Chrysler

>Chrysler hires Nardelli as boss
>By James Politi and Francesco Guerrera in New York
>Financial Times
>Updated: 4:12 p.m. MT Aug 6, 2007
>Chrysler, the US carmaker, on Monday confirmed it had hired Bob Nardelli,
>who was controversially ousted from Home Depot, the second-largest US
>retailer, in January as its next chairman and chief executive.
>
>The selection of Mr Nardelli reflected his aen as an operational
>manager people close to Chrysler said.
>
>Tom LaSorda, current chief executive of Chrysler, will remain at the
>carmaker as vice-chairman and president.
>
>The surprise move to hire Mr Nardelli follows last week's change of
>ownership at Chrysler, which was sold by DaimlerChrysler, the German
>carmaker, to Cerberus Capital Management, the US private equity firm, in a
>$7.4bn deal.
>
>Wolfgang Bernhard, the former Chrysler chief operating officer who was
>brought in by Cerberus this year to help it execute the acquisition,
>decided not to accept a post as executive vice-chairman at Chrysler,
>people close to the matter said. They added that Eric Ridenour, current
>chief operating officer, would leave the company.
>
>Mr Nardelli more than doubled sales during his six years as chief
>executive of Home Depot. He joined the retailer after narrowly missing out
>on the top job at General Electric, but was criticised for his imperial
>management style and poor relationship with shareholders.
>
>His $210m severance package also became emblematic of the outsized
>compensation commanded by corporate America's top managers and contributed
>to an investor backlash that forced many companies to agree on non-binding
>shareholder votes on executive pay. At Chrysler, his compensation will be
>directly linked to the equity performance of the carmaker, people close to
>the matter said.
>
>Mr Nardelli's decision to return at the helm of a private equity-owned
>group confirms many experts' prediction he would find it difficult to
>stage a comeback among listed companies.
>
>However, even his critics acknowledged that, despite his abrasive
>character, his operational skills, forged in the managerial hotbed of GE's
>industrial businesses, would be highly sought after by private equity
>groups. The main issue for Chrysler would come if Cerberus decides to exit
>its investment through an initial public offering in a few years' time, as
>institutional investors may raise questions over Mr Nardelli's suitability
>to lead a listed company.
>
>He is the latest former GE executive to join private equity. Jack Welch,
>who picked Jeffrey Immelt instead of Mr Nardelli as his successor as GE's
>chairman and chief executive in 2000, is a senior adviser at Clayton
>Dubilier & Rice, while David Calhoun, a former GE's vice-chairman, was
>poached by the private equity groups that bought media group VNU, now
>Nielsen, last year.
>
>Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.

Can we trust anybody whose name ends in a vowel? Aside from that, Nardelli
comes from a non-automotive background. He knows how to peddle, but, so
what? You might as well put my wife in charge of Chrysler being she knows
how to cook and clean. Seems I remember Walter Chrysler was a mechanic,
wasn't he? Am I to believe there is no one in this company that knows cars
inside and out and can't better run Chrysler than a guy who best knows how
to push lumber out the door?

I was a little surprised. You need to remember that Home Depot just paid
him $210 million to LEAVE. Who'd hire somebody like that? How do you
motivate a man who just got paid $210 million to quit his old job?

Meaning?

DAS

For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"George Orwell" <> wrote in message
news: ...
[...]

> Can we trust anybody whose name ends in a vowel?
[...]

"Joe" <> wrote in message
news:zZbui.295$
> I was a little surprised. You need to remember that Home Depot just paid
> him $210 million to LEAVE. Who'd hire somebody like that? How do you
> motivate a man who just got paid $210 million to quit his old job?
>

Um, it's not a question of motivating him with compensation.

You have to understand what Cerberus is up to. They bought Chrysler with
the idea that they will get it profitable then do an IPO and make a killing
on all the investors that buy the stock.

The problem though is the stock market has got a lot more fragile than
it was 6 months ago. Cerberus is afraid that if they don't get Chrysler
profitable soon then even if they eventually do get it profitable, they
would lose money on making it go public because they are thinking the
stock market is going to go down further.

So, how do they make it profitable quick? Simple. They squeeze all
the suppliers, they threaten the dealers with losing their franchises if
they
don't get sales up, they cut corners on manufacturing, they cut labor
by laying off people. They don't really care if what they do deals mortal
blows to the company. To do all this they have to hire someone who is
just nasty as all get out, someone who LIKES being the number one
. They want the labor unions facing a CEO who the union thinks
might actually go out and do something insanely stupid, like close an entire
plant down if a few troublemakers in it manage to vote down a contract.
That's Nardelli in a nutshell.

