Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: altair19 who wrote (164675)	3/30/2009 6:03:59 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361708

Woods’s Comeback Win Gives Golf Its Best Rating Since U.S. Open By Mason Levinson March 30 (Bloomberg) -- Tiger Woods’s comeback win at the Arnold Palmer Invitational yesterday earned NBC the best preliminary rating for a golf event since his U.S. Open victory last June. NBC Sports’ coverage was also the highest rated of any non-major U.S. PGA Tour tournament in more than two years, the General Electric Co.-owned network said, citing Nielsen Media Research data. Woods rallied from a five-shot deficit to Sean O’Hair at the start of the round and won the event with a 16- foot birdie putt on the last hole. Fourth-round coverage of the tournament at Bay Hill Club and Lodge in Orlando, Florida, was seen in 4.9 percent of homes in the biggest U.S. markets, the best television performance at the event in seven years and a 23 percent increase from 2008, when Woods also won with a birdie at the final hole. The rating peaked at 7.8 between 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. local time as Woods and O’Hair played their final holes, after college basketball’s tournament games had been completed. Woods, the world’s No. 1 golfer, matched his biggest PGA Tour comeback to claim his 66th career win and the first since undergoing knee surgery following the U.S. Open title. He returned last month at the World Golf Championships match play event and then tied for ninth place in his first stroke play tournament, the WGC-CA Championship, two weeks ago in Miami. He shot a 3-under-par 67 to finish at 5-under overall. O’Hair closed with a 3-over 73 and finished at 4-under. Woods received $1.04 million for his sixth title at Bay Hill, where three of his wins have come with a birdie on the last hole. Ratings points are the percentage of the estimated 111.3 million U.S. households with televisions that watched the broadcast. Preliminary ratings measure the number of viewers in the biggest U.S. cities. Final ratings include numbers from smaller television markets. To contact the reporter on this story: Mason Levinson in New York at mlevinson@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: March 30, 2009 14:12 EDT

To: altair19 who wrote (164675)	3/30/2009 6:47:28 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361708

Next at G.M. : a Restructuring Chief? dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com March 30, 2009, 5:34 pm Even as General Motors bid goodbye to Rick Wagoner and ushered in its new chief executive, Frederick Henderson, restructuring circles were abuzz Monday with speculation that another player may soon join the carmaker. That would be a chief restructuring officer, whom the Obama administration would implant in G.M. to serve as its representative in either a bankruptcy filing or an out-of-court restructuring. President Obama made no mention of the idea during his speech on the industry Monday. And for now, it seems clear that Mr. Henderson will be in charge at the company. But there are plenty of restructuring experts out there who might relish the opportunity of transforming an American corporate icon. Lenders often demand the hiring of chief restructuring officers, or C.R.O.’s, to work as liaisons with creditors inside or outside of bankruptcy. The chief executive handles the business of actually running day-to-day operations; the C.R.O., who also holds a top-level position, deals with broad reorganizational issues. According to Harvey Miller, the Weil, Gotshal & Manges partner who is considered the dean of the bankruptcy bar, the rise of the C.R.O. signaled a shift in power away from debtors toward their lenders. Chief restructuring officers have become common in recent years when a company seeks bankruptcy protection, which G.M. and Chrysler may be forced to do if they cannot meet the terms set down Monday by the Obama administration. Both Lehman Brothers and Enron appointed restructuring chiefs when they filed for bankuptcy. In both cases, the executives — Bryan Marsal of Alvarez & Marsal and Stephen F. Cooper of Zolfo Cooper, respectively — eventually assumed the chief executive title. Just whom would the administration pick as a G.M. restructuring chief? People in the bankruptcy field point to executives at turnaround consultancies like Alvarez & Marsal, Zolfo Cooper or AlixPartners as likely candidates. Such firms are often hired by companies in any case, but by being appointed to C.R.O., the turnaround executive reports to the board, and not to management. Individual names floated by bankruptcy professionals include Mr. Marsal and Tony Alvarez of the eponymous firm; Mr. Cooper; and Jay Alix, the founder of AlixPartners. A spokesman for AlixPartners, Tim Yost, had no comment. Restructuring buffs, have any ideas? Leave them in the comments below. –Micheline Maynard and Michael J. de la Merced Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

To: altair19 who wrote (164675)	3/30/2009 7:09:06 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361708

