LyrArc Article Gist
Wagoner became President at age 45, CEO at age 48. So you would think that young blood is coming in to GM, but that does not appear to be the case. At the Board level most of the Board members like George Fisher formerly of Motorola, have been around for a long time, and there does not appear to be new blood that would bring in fresh thinking. And serious decisions about investment in developing new technologies to develop fuel efficient cars, like hybrid technologies, electric and other alternative technologies, diesel technology, have been held up for years at General Motors. The way decisions are made on such issues with Board members voicing their opinions more than wrestling seriously with the issues, shows serious shortcomings of management and the Board. At key points of decision making the CEO and key members of his team had not prepared carefully, and Board members did not come up with serious thinking on the problems facing GM. It, appears that the investment in technologies to develop fuel efficient cars much earlier, long before they were finally being addressed in 2006, was a failure of Wagoner's management and of the Board. Management discussed this but continued to be mired in old ways of thinking that continuing with the status quo- cars with existing low fuel efficiency- would not expose GM to illwinds as preferences changed. Its clear from the description here of discussions within GM that the old thinking is quite entrenched at GM, and Wagoner just was not the kind of person who could vigorously articulate a new vision for GM. A couple of things are noteworthy in this account of management indecision at GM. When fuel prices began hurting sales of SUV's and large vehicles in 2005, efforts to get a decision on investments in new technologies for fuel efficiency for the whole product lineup failed at the Board level in an April 2005 meeting. One Board member saying at that meeting, that" do we want to lose another billion dollars in developing new technology for fuel efficient cars." And no one calling him to account that the remark still did not address the point that GM had to respond to the changing market and world oil dynamics, and not just hope for the best, as GM had aggressive competitors, and faced continually diminishing role in the market place for the entire decade of the 1990's. While April 2005 was already at the tail end of the previous era of gas guzzling cars and a decision then would still not have shown a forward looking vision of things, it was not until 10 months later that a decision was reached. And this almost from necessity, as oil prices jumped in 2006 after hurricane Katrina, and by this time President Bush was also calling for higher mandated fuel efficiency standards. The other noteworthy point here is that by making the changes so late in the game, GM had to compress the development cycle for new and some cases unknown technologies into short time frames. If the ingenuity of its engineers comes to its rescue it still faces another hurdle that of cost, because the technologies have to be perfected and improved, so that the costs are low enough for customers, and importantly comparable with what it is costing competitors to make the same fuel efficient technology engine or other part. Which is why one Honda executive remarked, "GM like everyone else is serious about this, because they have to be, but how many of their hybrids and how many Volts will they sell? Their technology is very expensive." Even if GM develops the Volt electric car by 2010, GM will need a whole range of fuel efficient technolgies to power its large product lineup. Its just to hard to avoid the conclusion that this is going to prove costly. All the dragging of feet and indecision, and failure to prepare GM for a different world in case something drastically different from what was expected happened, will prove very costly especially considering how aggressive and well financed some of the Japanese and German competitors are. It also hard to avoid the conclusion that there is too much bureaucracy at the large auto companies, and getting new blood and new ideas and fresh thinking is tough in a place where everybody agrees with everybody else, and there is uniformity of thinking. This makes it difficult for any original or wayward types to thrive. These bureaucracies look up to the top for direction. Initiative is discouraged on one hand, and at the same time even if a new direction is taken at the top. a lot of resistance can be expected to implementing it throughout the company without persistent persuasion and reminder of new facts and realities. This is true for both Wagoner and Mullaly as they face the skepticism of subordinates to new direction. Mullaly for instance has to remind his managers that large vehicles are only a small percentage of the entire global market, and if Toyota is making money in small cars so can Ford. See the link to this. Is Toyota immune from bureaucracy type behaviour throughout the company? Not really, Toyota's chairman emeritus came out of retirement in fact and went out of the way to caution its CEO and management about their complacency a year or so before. Shoichiro Toyoda personally intervened to caution against too much expansion in the US and climbing wage costs, and other risks they perceived such as the company managers in the USA appearing to be resting on their laurels. See the link to this. A lot of discussion is probably going on within these companies about the present state of affairs, and considerable anxiety for what the future will bring. It may be useful to ask the question is there something that makes it difficult for once successful organizations -now with entrenched bureaucracy and set ways -to put forward leaders with vision and foresight, till it becomes very late? The vision and foresight about where their markets and the world is heading, and the ability to move their organizations in that direction. Or to break out of old patterns of behaviour and thinking....