Ted

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <> wrote in message
news:newscache$0vnlmj$s6q$
>
> "Joe" <> wrote in message
> news:zZbui.295$
>> I was a little surprised. You need to remember that Home Depot just paid
>> him $210 million to LEAVE. Who'd hire somebody like that? How do you
>> motivate a man who just got paid $210 million to quit his old job?
>>
>
> Um, it's not a question of motivating him with compensation.
>
> You have to understand what Cerberus is up to. They bought Chrysler with
> the idea that they will get it profitable then do an IPO and make a
> killing
> on all the investors that buy the stock.
>
> The problem though is the stock market has got a lot more fragile than
> it was 6 months ago. Cerberus is afraid that if they don't get Chrysler
> profitable soon then even if they eventually do get it profitable, they
> would lose money on making it go public because they are thinking the
> stock market is going to go down further.
>
> So, how do they make it profitable quick? Simple. They squeeze all
> the suppliers, they threaten the dealers with losing their franchises if
> they
> don't get sales up, they cut corners on manufacturing, they cut labor
> by laying off people. They don't really care if what they do deals mortal
> blows to the company. To do all this they have to hire someone who is
> just nasty as all get out, someone who LIKES being the number one
> . They want the labor unions facing a CEO who the union thinks
> might actually go out and do something insanely stupid, like close an
> entire
> plant down if a few troublemakers in it manage to vote down a contract.
> That's Nardelli in a nutshell.
>
> Ted
>

Well, maybe so, but if he can save them 300 million dollars, and they have
to pay him 500 million dollars, they're going to be way in the hole. If he
can save them $500 million, then they basically haven't done anything.

Realistically, there are lots of talented people who would love to run
Chrysler for 2 or 3 million bucks, and would do it well. Carlos Goshn is
CEO of two car companies now and he makes about $3 million.

On 08/13/07 09:23 pm Joe wrote:

> Well, maybe so, but if he can save them 300 million dollars, and they have
> to pay him 500 million dollars, they're going to be way in the hole. If he
> can save them $500 million, then they basically haven't done anything.
>
> Realistically, there are lots of talented people who would love to run
> Chrysler for 2 or 3 million bucks, and would do it well. Carlos Goshn is
> CEO of two car companies now and he makes about $3 million.


Look, I'd be willing to run Chrysler for a month. I wouldn't be able to
do *much* damage in that short time, then they can fire me and pay me
the same for that month as Nardelli got for each month he was at HD.

Perce

"Percival P. Cassidy" <> wrote in message
news:PYiwi.23$
> On 08/13/07 09:23 pm Joe wrote:
>
>> Well, maybe so, but if he can save them 300 million dollars, and they
>> have to pay him 500 million dollars, they're going to be way in the hole.
>> If he can save them $500 million, then they basically haven't done
>> anything.
>>
>> Realistically, there are lots of talented people who would love to run
>> Chrysler for 2 or 3 million bucks, and would do it well. Carlos Goshn is
>> CEO of two car companies now and he makes about $3 million.
>
>
> Look, I'd be willing to run Chrysler for a month. I wouldn't be able to do
> *much* damage in that short time, then they can fire me and pay me the
> same for that month as Nardelli got for each month he was at HD.
>
> Perce

I've always thought that. Any institution would find it hard to keep me on
the job for $10 million a month. After a month I'd be so gone they'd never
find me. It just goes to show that American CEO's are all insane, or else I
am.

In article <39vwi.300$>, "Joe" <>
wrote:

> I've always thought that. Any institution would find it hard to keep me on
> the job for $10 million a month. After a month I'd be so gone they'd never
> find me. It just goes to show that American CEO's are all insane, or else I
> am.

Why are they insane, when they reap such unjustified rewards.
I'd say they are very smart and are taking the company boards to the
cleaners.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:56:16 GMT, who <> wrote:

>In article <39vwi.300$>, "Joe" <>
>wrote:
>
>> I've always thought that. Any institution would find it hard to keep me on
>> the job for $10 million a month. After a month I'd be so gone they'd never
>> find me. It just goes to show that American CEO's are all insane, or else I
>> am.
>
>Why are they insane, when they reap such unjustified rewards.
>I'd say they are very smart and are taking the company boards to the
>cleaners.

No, they are taking the company stockholders to the cleaners...
I'm increasingly surprised that there are not more stockholder revolts
at annual meetings.

I suppose the only reason why there are not more stockholder revolts
is that the majority of shares in many companies are owned by mutual
funds or pension trusts.

Doug

In article <>,
Doug <> wrote:

> No, they are taking the company stockholders to the cleaners...
> I'm increasingly surprised that there are not more stockholder revolts
> at annual meetings.
Correct, but after the board approves of the stealing.
>
> I suppose the only reason why there are not more stockholder revolts
> is that the majority of shares in many companies are owned by mutual
> funds or pension trusts.
True and many individual shareholders wouldn't find it an effective use
of their time and money to go to the shareholder meetings launching a
protest that would be ignored anyway.