For Greg Norman, Tiger Woods has the edge on Jack Nicklaus in the clutch blogs.golf.com Posted at 5:42 PM by David Dusek \| March 30, 2009 For almost 40 years, anytime someone was asked, "Who would you want putting if your life depended on it," the obvious answer was Jack Nicklaus. But over the years, Tiger Woods has earned a reputation as one of the greatest clutch putters of all time. On Sunday, as the skies in Orlando grew dark, Woods drained a 15-footer to win the Arnold Palmer invitational on the 72nd hole for the second consecutive year. This time his victim was Sean O'Hair. Last season Woods broke the heart of Bart Bryant on the same hole. On Monday afternoon, I spoke with Greg Norman, who like Nicklaus and Woods knows what it's like to see your name next to the number '1' in the world golf rankings. I couldn't resist asking The Shark where he falls in the clutch putting debate — Nicklaus or Woods? "He and Nicklaus are even inside eight feet," Norman said after some consideration. "I think Woods is better than Nicklaus 10 feet to 20 feet." Norman, who will compete this week at the Shell Houston Open in preparation for next week's Masters, said that while Woods' ballstriking is good, his putting is better. "If his ball striking matched his putting, oh my God," he said with a laugh. "If you took what he was like in 2000 — I think he swung the golf club and hit the golf ball the best when he won at Pebble Beach by 15 shots — with his putting ability now, then you would expect the guy to win every golf tournament." So where do you stand on this debate? If your life was on the line, would you rather have Tiger putting or Jack? Write your answer in the comment area below.

To: altair19 who wrote (164675)	3/31/2009 12:48:08 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361708

GM's Henderson is familiar with challenges detnews.com By Robert Snell The Detroit News Monday, March 30, 2009 The Obama administration's ouster of chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner puts his successor, interim CEO Fritz Henderson, in a familiar position of having to overcome daunting challenges. A globetrotting automotive executive who has run several of GM's global operations, Henderson takes over a cash-strapped company that has been given 60 days to negotiate deals with the United Auto Workers and bondholders and shed billions in company debt. The promotion marks a swift ascendancy for Henderson, 50, who almost exactly one year ago was promoted to president and chief operating officer -- a move widely viewed as positioning the Detroit native to succeed Wagoner. Since he returned from a series of overseas assignments in 2006, Henderson has been GM's point man in the landmark 2007 UAW labor talks, overseen bondholder negotiations, led talks in the reorganization of bankrupt parts-maker Delphi Corp. and spearheaded GM's restructuring on a day-to-day basis. "I really like being part of doing something that many people do not think can be done," Henderson told The Detroit News when he was named GM's new vice chairman and chief financial officer in 2006. He will have to cope with an intense level of government oversight after the Obama administration earlier today said it will require GM to make deeper and more dramatic cuts than those outlined in a Feb. 17 restructuring plan and that bankruptcy remains an option. "The administration has already told the world that it means business by insisting on the ouster of CEO Rick Wagoner; it was looking to send a message to all the shareholders involved that restructuring in earnest is upon them, and that no-one and nothing at the organization is sacred," according to a research note by IHS Global Insight. That includes Henderson, who is heading GM on an interim basis. Like his predecessor, Henderson started his automotive career as a senior analyst in the Treasurer's office in New York, a fabled breeding ground for GM executives. Before returning to Detroit three years ago, the University of Michigan graduate and letterman on U-M's baseball team spent a decade heading GM's operations in Brazil and serving as president of both its Latin America/Africa/Middle East unit and its Asia-Pacific division before moving to Europe. The blunt executive, who is the son of a career GM sales manager in the Buick division, is widely regarded for being decisive and calm in stressful situations. "I'm not in the business of second-guessing," he said after his 2006 promotion. "I'm in the business of finding solutions. I'm 100 percent focused on this job, and I'm not interested in getting off track. People appreciate decisiveness. That's why you get the job -- to decide." When asked three years ago about speculation he would one day succeed Wagoner, Henderson said: "People don't believe it, but I don't really think too much about it." __________________ Wagoner takes the fall for GM detnews.com By Daniel Howes Columnist The Detroit News Monday, March 30, 2009 Auto task force's close look at company leads to decision that management is to blame As soon as President Barack Obama began using the words "failed management" in connection with the prospect of more federal aid for General Motors Corp., CEO Rick Wagoner's days were numbered. The 56-year-old Wagoner is stepping down immediately, a casualty of management mistakes real and perceived, a free-falling national economy and a political zeitgeist that simply won't tolerate more taxpayer-financed "bailouts" without some very public hangings. Wagoner is one. "If you read the tea leaves, you saw this coming -- especially with the shots this White House is taking at management," an industry executive close to the situation told me Sunday. Wagoner "was totally devoted to trying to fix this company." Devotion may be necessary, to borrow a favorite Wagoner locution, but it clearly is not sufficient and hasn't been for some time. In a call Sunday with GM's automotive strategy board, less than a day before Obama's expected announcement of his conditions for supporting GM and Chrysler LLC, Wagoner told the executives "the White House asked him to resign" and indicated that President Fritz Henderson would be "in charge." The steep downside of federal involvement for Wagoner, Henderson and the remaining management team is that their desperate pleas for a lengthened federal lifeline gave Obama's auto task force a warts-and-all inside look at GM's books, its products, its strengths and weaknesses and -- most of all -- its mistakes. It allowed task force members to hear how little faith bondholders have in Wagoner, CEO since 2000, to steer a leaner, smaller GM into an all-new competitive world where the "Detroit way" simply could no longer survive. It enabled Team Obama to learn from United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, the industry's most influential voice in Washington, the details of his mistrust for Wagoner -- and his strong support for Henderson. It focused politically charged attention and understandable second-guessing on GM's aborted global alliances (Suzuki, Isuzu, Fuji Heavy Industries and Fiat SpA), its chronic money-losing brands (Saab, Saturn and Hummer, among others), and Wagoner's nice-guy penchant for backing members of his executive team long after their failures had become apparent. Worse, for Wagoner, the task force gave the president and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner a set of facts that were largely free of GM's customary corporate filter and that closed the distance between the reality of Detroit and the perceptions of Washington. Those facts, rightly or wrongly, provided justification to oust GM's CEO as a way to atone for the administration's botched handling of the $165 million AIG bonus debacle just as Obama is scheduled to be in London for a crucial meeting of the G-20. Don't think that won't score the new president points with his fellow heads of state, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Both of their governments, among others in Europe, are weighing requests from General Motors-Europe for emergency funding to save jobs, and the departure of Wagoner is likely to make those discussions easier, not harder. Ditto GM's protracted negotiations with bondholders and the UAW. In both cases, if for different reasons, Wagoner is more identified with GM's problems than its successes, a CEO whose tenure coincided as much with the automaker's slow response to domestic troubles as it did with GM's impressive performance overseas. Bottom line: One of the most decent guys ever to run a car company in this town, arguably too decent, emerged as an obstacle to a politically defensible auto deal the Obama White House clearly wants to engineer. Why? Because the alternative -- a GM Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing -- is too unpredictable for the effect it could have on suppliers, would-be customers, consumer confidence and the politics of the economy. Wagoner's job, the political calculus goes, is a small price to pay if his departure speeds a resolution that would avert a larger economic calamity. For all the support he still enjoys amid GM's salaried ranks, Wagoner's tenure was marked by unfulfilled promises, massive corporate losses, destroyed credit ratings, the insignificant value of GM shares, tens of thousands of jobs lost and the gutting of GM's sprawling operations. All true. Why it's true doesn't much matter anymore.

