廣告

2009年6月27日 星期六

台中與我

台中與我

◎ 林佳龍

在 內政部審查通過台中縣市合併升格案後,我隨即宣佈終止競選活動,但也表示對市民的服務和市政研究將會繼續。這幾天,許多朋友表達關心,也有人探詢我的動 向。其實,為了實現諾言,自從上次市長選舉完後我就在台中定居、任教,太太在電台主持節目,兩個小孩也都在台中就讀,因此我最簡單的回答就是我將會好好的 在台中生活。

當然,大家關心的是我會不會就此放棄了參選大台中的市長,我深深覺得這不是個人前途選擇的問題,而是應該放空自我、重新歸零,以便讓人民有更大的思考和決定的空間,因為升格一事關係著我們子子孫孫的長遠發展。

還 記得上次選舉時,我提出了連結台鐵山線和海線的「山手線」環狀交通網,而因為是跨縣市的政見,還曾被對手取笑是要選台中市長、還是台中縣長?而今我多年推 動的台中升格即將實現,台中將進入一個新的時代,也是首次有機會和北、高在平等的基礎上競爭,我希望大家看待這場選戰不要停留在誰來競選的政治眼光,而是 應該拋開藍綠的慣性反應,思考到底大台中需要怎樣的市長來帶領城市的發展。

說真的,個人對參選與否的態度是開放的。如有更適合的人選代表民進黨出征,我將秉持「成功不一定在我」的精神,全力輔選,也會把多年來在台中的經營成果,轉化成支持的力量。經過歸零後,如果黨內有共識,人民有熱情,我也會承擔起責任,為理想全力以赴。

我深切期盼,無論民進黨由誰來代表參選,除了要能夠團結,由下而上凝聚共識之外,最重要的是要提出前瞻的願景並以具體行動來感動人民,真正拋開個人算計和黨派之私,才能與民共創台中時代的來臨!

(作者為台灣大台中發展促進會理事長)

信息的传播是无法阻挡的

时事风云 | 2009.06.27

德信息安全专家:信息的传播是无法阻挡的

自从伊朗总统选举结束以来,全世界都在关注着德黑兰的局势。一方面,伊朗非常成功地以强权阻止了国内外记者对街头抗议活动进行报道,另一方面,关于最新局 势的消息、照片甚至录像仍然躲避了重重网络封锁,出现在人们的眼前。伊朗目前对网络信息的严格监管和封锁让人不得不联想到同样实行网络监管政策的中国。德 国信息安全专家拉尔斯•菲舍尔认为,信息的传播是无法阻挡的,不管采取什么封锁措施,人们总能找到对策、将信息传播出去。

在反对伊朗总统选举的抗议活动当中,网 络发挥了极其重要的作用。一方面,伊朗青年人通过网络渠道了解了西方社会,对自由、民主产生了极大的向往,成为了这次走上街头起来抗议的动力之一;另一方 面,虽然伊朗当局禁止记者在示威活动现场进行报道,但是仍然有不少相关的图片和视频资料通过网络,流向了外面的世界。目前,不少西方媒体的网站、包括 Facebook和Twitter这种网络信息交流平台都被伊朗当局封锁。

伊朗今天的做法令人不禁联想到中国政府不久前下 达的"绿坝"过滤软件预装令。不少批评人士认为,这一名为"花季护航"的软件虽然名义上是为了让青少年远离网络色情内容,但实际上能够帮助政府进行更严格 的网络监管。德国网络信息专家拉尔斯·菲舍尔认为,其实单从技术层面讲,不管是伊朗、中国,还是其它国家,对网络的封锁和过滤都是相似的:“从技术上讲, 是谁在采取封锁、封锁了什么、封锁的目的都不重要。我猜想,他们(伊朗和中国)采用的方法、过滤的形式也大同小异。”

菲舍尔认为,目前中国打算强制所有新出厂电脑安 装的"绿坝"软件,能够使用户在一定程度上失去对自己电脑的主动控制。因为它也许可以对个人电脑上所有的软件程序进行监控,类似现有的一些安全防火墙,它 可以对不信任软件进行阻挡,只允许用户信任的软件运行。假如这个“绿坝”也行使这样的功能,那么中国的网络用户如果想要通过一些软件来绕过官方的网络封 锁,那就是难上加难了。中国的互联网也受到控制Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: 中国的互联网也受到控制

