;-)

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:14:54 +0000

Jake, that is such a good point. What is with these guys? The last thing I plan on doing in my 60′s or 70′s or however old this fossil is is f*cking working! How the hell do they ever expect to have a line of succession when the old farts at the top never leave or they just replace one with another? You want to start pointing fingers at what’s wrong with GM well here’s where you start.

By: JakeK66

JakeK66 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:06:47 +0000

Why would he want this job? Seriously- you are rich to the point where you can’t spend enough money, your legacy is already set, why? Is his ego that huge?

They should put some uip and comer who has to make a name for himself up top. Just because Ford did it with Alan Mulally doesn’t mean GM has to follow. Put some guy, or gal who’s like in their late 30′s, early 40′s that worked for, or is currently working for Honda or Hyundai North America.

If their goal was to make headlines, put a guy who’s father once ran AMC, and was in charge of a successful venture capital company, Mitt Romney! Actually, they may have asked him, but I have a feeling he’s running in 2012, so nevermind.

By: carstuff

carstuff — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:03:15 +0000

Yea, they should hire a 30 year old.

Anyway at least he has an Engineering background

By: bigs4610

bigs4610 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:02:39 +0000

more political bs moves
no experience.
I’m not saying wagoner was perfect, but hes certainly knows more about the auto industry than these boneheads

same goes for Lutz.

look at the cars theyve pushed for in the recent years.
You CANNOT tell me that they arent superior to the product offerings prior to their hiring

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:55:30 +0000

Gee, an old grey haired white guy- that’s a shock. A “Reinvention” is what they’re calling it on the TV ads up here. Looks more like cloning to me.