Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Automotive icon Lee Iacocca passed away July 2nd, age 94

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by jclary View Post
    Like a lot of us, Iacocca was constantly bombarded with distractions and was pulled in different directions. Yet, somehow he managed to focus. hold to his convictions. and present his views well enough to gain and keep support among his peers. My impression is that he somehow managed to negotiate the mine field of big ego self-important petty executive wannabees and yet retain his humanity and a degree of humility. He seemed to me to acknowledge the value of all the workers in any industrial enterprise and appreciated them from housekeeping to the assembly worker on up.
    I also highly recommend the book, An American Icon: Alan Mulally and the Fight to Save Ford Motor Company by Bryce G. Hoffman, if you like corporate boardroom drama. Mulally had to face the same stale management 'team' at Ford in 2006, just as Iacocca did when he first joined Chrysler in 1978.

    A VERY good read, actually.

    Craig
    Last edited by 8E45E; 07-04-2019, 04:30 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      There's a nice write up on Mr. Iacocca in today's (July 3rd) Wall Street Journal. I attended a car show several years ago at the Pasadena Rose Bowl and Lee Iacocca was there and said a few words on the microphone. I regret not going over to him and shaking his hand. He was a true American; he did well for the corporations he worked for and I was very impressed when the government loan was paid back EARLY!
      JimsLeadCommander

      Comment


      • #18
        Funny how my article (which already came out in print today), took place the same time as Mr. Iacocca's untimely demise! An omen, perhaps?
        Jake Robinson Kaywell: Shoo-wops and doo-wops galore to the background of some fine Studes. I'm eager and ready to go!

        1962 GT Hawk - "Daisy-Mae" - she came dressed to kill in etherial green with a charming turquoise inside. I'm hopelessly in love!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by JimsLeadCommander View Post
          There's a nice write up on Mr. Iacocca in today's (July 3rd) Wall Street Journal. I attended a car show several years ago at the Pasadena Rose Bowl and Lee Iacocca was there and said a few words on the microphone. I regret not going over to him and shaking his hand. He was a true American; he did well for the corporations he worked for and I was very impressed when the government loan was paid back EARLY!
          Actually, Jim; that's a misconception: The United States Government did not loan Chrysler Corporation any money among the 1979/1980 loans that allowed Lee Iacocca to rebuild Chrysler. What the Government did was guarantee the loans, which were made by various private equity sources; banks, insurance companies, etc.

          The Government in effect co-signed the loans, as a person might do to help someone whose credit is too poor to secure a loan...the Government was a simple co-signer, if you will.

          You're right; since all the loans were paid off early and in full, "We, the People" were not asked to make up any difference, as would a co-signer if the loans had been defaulted upon. In turn, Chrysler Corporationm stock and bondholders did not lose any equity.

          This is in sharp contrast to the 2009-era "bailouts" in which monies did come from the federal treasury (i.e., added to the national debt), and in which existing General Motors and Chrysler Corporation stock and bondholders lost equity...lots of it, in many cases. (The Chrysler Corporation Preferred Bonds held by the Indiana Teachers / Firemans / Policemans Retirement Fund at the time, for example, were paid back at about 27 cents on the dollar. At the time, those bonds were about 3% of the fund's portfolio, IIRC.)

          (This is to take nothing away from Mr. Iacocca, of course, for whom I have the highest regard.) BP
          We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

          Ayn Rand:
          "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

          G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by BobPalma View Post
            Actually, Jim; that's a misconception: The United States Government did not loan Chrysler Corporation any money among the 1979/1980 loans that allowed Lee Iacocca to rebuild Chrysler. What the Government did was guarantee the loans, which were made by various private equity sources; banks, insurance companies, etc.

            The Government in effect co-signed the loans, as a person might do to help someone whose credit is too poor to secure a loan...the Government was a simple co-signer, if you will.

            You're right; since all the loans were paid off early and in full, "We, the People" were not asked to make up any difference, as would a co-signer if the loans had been defaulted upon. In turn, Chrysler Corporationm stock and bondholders did not lose any equity.

            This is in sharp contrast to the 2009-era "bailouts" in which monies did come from the federal treasury (i.e., added to the national debt), and in which existing General Motors and Chrysler Corporation stock and bondholders lost equity...lots of it, in many cases. (The Chrysler Corporation Preferred Bonds held by the Indiana Teachers / Firemans / Policemans Retirement Fund at the time, for example, were paid back at about 27 cents on the dollar. At the time, those bonds were about 3% of the fund's portfolio, IIRC.)

            (This is to take nothing away from Mr. Iacocca, of course, for whom I have the highest regard.) BP
            It appears that Bob feels guaranteeing the loans is some how more moral than what happened in 2009. Personally I have no problem with either situation and find them morally equal. One of the largest employers in the country was saved from closing its doors with the accompanying loss of jobs in both cases and in my mind that is good.

            The closing of Studebaker was an example of what would have happened on a much smaller scale. South bend has never really recovered from the loss of Studebaker.

            What we had in 2009 was an entire world in deep recession so a lot more was in play compared to the other example.
            Diesel loving, autocrossing, Coupe express loving, Grandpa Architect.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by t walgamuth View Post
              It appears that Bob feels guaranteeing the loans is some how more moral than what happened in 2009. Personally I have no problem with either situation and find them morally equal. One of the largest employers in the country was saved from closing its doors with the accompanying loss of jobs in both cases and in my mind that is good.

              The closing of Studebaker was an example of what would have happened on a much smaller scale. South bend has never really recovered from the loss of Studebaker.

