Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

I am the next CEO of GM!



December 02, 2009 – Comments (5) | RELATED TICKERS: GM

Submitted to TMF here...


1) Build cars that people want.
2) Become cost efficient without sacrificing quality.
3) Eliminate corporate and manufacturing redundancy.

How do I accomplish this? First, I sell everything GM owns that I can for a profit. Opel, Saab, Hummer, Saturn etc... I'll even sell the Chevy brand if I can profit from it. The only thing I won't sell is the Chevy Volt and I might cherry pick a few other models. Next I introduce the first commercial open source car, The Chevy Volt. I open up every piece of information that I have for the Volt. (Blueprints, computer software, part testing, etc) I negotiate with suppliers a royalty for every part that they sell independently and a higher royalty for every part I sell in one of my cars at a dealership. I invite anyone that wants to develop a part for the Volt to submit it for approval  with the same conditions as my current suppliers. I've just taken the Google Android model and applied it to cars. A customer will be able to customize his car in infinite ways and control the price. My production costs are low because I only have to develop the initial platforms. Innovation is taken care of with the competition from suppliers. The key is to do it first, and be ready when others try to catch up. I will have much higher costs testing parts and software, but given the cost savings elsewhere and competitive advantage, it's worth it.


I had about 20 more ideas, but that was the best I could fit into 250 words.


Please give me feedback on my idea and try your own luck in the contest.

5 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On December 02, 2009 at 10:07 PM, chk999 (99.96) wrote:

The problem with this is that it doesn't address the huge pension liabilities that GM has. I don't think they can be discharged by selling stuff. And you probably can't get enough for the brands you list to come close to covering the existing pension liabilities.

Report this comment
#2) On December 02, 2009 at 11:07 PM, ChrisGraley (28.52) wrote:


I would have loved to address that if I had more than 250 words!  First of all, the union was  out of a bargaining position the moment that it took stock. Given that the government is now a bigger stockholder than the union, the government will be concerned with stock price first. They will allow a little creative accounting by GM and will help shore up the pension plan if needed as long as it looks like they made a good investment in GM stock. GM's biggest concern is to try and show profit potential as soon as possible. If they show potential, they can make another offering of stock directly to the pension fund. The union's future is so dependant on GM stock price now that it wouldn't be a tough arguement. It's the whole, "If I owe the bank $1,000, I can't sleep at night but if I owe them $1,000,000 they can't sleep at night!" thing.

Report this comment
#3) On December 03, 2009 at 8:42 PM, rd80 (94.99) wrote:

Why do you need GM to make this business plan work? 

It reads like the only thing you really want from GM is the Volt design.  Come up with another way to get your electric car design and you can run the same business model, but without the legacy costs and a car czar breathing down your neck.

Report this comment
#4) On December 04, 2009 at 10:40 PM, ChrisGraley (28.52) wrote:

I agree but the the contest was to run GM.

I picked the Volt specifically because it was an electric car.  The open design would make advancing the technology much easier.  It should be successful with any car design though. In fact it should be done with a standard car design at the same time. This would do well in emerging nations because someone could by a car stripped down to the point where it was just legal in their country and add things as they could afford them. The average working American could also keep investing in their car to the point that it was fully loaded and buy cars parts when they had the money rather than buy a car with everything to begin with and be saddled with more debt.

I've never been a fan of proprietary information. Information wants to be free. The public good is better served with free information than with information that is only in the hands of the few. I know the arguement that free information devalues the prospects of research and developement by making it cost prohibitive and I disagree. In most industries if you pick a share the wealth design, you actually wind up compounding on your research indefinately. You never have to worry about an expired patent when you are getting royalties in the share the wealth system.  You still have to worry about somebody coming out with something that is technologically superior, but you literally have an army of free researchers on your side to improve your chances.

I truly think that such a system is free market capitalism at it's finest.

The result is a big company getting larger by providing an opportunity for a bunch of smaller companies and individuals.

Report this comment
#5) On January 14, 2010 at 2:18 AM, BrandonPaulChevy (< 20) wrote:

You have a nice vision man. But what you really need is to enhance some parts like the chrome bumper and the hood. You need to do this to attract customers..

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners