Rick Wagoner will step down

Why? He just took over just 2 1/2 years ago. Ford has cut costs and done much to turn around. GM, since Wagoner took over, has lost about

1/2 its market share and has nearly landed in backrupcy court. Ford future is called "the way forward." Under Wagoner, GM's future would be "the way down the drain."

Really, controlling a few key industries for a limited period of time does not make the republic socialist.

Jeff

///snipped///

Really, controlling a few key industries for a limited period of time does not make the republic socialist.

Jeff

The longest journey begins with a single step!!!!!!

DaveD

Various Europen Governements have tired owning car compnaies. It has never worked out very well. It is hard to blame companies when you own them. Much better to snipe from the sidelines.

Ed

The decision of Ford to refuse TARP monies was probably a bondholder decision. Not Mullaly's.

On the otherhand, I suspect Ford's ability to continue without the goverment loans was the result of actions taken after Ford hired Mullaly as CEO. Ford cut much sooner and deeper that GM or Chrysler. Ford lined up additional lines of private credit. Ford did not allow Ford Motor Credit to go whole hog into the marginal mortgage buisness like GMAC did. As a result Ford Cedit is still profitable, Ford has non-goverment credit available, and Ford does not need to make the sort of painful cuts GM is being forced to make. So whether Mullaly made the decision to not take the loans is moot. Actions taken while he was CEO allow Ford to continue without the government loans - at least for now. So if you can heap the blame for GM's problems on Wagoner, then you need to throw a little praise towards the Ford CEO. The way things are going, Ford may soon be regain it's place as the second largest automoble manufacturer in the world, but second to Toyota now, instead of GM.

Ed

Bondholders have no decision power as long as Ford continues to make the payments - Stockholders and company officers do. I'd say the Ford family along with the current company officers made the decision to refuse the money.

Derek

I disagree. Ford does need to make the same sort of painful cuts that GM needs to make. The difference is Ford is already doing them.

My point was that Ford had already made amny of the cuts that GM is only now looking at. Before the crisis was apparent, Ford had already started shutting down excess capacity (Norfolk, Atlanta,....). Ford made the cuts early enough and arranged financeing early enough, that they are in a much better position than GM. They may need to make a few more cuts, but not nearly the number of painful cuts GM will be forced to make.

Ed

The only thing that is appropriate is that Ford pre-empted GM in seeing ahead, was able, and did something about that anticipation. Who or what entity within that Ford organization that chose not to take TARP funds is really a mystery. Mullaly, as CEO for Ford, did tell Congress, for now, that chose now to accept such funding. That's all most of know for sure. No, whoever/whatever made that decision is not moot. This person(s)/entity is what made that decision. And is my Ford hero in reality vs. Mullaly figurehead.

To my knowledge, Ford credit, also known as Ford Motor Credit, strictly finances purchase of their automobiles. GMAC does that and a bunch more in the monies arena. Seems apples and oranges argument there. If not, explain. If not, rather, it seems GM got itself in the predicament in similar fashion as other banks did (though not formerly known as a "bank" until that was determined later on so GMAC could receive additional aid from Uncle Sam)