LyrArc Article Gist
China Investment Corporation, China's sovereign wealth fund is expected to issue upto 28 billion in bonds to help recapitalize China's state owned banks. These banks face the prospect of increasing bad loans as a result of the hectic pace of bank lending in 2009-2010. Loans guaranteed by muncipal governments are estimated at 7.7 trillion yuan, or 17% of overall lending, about 50% of these loans face uncertainty in the event of falling housing prices, and 25% are bad loans. The recent IPO of Agricultural Bank of China raised funds, but the environment for raising money in this way does not look good, as information is spreading that these banks face large loan losses. The bonds from CIC would be picked up by state controlled companies. Yet these state controlled companies are engaging in the real estate speculation, as reported by David Barboza of the New York Times and Peter Coy of Business Week. In a down cycle things could get much worse as a state sovereign fund is selling bonds, state controlled companies would buy these bonds, and state controlled banks are expected to be recapitalized making a complete circle....

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president elect Trump meets with the heads of tech businesses on Dec. 14, 2016. CEO's of Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft were present. Trump was exuberant about the advantages secured by U.S. tech companies in global business, saying- "there's nobody like you in the world. Anything that the government can do to help this go along, we're going to be there for you." The discussions covered need for more vocational education, advantages and disadvantages of trade with China, and immigration. Quarterly meetings of this type are now planned with a smaller group organized by Jared Kushner to cover immigration and education.  Jeff Bezos of Amazon described the meeting as "very productive." Bezos says he told the group that the best way was to use innovation to create jobs outside of tech in agriculture, infrastructure, manufacturing elsewhere, to create large number of jobs. Ginni Rometty, CEO of IBM, and other executives are part of the Strategic and Policy Forum set up to provide business input to the president. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Stephanie Pope is good for Boeing and good for America. Pope headed the parts and services business, and is now the CEO of the commercial aircraft unit. With quality defects a major issue for Boeing leading to two CEO's leaving early, the last being Mr Calhoun a finance executive leaving in December 2024, there is strong opinion that an engineer is needed, yet merely an engineer is not enough as Muilenberg an Iowa State engineer stepped down in 2019. Stephanie Pope has an accounting degree from Missouri State, joined McDonnell Douglas in 1994, which merged into Boeing in 1997.  She says "Culture beats strategy. If you have wrong culture you never succeed." and "Out of failure comes success. You can't be afraid of failure." It's rare to hear that. It also tells one that she has the right idea and practices about the process and hard work that gets results. Pros- she loves the company her grandfather was sheet metal inspector for the company, her father electrical mechanic, at McDonnell Douglas based in St. Louis, Missouri.  She has worked 30 years at the company. She aspired to be a teacher- and its good to have humility.  A VP in the parts and services unit describes how she helps out when quality issues come up in a hands on way bringing in engineers and other resources to help. The Chief Engineer says she is comfortable in the technical space.                                                  Cons- She has an accounting background. There is a sense that Boeing wanted to push planes out of he factory floor as fast as possible to meet production targets. Stephanie Pope with her humility, hands on style, her attitude in work with others, treating assembly line workers with dignity, her attention to the culture at Boeing, persistence in the face of failure,  all present a rare opportunity for Boeing and for America to engage in the task of renewal under a new leadership conscious of its responsibilities.        ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Spirit Airlines strategy to charge for almost everything from snacks to bags, reservations on the phone and other items for a flight- making it a bare bones flight like that of European budget carrier Ryanair- has proven very successful. Spirit's net profit per plane is now the highest by far in the U.S. airline industry. Spirit leads with $2.06 million profit per plane, followed by Delta at $1.21, United $1.19, JetBlue $0.51, Southwest $0.32, US Airways $0.21, and American at a negative $2.32 million, according to Ascend and FactSet Research. Spirit has stayed away from business fliers, instead pursuing the frugal flyer, other than the seat everything has a price. Boarding passes cost $5, water $3. Spirit started the trend to charge for bags. Southwest has moved away from the no frills arrangement and Spirit is gutsily moving that way. Carryons in the overhead bin run $30-$45. Compared to other airlines which get only 6% of revenues from add on charges, Spirit gets about 50%. Since 1989 Spirit earned $289 million, compared to $1 billion for way larger Southwest. Bill Franke, a former CEO of America West Airlines in 1990's, bought Spirit with the idea of modeling it on Ryanair in Europe, after Spirit could not turn a profit flying Midwest passengers to Florida. He teamed up with CEO Baldanza to run the operation on a hands on basis with only 1% going for advertising, and Franke doing some of the ads in emails. Running flight on a tight schedule means late flights and with tight seating and strict refund policies, Spirit has many complaints. It has the worst on time performance in the industry. Yet it has planes running close to capacity in today's frugal customer environment. Prices are about 30% lower than competitors according to industry analysts. Franke and Baldanza seem to revel in this, sensing that they have struck the right tone for a frugal flier, and outdone cost pioneer Southwest. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ's Yun-Hee Kim's interview with J.K. Shin, CEO of Samsung Mobile in March 2013, at the time of the launch of the Galaxy IV smartphone.

