GM Rejects Claim That Executive Greed Scuppered Renault Alliance

gm rejects claim that executive greed scuppered renault alliance

Fortune Senior Editor Alex Taylor snagged GM’s attention with an editorial posted at CNN Money, in which he posthumously advocates for the General’s failed 2006 alliance with Renault/Nissan. “According to recent interviews with parties involved in the discussions, as well as a confidential analysis prepared for the deal that was obtained by Fortune,” Taylor writes. “The tie-up could have produced as much as $10 billion in operating earnings per year for GM by 2011.” So, why did GM just say no? Because its executives were making enough already, thank you. “One proposed strategy called for a ‘repopulation’ of GM’s executive ranks with outside talent. That presumably would have forced some incumbent managers out of their jobs – a shocking development at a company where executives seem to enjoy lifetime employment regardless of their performance.” The General’s Spinmeister General penned a mealy-mouthed response to Taylor’s “woulda, coulda, shoulda” analysis. Steve Harris compared Taylor’s dietribe to speculating “if Time-Warner, your magazine’s parent company, had not done the AOL deal.” Oh snap. So what are Harris’s points of substance? The Renault/Nissan merger plans “could have effectively foreclosed (GM) from entering alliances with other automakers.” And “benefits from the potential joint projects were highly skewed to Renault-Nissan.” None of which sounds bad enough to turn down up to $10b in annual revenue. But, says Harris, “today General Motors is focused on the future, not the past.” Like… a federal bailout.

Join the conversation
 1 comment
  • Psarhjinian Psarhjinian on Sep 13, 2008
    So what are Harris’s points of substance? The Renault/Nissan merger plans “could have effectively foreclosed (GM) from entering alliances with other automakers.” Like who? Who, in their right mind, would form a relationship with the financial basketcase that is GM? Aside from SAIC, Chery or such, I really have trouble seeing anyone wanting to get their hands dirty. I don't think GM wanted Renault's corporate-enema management style anywhere near their leaky ship

  • FreedMike I don’t know if I buy into the “they’re coming for our cars” stuff - they’ve been saying that for a long time now - but I wouldn’t argue with one word of this review otherwise.
  • Oberkanone It's not a Jimny! Would be nice if we still had a selection of Suzuki auto in the US. Sidekick was simple and affordable.
  • Dave M. I will say this generation styling has grown on me; previously I thought the Fiat version was far better looking. Miatas have always been pure joy to drive.
  • Kendahl A Tesla feature has been free, periodic, over-the-air, software updates that add new features or improve existing ones. Owners brag that their x-year-old car is better today, because of the updates, than it was brand new. Will Tesla start charging for these updates after a few years? Teslas hold their value very well. I suspect losing free updates will do serious damage to that.
  • BklynPete When I was a kid, the joke about Nissan choosing the name Datsun goes like this:Nissan execs were uncomfortable with the World War 2 connotations of their name in the North American market. Seeing how successful VW was over here, they went to VW's most-recent German ad agency. The Japanese told the Germans they needed a new name. The Germans agreed. They asked the Nissan execs when they wanted a review of potential names. The execs said two weeks. The German ad people said, "dat soon?"I will be crucified.