To: altair19 who wrote (164675)	3/31/2009 1:23:28 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361708

U.S. Sees a Smaller Future for G.M. Than G.M. Does _______________________________________________________________ By BILL VLASIC and NICK BUNKLEY THE NEW YORK TIMES March 31, 2009 DETROIT — General Motors has 60 days to fix a set of problems that have been decades in the making. For all of G.M.’s deep cuts in recent years — closing plants and shedding tens of thousands of jobs because of steep losses and declining market share — President Obama’s task force has described its moves as little more than a warm-up act. In its “viability determination” for the company, the task force said G.M. had been “far too slow” to adapt, and that a “substantially more aggressive restructuring plan” was required. The mandate for G.M. to change was made clear by President Obama on Monday. “The plan in its current form is not strong enough,” he said, adding that he is “absolutely confident that G.M. can rise again.” By the end of May, G.M. has to convince the administration that it can strip its operations to the essentials, creating a sustainable auto company. That means fewer models, brands and dealers, as well as more job cuts and huge concessions from its two biggest creditors — the United Automobile Workers union, and thousands of bondholders who hold its $27 billion in unsecured debt. Mr. Obama said that even if the company could streamline its business, it might still need a trip through bankruptcy to rid its balance sheet of long-term liabilities. The sense of urgency at G.M. was undoubtedly heightened by the task force’s decision to push its chairman, Rick Wagoner, to resign. “They were going in the right direction for a lot of things, but they were doing it too slowly,” said Bruce Belzowski, an analyst at the Transportation Research Institute at the University of Michigan. “The task force really laid it on their doorstep.” Once proud of its status, now lost, as the world’s biggest automaker, G.M. must confront its weaknesses. For too long, it sold too many models, under too many brands, in too many markets — with too few customers. If a new G.M. emerges, it is likely to be a company that trims health care for retirees, has the U.A.W. and former bondholders as its biggest shareholders, and is run by executives and a board chosen by the White House. Above all, G.M. will have to cut far more than the 47,000 jobs it promised in its plans submitted to the government last month. Instead of cutting eight brands down to four in the United States, G.M. may be left with Chevrolet and Cadillac. G.M.’s huge European business could be jettisoned to save the company. G.M. might even be split, with its promising international operations segregated from its North American business, which is essentially broke. “The old G.M. is dead, and that just needs to be said,” said James Womack, chairman of the Lean Enterprise Institute, an organization promoting efficiency in manufacturing and commerce, based in Cambridge, Mass. “That big thing that was the most successful and largest commercial enterprise for decades just doesn’t exist anymore.” Members of the task force are looking at G.M. more as a collection of assets — factories, research centers, distribution networks — than as the formidable, 100-year-old giant that once sold half of all cars in the United States and was present in nearly every market in the world. Under Mr. Wagoner’s leadership in the last six years, G.M. has staked its future on growing in China, India and other emerging markets, while slowly trying to streamline its unprofitable North American business. But that plan collapsed last year, when sales of new cars and trucks plunged to their lowest levels in the United States in more than 25 years. Despite having cut more than 100,000 jobs in the United States since 2005, G.M. must wring more costs out of its core business and accelerate closings of plants and other facilities. The task force also said Monday that G.M. had to drastically pare the broadest lineup of products offered by any car company. “G.M. has retained too many unprofitable nameplates that tarnish its brands, distract the focus of its management team, demand increasingly scarce marketing dollars, and are a lingering drag on consumer perception, market share and margin,” the task force said in its report. The company has announced plans to sell its Saab and Hummer divisions, phase out its Saturn brand and turn Pontiac into a niche brand. It may also have to downsize or eliminate other units, like Buick and GMC. A bankruptcy proceeding would allow a judge to void G.M.’s contractual obligations to dealers under state franchise laws, and speed the elimination of hundreds, if not thousands, of G.M. showrooms across America. “It’s pretty clear the curtain is going to get drawn in 60 days,” said John McEleney, chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association. G.M.’s corporate structure could also look considerably different in a couple of months. While the U.A.W. and bondholders are still resisting big concessions, the threat of bankruptcy creates an incentive for them to negotiate. Bondholders will now be asked to take stock in G.M. in exchange for more than two-thirds of the money they are owed. The union appears to have little choice but to accept G.M. stock for at least 50 percent of the cost of financing retiree health care. “Some of the creditors and bondholders are going to have to step up here,” said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan. “They have a pretty stark choice in working something out.” Any deal to take stock from G.M. in lieu of cash will, virtually overnight, make the U.A.W. and bondholders two of G.M.’s largest shareholder groups. The task force will further recast G.M.’s corporate structure by replacing at least half of its board members and possibly changing its management again. Mr. Wagoner’s right-hand executive, Fritz Henderson, will become interim chief executive. On Monday, Mr. Henderson said G.M. would not shirk the task set by the president. “The road is tough,” he said. “But the ultimate goal — a leaner, stronger, viable G.M. — is one we share.” Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