LyrArc Article Gist
Changes Novartis CEO Daniel Vasella is making in the pharmaceutical business. He has hired Joe Jimenez, who is running Novartis's consumer health care business to be the new pharmaceutical division chief. Jimenez previously worked at packaged goods companies including H.J. Heinz Company. Jimenez is cutting 25% of the jobs at pharmaceutical division's headquarters in Basel to reduce bureaucracy and costs. In March he promoted Trevor Mundel and Andrin Oswald, 2 young executives, to head the drug developmet group which puts drugs through human testing and submits them for regulatory approval. This group had become too bureaucratic and slow to move and take initiative. To improve its functioning Jimenez is organizing it into small teams with each team assigned an experimental drug in Novartis's pipeline. Each team of 8 people including physicians, experts in regulatory affairs and marketing and toxicologists work together to spot potential safety issues early and discuss them with regulators to determine whether to put the drug through expensive clinical trials. Each team takes the responsibility to take its drug to the market. The pharmaceutical unit is also being organized to be more nimble. It solicits health systems early on whether its willing to pay for drugs. And Jimenez has startd 4 pilot projects in tough markets to improve relationships with payers, including the Pacific Northwest where Novartis has offered to train an HMO's nurses in aspects of heart disease. Vasella supports the generics division of Sandoz because the growth is in generics, with generics commanding 60% of the prescription volume in Germany and USA, and sales for generics up 25% this year in the generics division. And Novartis paid $39 billion for Alcon, a eye care company. Its also working aggressively in the vaccines business, which like generics enjoys double digit growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This condensed adaptation of the book by McNish and Silcoff on the collapse of Blackberry with the launch of the iPhone, tells a story of complacency at Research in Motion. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis once said that complacency was like all the seven sins rolled into one. In the smartphone industry the results were lethal. RIM founders Lazaridis and Balsillie responded to the iPhone launch believing this would not affect Blackberry. The founders rationalized that what would determine success in the business was security, battery life, ability to type, and using less capacity so as not to strain networks, areas in which RIM was strong and on which it had built its market presence. Design, using mobile to offer broad access to internet content, and the touch screen, were not seen as changing the very nature of the phone market. During the summer of 2007 many users shifted to the iPhone, and it cultivated a cult following using strategies Apple had honed on earlier product launches, reaching 1 million in sales. RIM was completely unprepared and could offer Verizon Communications a prototype called the Storm, which was launched hastily with product glitches still remaining. This happened in November 2008 and turned out to be complete disaster- initial sales were great selling 1 million units in 2 months of 2008, but reversed when almost all of the units were returned because the browser was slow and the clickable screen did not respond well. Nokia, another competitor, is also caught unawares sticking to its formula of success, when all the rules were being rewritten by Apple by showing what the new possiblilities were with the right technology in what one could do with a smartphone. Blackberry introduced a smartphone in 2012 by putting together a patchwork of licensed technologies. By this time Apple, Samsung and other competitors had captured significant market share, and the smartphone flopped. The successor Z10 also flopped in 2013. Nokia faced another problem- the inability to convert R&D, at times larger than Google and Apple, into new products, and the failure of management to grasp the potential of new technologies. According to a former employee, Nokia management turned down a internet ready phone with touch screen developed by its engineers in 2004....

LyrArc Article Gist
German born Joerg Reinhardt, the new chairman of Novartis, is overseeing the plan to revitalize and strengthen its R&D operations. Reinhardt who has a doctorate in pharmaceutical sciences, spent 30 years working for Novartis and its predecessor company Sandoz, before leaving for Bayer in 2010 and returning to Novartis. He is leading the effort by setting up a board subcommittee setup to oversee the research and development effort. The new subcommittee's task is to review the R&D strategy and organization. The subcommittee will advise the board on scientific trends and activities critical to R&D success. Novartis has increased R&D budget to 5.6% in 2013, which will remain at that level in 2014. The pharmaceutical industry by contrast decreased spending by 2.2% in 2013 compared to the high point in 2011, according to PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Research activities will be concentrated in 4 cities- Shanghai, Basel, Boston and La Jolla, California, to take advantage of infrastructure already in place in these places. A review of Novartis's portfolio of business begun in 2013 will be completed in 2014. Reinhardt says acquisitions of upto $5 billion could be made to build scale for promising smaller units. The review also includes Novartis's one third stake in Roche built up since 2001, and conversations Reinhardt is having with Roche's new chairman Christopher Franz....

LyrArc Article Gist
With poor sales for the Blackberry Z 10 in 2013, AT&T and Best Buy retailers are discounting the phone to $49 for a refurbished phone, and $99 for a new phone from the original price of $199. Such steep discounting soon after the March 2013 launch of the Z 10 suggests the phone is selling poorly.

LyrArc Article Gist
Nouriel Roubini says nationalization is the right solution. Similiar to action taken in Sweden, where the government nationalized the banks, and then after fixing them privatized the banks. He thinks about six months from now would be good timing, as most of the banks will be insolvent by then. The government does not have the risk of disturbing other solvent banks, if at that time it just moved in and nationalized the banks. Obama has cover, because already Republicans like Graham are endorsing nationalization as an option. And Republicans would prefer nationalization over putting in trillions of dollars into banks, and letting good dollars go in after bad. Roubini says that between guarantees, liquidity support and capitalization, the government has provided between $7 trillion to $9 trillion to help the financial system. Defacto the government is already controlling a big chunk of the banking system he says. This would just make it official. Another reason for doing this, is that the earlier solution of taking one failed bank or financial institution and merging it with another, as was done for Merrill, Countrywide, Bear Stearns, WaMu, is like merging two zombie banks. The result is not a stronger institution but one that is just as weak as before. In his picturesque language he says its like having two drunks trying to keep each other standing. He would like to see the big bank split into three or four pieces, creating a number of regional or national banks that are stronger. Because nationalization has become the N-word he says, it could be referred to as temporary receivership. Has Roubini been more prescient than others? No, says Roubini, a number of other people got it right. Robert Shiller on the housing bubble, Steve Roach on asset and consumption bubbles, Ken Rogoff on global imbalances in the current account deficit. He says he put the dots together and gave a more fleshed out picture. This interview was conducted by a fellow Professor of Roubini's at the Stern School of Business of New York University, Tunku Varadarajan. What about Greenspan? I think he says, a belief in market economics led to an excessive ideological belief that there are no market failures and no issues of distortions of incentives. "Central banks were created to provide financial stability. Greenspan forgot this, and it was a mistake. I think there were ideological blinders, taking Ayn Rand's view of the world to an extreme." Did the media play its proper role as this situation developed with all its inherent dangers, asks Varadarajan. In the bubble years everybody became a cheerleader, and the media became a cheerleader. The tough questions were not asked, and there was a failure there says Roubini. They failed in one of the duties of good journalism. The Masters of the Universe were on the cover, the imperial CEO, private equity, and others, no one asked how is it that this guy is producing such high returns each year, is it because he is so smart, or because he is taking on so much risk that he may face bankruptcy in two years? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about how Mr Geithner has handled his job at the New York Fed and at Treasury during the bailouts of financial firms. Were there close relationships with bankers, hedge fund managers, and others that compromised the Fed's ability to regulate the financial industry? Why was Geithner advocating loosening standards for the reserves financial institutions have to hold to insure against potential future losses, as late as 2007? Inherent in the design of the job of New York Fed President was a conflict of interest, as the institution is supposed to be a watchdog over the financial industry, but the President of the NY Fed reports to a board that is comprised of the heads of banks and financial instituitons. These financial leaders also participate in the selection of the new President. Geithner was a quick learner and a listener, who asked questions, but he was an outsider coming from work at AID, the IMF and Treasury. He is described by one bank executive Sanford Weill as "a baby face," and lacked experience in dealing with the financial industry. He was brought in by Rubin and Summers, two mentors at Treasury. These two had close ties to the financial industry, and did not question practices of overleveraging and risk taking in the financial industry. Was it too much to ask of Geithner, under the circumstances, that he would rock the boat and ask the tough questions about risk and leveraging. On the other hand did he miss things completely when he was asking for even looser capital standards for banks in 2007, less than a year before the crisis hit, which were never adopted. And was he too close to the financial industry and aggressive in the wrong sort of way when advocating in a meeting as President of the New York Fed, that the government back up all the debt in the financial system. Did he too casually overlook the conditions that could easily be put in place for the government to be able to recover some of the money put into the bailouts. And was he too close to Goldman Sachs, that he brought Goldman in for advice in the AIG bailout, even though there were conflicts of interest and money that would never be recovered from the $182 billion bailout of AIG, some of which went to banks including Goldman. If Geithner had seen some of the problems in risk taking why had he not supported FDIC's Bair in her opposing view for capital reserves, and government conditions on bailouts that enabled some recovery of capital put into failing financial institutions. And did he get too close to Citi, that at one point Sanford Weill tried to bring him in as CEO even when he was already President of the New York Fed. Does it go to show that -the very idea that this was even possible- the design of the New York Fed with the President reporting to the Board of the very same bank presidents that he was supposed keep in check, makes for an incomprehensible position of regulation at odds with the structure of reporting and selection....