              What we had in 2009 was an entire world in deep recession so a lot more was in play compared to the other example.
              I didn't assign a morality quotient to it, Tom...although you are free to do so if you want, of course.

              Rather, I corrected a misconception that has been rampant in various postings regarding Lee Iacocca's unfortunate passing. BP
              We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

              Ayn Rand:
              "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

              G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Bob Palma: What happened is that Lee had his back up against a wall trying to get Chrysler turned around. He went to the government asking for help and he got a government bail out in the form of the government co-signing for the loans as you put it. Chrysler got a form of a bail out from the American tax payers plain and simple. With out that bail out help Lee might not have been able to save Chrysler. The dirty little secret that is known but seldom reported is that after paying off the loan and getting Chrysler back on good footing under his leadership he nearly left Chrysler fall into bankruptcy again.

                John S.
                Last edited by Packard53; 07-04-2019, 01:37 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by BobPalma View Post
                  Actually, Jim; that's a misconception: The United States Government did not loan Chrysler Corporation any money among the 1979/1980 loans that allowed Lee Iacocca to rebuild Chrysler. What the Government did was guarantee the loans, which were made by various private equity sources; banks, insurance companies, etc.

                  The Government in effect co-signed the loans, as a person might do to help someone whose credit is too poor to secure a loan...the Government was a simple co-signer, if you will.

                  You're right; since all the loans were paid off early and in full, "We, the People" were not asked to make up any difference, as would a co-signer if the loans had been defaulted upon. In turn, Chrysler Corporationm stock and bondholders did not lose any equity.

                  This is in sharp contrast to the 2009-era "bailouts" in which monies did come from the federal treasury (i.e., added to the national debt), and in which existing General Motors and Chrysler Corporation stock and bondholders lost equity...lots of it, in many cases. (The Chrysler Corporation Preferred Bonds held by the Indiana Teachers / Firemans / Policemans Retirement Fund at the time, for example, were paid back at about 27 cents on the dollar. At the time, those bonds were about 3% of the fund's portfolio, IIRC.)

                  (This is to take nothing away from Mr. Iacocca, of course, for whom I have the highest regard.) BP
                  Now I have turned my attention to this subject and would like to identify the key elements of a loan guarantee vs an actual loan.

                  1. lf the government loans the company money to survive and the company pays it back with interest (as happened in 2009) the government makes money. If the company sinks in spite of the loan the government loses all that was loaned.

                  2. In the case of a loan guarantee if the company survives and thrives the people making the loans make money, Not the government. If the company fails in spite of the loans the government still loses all the money. (This is a sweet deal for the lenders.)

                  As a business man I see the actual loan by the government to be better as it has an upside if they pay it back and the down side is the same either way.

                  Is it morally superior? I suggest you ask the men and women whose jobs were saved.
                  Diesel loving, autocrossing, Coupe express loving, Grandpa Architect.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by t walgamuth View Post
                    Is it morally superior? I suggest you ask the men and women whose jobs were saved.
                    Also ask the retirees who put in their years of service to those companies about what they now receive for benefits and pensions, vs. what they expected while they were still working for them.

                    Craig

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 8E45E View Post
                      Also ask the retirees who put in their years of service to those companies about what they now receive for benefits and pensions, vs. what they expected while they were still working for them.

                      Craig
                      Hi Craig, so did the retirees take it in the shorts on the deal? Did they end up worse off than if the company went belly up?

                      Personally my belief is that all moneys paid into retirement accounts by companies be untouchable by the company once they are paid in.
                      Diesel loving, autocrossing, Coupe express loving, Grandpa Architect.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by t walgamuth View Post
                        Hi Craig, so did the retirees take it in the shorts on the deal? Did they end up worse off than if the company went belly up?

                        Personally my belief is that all moneys paid into retirement accounts by companies be untouchable by the company once they are paid in.
                        We will have to wait for one of these retirees to chime in and enlighten us.

                        I am not the one to ask as I am not retired.....yet; and the companies I have worked for, and still am working for are still around and good health, profitwise. Even if one of those companies should fail, there would be no loss on my part as my pension plans are all now with a couple of well-known life insurance companies. In the early 1990's when manufacturing took a major hit with several plant closings, the federal government here encouraged the big corporations to divest themselves of handling their employees' pensions, and sell them off to established investment houses such as life insurance companies.

                        Craig

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 8E45E View Post
                          We will have to wait for one of these retirees to chime in and enlighten us.

                          I am not the one to ask as I am not retired.....yet; and the companies I have worked for, and still am working for are still around and good health, profitwise. Even if one of those companies should fail, there would be no loss on my part as my pension plans are all now with a couple of well-known life insurance companies. In the early 1990's when manufacturing to a major hit with several plant closings, the federal government here encouraged the big corporations to divest themselves of handling their employees' pensions, and sell them off to established investment houses such as life insurance companies.

                          Craig
                          Well, that is how it should be done. I think it is much more favorable here for the companies.
                          Diesel loving, autocrossing, Coupe express loving, Grandpa Architect.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I came upon this video on YouTube. It is an episode of Jay Leno's Garage with guest Lee Iococca back in 2013.


                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBJODV_tyDA
                            Last edited by Milaca; 07-10-2019, 10:18 AM. Reason: The video would not play, so I included the link.
                            sigpic
                            In the middle of MinneSTUDEa.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Ross Perot, another outspoken 1980's automotive executive passed away July 9th: https://www.autonews.com/executives/...critic-dies-89

                              Craig

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                "I'm all ears."
                                Diesel loving, autocrossing, Coupe express loving, Grandpa Architect.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X