To: altair19 who wrote (164675)	3/31/2009 10:02:31 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361708

IBM to enter "cloud computing' software market reuters.com Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:00pm EDT BOSTON, March 31 (Reuters) - IBM Inc (IBM.N) will sell a suite of Web-based collaboration software for businesses, including contact management, instant messaging and file sharing programs, the computing giant's biggest effort to date to sell software as a service. The move to be announced on Wednesday pits International Business Machines Corp against companies that are already established in the fledgling market for software as a service including: Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O), Google Inc (GOOG.O) and privately held Zoho Inc. IBM will charge companies $10 to $45 per user per month for its software suite, which it will host at its own data centers and deliver via the Web, a company executive said in an interview on Tuesday. The suit will be available April 7. "What you are seeing are the beginnings of the whole IBM company moving toward cloud computing," IBM Vice President Sean Poulley said. "Cloud computing" -- one of the latest buzz words in Silicon Valley -- refers to a variety of ways in which technology companies offer computing services over the Web from remote data centers, seemingly from the cloud of the Internet. Tech research company Gartner Inc estimates that the global market for cloud-based business software, computing services and storage will total about $10 billion this year. That remains a fraction of the $223 billion Gartner is projecting for the old-fashioned business software market alone. (Reporting by Jim Finkle)

To: altair19 who wrote (164675)	3/31/2009 10:09:42 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361708

Former Yankee Winfield Says Baseball’s Spending Spree Is Over By Mark Crumpton and Christopher Elser March 31 (Bloomberg) -- Hall of Famer Dave Winfield, who spent most of his career with the San Diego Padres and New York Yankees, said baseball’s spending spree is over because of the weak economy. The $424 million in free agent contracts given to three new Yankees -- Mark Teixeira, CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett -- are no longer standard figures, the retired outfielder said. “There are fewer guys who are going to get the big payday,” Winfield said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “You saw many of the Yankee players get it. But you don’t hear around the rest of baseball of guys getting $17, $18, $20 million. For now, the times are over. It’s a recession.” Winfield, inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2001, left the Padres in 1980 to join the Yankees after signing the sport’s richest contract at the time. The 10-year, $23 million deal led to disagreements with Yankees owner George Steinbrenner. He was traded to the California Angels in 1990 and went on to play for Toronto, Minnesota and Cleveland. The Yankees, who are moving into a new $1.3 billion stadium this season, agreed on an eight-year, $180 million deal with Teixeira at the end of last year. They also signed 2007 American League Cy Young Award winner Sabathia for seven years and $161 million, and pitcher Burnett for five years and $82.5 million. Winfield, a 12-time All-Star who has spoken with the three new Yankees’ additions, said it isn’t easy playing in New York. The winner of seven Gold Glove awards spent nine years with the Yankees. “They’re veterans, they’re knowledgeable, they’re really, really good players,” said Winfield, a spokesman for Subway Restaurants. “I don’t think they’re going to overextend themselves but when you’re playing in New York, you’ve got to give it your best all the time. If you don’t bring your best, you’ve got to go home.” To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Crumpton in New York at mcrumpton@bloomberg.net; Christopher Elser in London at celser@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: March 31, 2009 11:54 EDT

To: altair19 who wrote (164675)	3/31/2009 11:52:29 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361708

GM Seeks ‘Clean Balance Sheet’ & New Board to Survive By Jeff Green and Doron Levin March 31 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. is seeking a “clean balance sheet” and recruiting directors as its new chief executive officer and chairman accelerate plans to keep the largest U.S. automaker out of bankruptcy. GM must cut debt and improve cash flow, and likely will have to cut more jobs and shut more plants, CEO Fritz Henderson said today in Detroit at his first news conference since succeeding Rick Wagoner, who was asked to step aside by President Barack Obama’s auto task force. Savings and other financial goals are “moving targets at the moment” amid one of the biggest challenges in GM’s 100-year history, said Kent Kresa, who became nonexecutive chairman upon Wagoner’s exit. Directors will deal “with these things at a really extensive board meeting scheduled for this weekend.” The comments by GM’s two top leaders lent urgency to their quest to “fundamentally restructure” the company in 60 days, the deadline set yesterday by Obama as his administration put off a decision on new emergency loans. Obama said bankruptcy is a possibility should Detroit-based GM fail to revamp itself. “We’ll get it done in court or we’ll get it done out of court,” Henderson, 50, told reporters. “But we will get the job done. Proving Viability He said a “clean balance sheet” is crucial so GM can prove that it’s viable, a U.S. requirement to keep an initial installment of $13.4 billion in federal aid. GM had sought as much as $16.6 billion more. Investors reacted with pessimism for a second straight day, sending GM to its biggest decline since October even as broader stock indexes advanced. GM bonds fell, and the cost of insuring them against default increased. GM must shrink $27.5 billion in debt that bondholders have been reluctant to exchange for equity and $20.4 billion in obligations to a union-run health care fund. A bankruptcy might make recoveries for bondholders and the United Auto Workers more difficult. Bondholders doubt a debt exchange will succeed outside of bankruptcy because there isn’t enough time under the Obama administration’s 60-day deadline, according to a person familiar with the thinking of the committee representing creditors. Too Tight A prepackaged bankruptcy is more likely to work in slashing Detroit-based GM’s debt, said the person, who declined to be identified because the discussions are private. The deadline is too tight to get enough bondholders to swap their debt for equity voluntarily, the person said. If GM proposes a deal that the bondholder committee supports, a prepackaged bankruptcy would be achievable, the person said. While the committee doesn’t represent two-thirds of the bonds GM is trying to exchange, enough investors have indicated they’d back the panel’s decision to make a prepackaged bankruptcy attainable, the person said. Henderson said GM needs to cut more deeply than its planned 22 percent slash in so-called structural costs in North America to $26.3 billion from 2007’s level. While he said he doesn’t have a new goal, the reductions probably will require more factory closings and job cuts. GM’s 2009 plans now call for eliminating 47,000 jobs globally, idling 5 assembly plants in the U.S. and shedding thousands of dealers. Pressure on Sales A softening U.S. economy that is shredding jobs and consumer confidence adds to GM’s difficulties. GM may say tomorrow that March domestic sales plunged 48 percent, based on the average estimate of 7 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. This month’s industry sales may be the lowest since December 1981. Remaking the 11-member board is Kresa’s priority while Henderson reshapes operations, and the new chairman said today that he already has one candidate, whom he wouldn’t identify. Obama’s auto task force has directed that GM must have a new board majority. Kresa said he hopes to present a slate of six nominees by GM’s annual meeting in August. “New ideas” are a necessity, he said. Henderson is the board’s choice to run GM, and he isn’t acting on an “interim” basis, said Kresa, 71, a former CEO of Northrop Grumman Corp. who joined the automaker’s board in October 2003. He said GM hasn’t been moving “fast enough” on restructuring and is going to increase the tempo. ‘Too Slow’ Obama’s task force agreed yesterday with Kresa’s assessment of GM’s pace. “While the company has made meaningful progress in its turnaround plan over the last few years, the progress has been far too slow,” the panel said. GM fell 76 cents, or 28 percent, to $1.94 at 4:01 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. That was the worst performance among the 30 stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which rose 1.2 percent. Henderson said today that GM is working to determine the future of its Hummer sport-utility vehicle brand, for which a decision originally was expected by today as the company pursues a sale. Also under review is the Saturn division, which may take longer to resolve, Henderson said. GM may have to lower costs so it can break even when U.S. vehicle sales are as low as 10 million to 10.5 million, said John F. Smith, group vice president for product planning. The automaker’s previous break-even target was for U.S. sales of 11.5 million to 12 million units. GM doesn’t plan to eliminate more brands than Saturn, Saab and Hummer at this point and probably wouldn’t in bankruptcy, Smith said. Sales of cars and light trucks in the U.S. last year fell 18 percent to 13.2 million. GM’s share of the domestic market dropped to 22.3 percent from 23.7 percent in 2007. New Goals Obama said yesterday that GM creditors, shareholders, workers, dealers and suppliers will be expected to make more sacrifices. The Obama rescue plan didn’t specify cost-cutting targets that GM has to make. The automaker will work with the task force to identify the new goals, Henderson said today. GM’s 8.375 percent notes due in July 2033 lost 3 cents to 13 cents on the dollar, yielding 64 percent, according to Trace, the bond-pricing service of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Credit-default swaps on GM bonds rose for a second day on concerns the automaker would be forced into bankruptcy. The price climbed 2 percentage points to 83 percent upfront, according to broker Phoenix Partners Group. That’s in addition to 5 percent a year for five years, meaning it would cost $8.3 million initially and $500,000 annually to protect $10 million of the automaker’s debt. To contact the reporters on this story: Jeff Green in Detroit at jgreen16@bloomberg.net; Doron Levin in Detroit at dlevin5@bloomberg.net Last Updated: March 31, 2009 16:24 EDT