LyrArc Article Gist
A former Wall Street trader says banning bonuses for investment bankers would take out much of the risk in the financial system. The current system is different from the one he joined as an intern in the 1980's, he says. At that time banking was a bland business, where the head of a financial firm made about the same as a junior trader makes nowadays. Large bonuses of today were rare at the time. What large incentives to take risk in the form of bonuses do is to encourage extreme risk taking, especially when the downside or pain as a consequence of these decisions is passed on to other individuals or institutions, or the government.

LyrArc Article Gist
The designers finally get their say to bring a new vehicle to the market which is something quite different. Sales tends to be conservative and in this case the concept vehicle for the Flex was first shown at the 2005 International Auto Show in Detroit. Usually this is where so many people take different shots at it that by the time engineering, sales and production have modified it does'nt look the same. This is on situation in which the concept vehicle made it all the way to a production model at the New York Auto Show in 2007. The designers were able to sell it as a new kind of crossover idea to seat a family and draw customers who were dumping their large SUV's fpr other vehicles. As some designers see it a mix of the Mini Cooper and a Ford 1940's classic "Woody". Its one of the bold moves by Ford. Mulally after he took the CEo position at Ford supported the idea and its due to be in showrooms in summer 2008. See the link to the article on how much difficulty Ford (and GM) are having getting people to come to the showrooms and how Ford has had to resort to novel and extreme ways of getting people to test drive Ford cars and talk about them. What better way to do this than to come up with something new in design and let the product do the talking. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What is the relevance of this to the automobile industry or other industries facing a situation where proliferating brands and changing business conditions and consumer trends require new approaches. This is an example of change in the clothing and retail industry. Focussing on a smaller number of brands as the proliferating brands required too much management attention making for "complexity management" the expression used here. Focus on particular brands, even phasing out the Liz Claiborne brand and replacing it with a new Liz & Co label and trying out new approaches with depat stores, building its own stores, all follow a changing market and buyer behaviour. Speed based retailers like Spain's Zara who can respond quickly to changing market tastes, and Sweden's H&M are changing the way the market is organized as specialty retailers have more of the business and department stores are shrinking in clothing sales. Claiborne was heavily dependent on department stores and structured for that kind of business. Now its a whole new ball game....

LyrArc Article Gist
James Stewart of the NYT describes the remarkable turnaround at Best Buy executed by Hubert Joly, a graduate of the French Etudes de Politiques in Paris and former CEO of Swedish hotel and travel company Carlson. He did this by carefully analyzing the areas where Best Buy was falling short and not delivering for customers a winning proposition. Statistics showed Best Buy had fallen behind on price. One survey showed only 23% of respondents found Best Buy prices were lowest, compared to 71% for Wal-Mart, 56% for Amazon, and 38% for Target. That Wal-Mart and Target are able to hold their own- in the case of Target with 38% along with some other advantages of customer targeting- against showrooming and internet retailers such as Amazon, and the 56% for Amazon which showed Amazon was itself not a price leader, gave Jolly insights into the strategy to pursue. Jolly took out costs elsewhere and made Best Buy the place where the shopper would get the lowest price and much more in terms of convenience, service and advice. The strategy has worked but Jolly is not complacent saying that in this business your success is only as good as your last call. Best Buy's stock is up 240% and is one of the best three stocks of 2013....