To: altair19 who wrote (164675)	4/1/2009 12:46:41 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361708

One Roadblock Too Many for G.M. ______________________________________________________________ By WILLIAM J. HOLSTEIN Op-Ed Contributor The New York Times March 31, 2009 President Obama's stunning decision to demand that Rick Wagoner resign as chairman and chief executive of General Motors was based on the wrong set of premises and raises the prospect that the administration will intervene too deeply in the automaker, seriously jeopardizing a transformation effort that has come a long way in the right direction. Mr. Obama cited a “failure of leadership” as a reason for forcing out Mr. Wagoner. While not every decision Mr. Wagoner has made was wise, over all he had been putting G.M. through a wrenching restructuring that tried to undo decades of management acquiescence to the United Auto Workers. Mr. Obama indicated he did not believe G.M. had moved fast enough in facing up to global competition. But the company is coming close to achieving the cost structure of Toyota’s assembly plant in Georgetown, Ky. — largely because Mr. Wagoner and his team stripped thousands of dollars out of the cost of every vehicle. Fully one-half of the company’s unionized work force has been laid off or taken buyout packages, and the U.A.W. has agreed to a two-tier wage system in which new workers make only $15 an hour. Just a few years ago that would have been unimaginable. Mr. Wagoner also encouraged G.M.’s adoption of Toyota’s lean manufacturing techniques and quality control. So much so that Buick tied with Jaguar for first place in the latest J. D. Power ranking of dependability, coming in ahead of Toyota and its Lexus brand. By bringing in the auto industry veteran Robert Lutz as vice chairman for global product development, Mr. Wagoner was also responsible for a redesigned lineup of vehicles. The Cadillac CTS and Chevrolet Malibu both won car-of-the-year awards last year and the newly revived Camaro — which is hitting the roads just as Mr. Wagoner is being ousted — represents the high-water mark of revitalized American car design. Mr. Wagoner also pushed the development of the lithium-ion battery that will power the Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric car when it appears in late 2010. Lithium-ion batteries represent a leapfrog over the nickel-metal-hydride batteries in the Toyota Prius. By investing $1 billion in lithium technology, Mr. Wagoner created the best opportunity for America to win a piece of a huge new “green” industry now dominated by non-American companies. Mr. Obama has not only failed to understand these contributions, he has also deprived G.M. of Mr. Wagoner’s presence on the board. Much of Mr. Wagoner’s knowledge and experience could simply be lost. With Mr. Lutz also about to retire, the two executives most responsible for G.M.’s transformation are gone. Mr. Obama decided that G.M.’s president, Frederick Henderson, should move up to take the chief executive’s job, which has been part of G.M.’s succession plan all along. But how does that represent fresh leadership? And is Mr. Henderson ready? He is known for being more aggressive in his business dealings than Mr. Wagoner was, and speaks the language of Wall Street. That may be useful in dealing with G.M.’s bondholders and the U.A.W. But Mr. Henderson does not yet command the loyalty inside the company that Mr. Wagoner did. The long-term plan had been for him to serve as Mr. Wagoner’s lieutenant for a year or two more so he could build relationships with other top executives. Instead, he’s been handed a company that is reeling over how the Obama administration helped turn Mr. Wagoner into a scapegoat through its leaks to the news media. Mr. Obama’s intervention does not stop there. His aides were quoted as saying they are going to remake the entire G.M. board. But deciding which director should go and which director should be added is far beyond the competence of any government. A new board may be the smart move in the case of a failed bank, where there are thousands of qualified and experienced financial executives to step in, but as one of the world’s largest manufacturers, G.M. faces vastly more complicated and specialized issues. Mr. Obama also failed to end the bankruptcy talk that has hung over G.M. and hurt its sales. In his statement on Monday he admitted that “I know that when people even hear the word ‘bankruptcy’ it can be a bit unsettling.” He’s right — and that’s exactly why he shouldn’t have said it was a possibility. Rather, the president should have forcefully stated that he would keep G.M. out of Chapter 11 because the nation’s bankruptcy system may not be able to handle such large-scale industrial restructurings. To wit: Delphi, G.M.’s largest parts supplier, went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2005 and has yet to emerge. Add it all up and Mr. Henderson is taking over an organization in a state of shock. He will have to prove himself to all G.M.’s constituencies, but he could be distracted by a major shakeup of his board. Plus, the Damocles sword of bankruptcy will hang over his head. It is a supremely difficult situation, and may make it even more difficult for G.M. to sustain its transformation. It may have been politically expedient for Mr. Obama to give Mr. Wagoner the pink slip. But politics in Washington have real world consequences. Before he goes too far, Mr. Obama should recognize the huge distance that G.M. has traveled and strike the right balance in respecting the role of the private sector. Unlike the insurance giant A.I.G. or Wall Street’s failed banks, General Motors consists of real factories where real people make real things. As it looks to micromanage an entire industry, let’s hope the administration doesn’t lose sight of the human side of things. *William J. Holstein is the author of “Why G.M. Matters: Inside the Race to Transform an American Icon.” Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

To: altair19 who wrote (164675)	4/1/2009 2:54:08 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361708

Rosetta Stone Inc., an Arlington, Va.-based provider of language learning software, has set its IPO terms to 6.25 million common shares being offered at between $15 and $17 per share. It would have a market cap of approximately $345 million, were it to price at the top of its offering range. Rosetta Stone plans to trade on the NYSE under ticker symbol RST, with Morgan Stanley and William Blair & Co. serving as co-lead underwriters. The company was acquired in a 2006 management buyout by ABS Capital Partners (44% pre-IPO stake) and Norwest Equity Partners (28.7%). rosettastone.com

To: altair19 who wrote (164675)	4/6/2009 5:14:27 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361708

Detroit Three find hope in centerfield freep.com BY MITCH ALBOM DETROIT FREE PRESS COLUMNIST April 5, 2009 When the Tigers open their season this week, fans will look to centerfield at Comerica Park and see the greenery, the flagpoles and the giant fountain. And, as usual, every time there's a Detroit home run, those fountains will erupt. That spot, in the stadium business, is what they call prime real estate. Companies pay big money to have their logo smack dab in the middle, so that every time fans gaze out there, the brand is what they see. For the last few years, General Motors has sponsored that fountain, and paid a substantial fee to do so. This season, with all that has happened in the auto business, GM's folks called the Tigers and said, regretfully, they could no longer afford it. Given the layoffs, the bailouts, the threat of bankruptcy, well, owning centerfield was too great a luxury. GM had to step aside. Which is when Mike Ilitch, the Tigers' owner, stepped in. There were other bidders. Other offers. Who wouldn't want that real estate? A deal of three years worth between $1.5 million and $2 million was on the table. Ilitch said no thanks. He was going to give it away. Or maybe "give it back" is a better way of putting it. Chalk up an outfield assist "It just seems strange to have the car companies in trouble," he told me this past week. "The Big Three, where would this city be without them? I mean, my father came from the old country and got a job at Ford's. It put food on our table. "It's scary to think that any of those carmakers could go away." So Ilitch told his people to thank the potential paying customers, but to say that the centerfield fountain this year was spoken for. It would be the feature site for General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. For free. No charge. Not one penny. "It's just a small opportunity to respond to what's happening," Ilitch said, embarrassed by the attention. There's nothing small about it. Every business has been affected by the collapsing economy; baseball teams are no exception. Walking away from a couple million dollars is not considered a wise financial move. Who turns away paying customers? In this case, Ilitch did. Because sometimes it's about the where and the who, not just the how much. A message from the ballclub "I thought for a few weeks before deciding," Ilitch admitted. "I didn't want to offend anybody. I didn't want to put off the foreign carmakers. And I didn't want people to think we couldn't sell the fountain. As a businessman, you do worry about those things. "But I finally said, 'The heck with it.' I want to do something to help." So starting with the home opener this Friday afternoon, the Chrysler, General Motors and Ford logos will be on an equal plane above the fountain. And beneath those logos will be a few new words: "The Detroit Tigers support our automakers." It may be as close to a social statement as centerfield has ever made. Visitors in Detroit for this weekend's Final Four may think our small, thriving downtown looks a lot like other cities' downtowns. But there is something different beneath the surface. Here, we construct in the face of adversity. We build on hope. Pure investors will tell you a city with rampant unemployment, enormous budget shortfalls, a troubled school system and a laughable city council is not a place to put your money. We do it anyhow. We do it because we love our past and we believe in our future. We do it because the alternative would be to close shop altogether. We do it because last week there were stories about the gleaming new Yankee Stadium, which cost $1.5 billion and has seats as high as $2,625 a game -- and here is Ilitch giving away his fountain for free. Detroit may be the new home of the bumpy ride, but as the Three Musketeers once discovered, it's a little smoother when you grab hands with others. Think about that the next time a home run sends that fountain shooting up to those logos. Sometimes it really is all for one and one for all.

To: altair19 who wrote (164675)	4/8/2009 5:42:17 AM
From: stockman_scott	1 Recommendation Respond to of 361708

Show Us the Ball ______________________________________________________________ By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Op-Ed Columnist The New York Times April 8, 2009 I am really encouraged by President Obama’s commitment to clean energy and combating climate change. I just have three worries: whether he has the right policies, the right politics and the right official to sell his program to the country. Other than that, things look great! Last week, House Democrats, with administration support, introduced a 600-page draft bill on energy and climate. At the center of it is a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions through a complicated cap-and-trade system. These people have the very best of intentions, but I wish they would step back and ask again: Can cap-and-trade pass? Will it really work? And is it the best strategy, with all the bureaucracy it will require to monitor, auction emissions permits and manage the trading? Advocates of cap-and-trade argue that it is preferable to a simple carbon tax because it fixes a national cap on carbon emissions and it “hides the ball” — it doesn’t use the word “tax” — even though it amounts to one. So it can get through Congress. That was true as long as no one thought cap-and-trade could ever pass, but now that it might under Mr. Obama, opponents are not playing hide the ball anymore. In the past two weeks, you could hear a chorus of Republicans, coal-state Democrats, right-wing think tanks and enviro-skeptics all singing the same tune: “Cap-and-trade is a tax. Obama is going to raise your taxes and sacrifice U.S. jobs to combat this global-warming charade, which many scientists think is nonsense. Worse, cap-and-trade will be managed by Wall Street. If you liked credit-default swaps, you’re going to love carbon-offset swaps.” Some of the refrains from this song have a very catchy appeal. They could easily kill this effort. So, if the Obama team cares about the “ends” of a stronger America and a more livable planet, as much as the “means,” I hope it will consider an alternative strategy, message and messenger. STRATEGY: Since the opponents of cap-and-trade are going to pillory it as a tax anyway, why not go for the real thing — a simple, transparent, economy-wide carbon tax? Representative John B. Larson, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, has circulated a draft bill that would impose “a per-unit tax on the carbon-dioxide content of fossil fuels, beginning at a rate of $15 per metric ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 each year.” The bill sets a goal, rather than a cap, on emissions at 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, and if the goal for the first five years is not met, the tax automatically increases by an additional $5 per metric ton. The bill implements a fee on carbon-intensive imports, as well, to press China to follow suit. Larson would use most of the income to reduce people’s payroll taxes: We tax your carbon sins and un-tax your payroll wins. People get that — and simplicity matters. Americans will be willing to pay a tax for their children to be less threatened, breathe cleaner air and live in a more sustainable world with a stronger America. They are much less likely to support a firm in London trading offsets from an electric bill in Boston with a derivatives firm in New York in order to help fund an aluminum smelter in Beijing, which is what cap-and-trade is all about. People won’t support what they can’t explain. MESSAGE: Climate change is a real threat to a healthy planet Earth — the only home we have. But because the worst effects are in the future, many Americans have more immediate concerns. That is why our energy policy should be focused around “American renewal,” not mitigating climate change. We need a price on carbon because it will stimulate massive innovation in the next great global industry — E.T. — energy technology. In a warming world with huge population growth, clean power systems are going to be in huge demand. The scientific research and innovation needed for America to dominate E.T. the way it did I.T. could be the foundation for a second American industrial revolution, plus it would tip the whole planet onto a greener path. So American economic renewal is the goal, but mitigating climate change would be the great byproduct. MESSENGER: The Obama administration’s carbon tax spokesman — the one who should sell this to the country — should be the president’s national security adviser, Gen. James Jones, not the environmentalists. The imposing former head of the Marine Corps could make a powerful case that a carbon tax is vitally necessary to stimulate investments in the clean technologies that would enable the U.S. to dominate E.T., while also shifting consumers to buy these new, more efficient and cleaner power systems, homes and cars. He could make the case that the country with the most powerful clean-technology industry in the 21st century will have the most energy security, national security, economic security, healthy environment, innovative companies and global respect. That country must be America. So let’s stop hiding the ball and have a strategy, message and messenger that tell it like it is — and make it so. Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company