尽管如此,精通各种躲避封锁技术的拉尔斯·菲舍 尔还是坚信,信息的传播是永远无法阻挡的。不管有什么封锁和过滤技术,想要传播和获得信息的人们总会找到应对封锁的技术和方法。他说:“问题并不在于两股 力量的竞争和发展会不会永久持续下去,而是在于,政府当局是否能够完全密不透风地达到自己封锁和过滤网络信息的目的--不管是中国政府对政治敏感内容的删 除过滤,还是德国政府目前通过的对儿童色情网页进行封锁的法律--我的回答是,不能。信息总能找到它传播的路径。比如,我可以对自己需要传递的内容进行伪 装,骗过审查过滤机制的眼睛,我也可以对信息内容进行加密。最终信息还是会传播出去,或早或晚。”

菲舍尔举例指出,不管是中国1989年的六四天 安门事件,还是去年的西藏事件,中国政府都肯定试图阻止相关的图片传播出去,但是尽管如此,人们还是看到了照片和其它资料。而在伊朗,不少人通过手机传播 信息,虽然这样要冒很大风险。虽然伊朗成功地把记者都排除在外,但是一些普通人却接过了他们的任务。对网络信息的传播抱有极大乐观的菲舍尔表示:“我想, 封锁的压力越大,人们寻找应对措施、设法获取信息的动力也就越大,而且人们会联合起来,与外界寻求联系。比如当年东德也曾试图封锁电视台,对民众进行压 制。然而东德的人们还是团结起来,走上街头,而当他们形成一股强大的力量时,就没有人能够阻挡了。"

记者:雨涵

责编:石涛

2009年6月20日 星期六

Tables Turn in Porsche’s Pursuit of VW

Tables Turn in Porsche’s Pursuit of VW

Eckehard Schulz/Associated Press

A worker checks a new Porsche Panamera at a plant in Leipzig, Germany.


Published: June 19, 2009

FRANKFURT — When Wolfgang Porsche learned that his family’s sports car company would need an emergency cash infusion from its giant rival Volkswagen, he “went absolutely white.”

“It was as though he’d heard someone died,” said one person briefed on the secret meeting between executives of the two companies.

The meeting, at the offices of the governor of Lower Saxony state, where Volkswagen is based, effectively ended the company’s audacious bid for Europe’s largest automaker. It also was the beginning of the end of Porsche’s cherished independence.

A day after the meeting, on March 23, fax machines around Germany spit out papers for Volkswagen’s board members to sign: an emergency loan of 700 million euros from Volkswagen, about $950 million at the time.

“This is becoming a reverse takeover on a financial level,” said Arndt Ellinghorst, head of automotive research at Credit Suisse in London. “Porsche has debt and VW has the luxury of cash.”

Even amid the tumult that is the car industry these days, the story of Porsche and its overreaching ruling family is a singular drama. Its denouement was most likely prompted by Porsche’s taking out billions of euros in loans to acquire the last portion of Volkswagen that it did not own, enlarging its debt load at precisely the moment capital markets froze up.

At heart, though, the role reversal — where Porsche turned from Volkswagen’s predator to its prey — is the latest scene in a family saga.

“In the end, this is about clans,” said Stefan Bratzel, head of the automotive research center at the University of Applied Sciences and Economics in Bergisch-Gladbach, near Cologne. “It is the Porsche clan versus the Piëch clan who belong to a single familial line, but maybe that makes the conflict that much harder.”

Both families descended from Ferdinand Porsche, who created the Volkswagen Beetle in the 1930s.

After World War II, Ferdinand’s son Ferry set up his own company, which became Porsche.

Meanwhile, Ferdinand’s daughter Louise married Anton Piëch, a Viennese lawyer; their son, Ferdinand Piëch, is now chairman of Volkswagen and has a seat on Porsche’s board.

In the early 1980s, the Porsche and Piëch clans beat back an effort by an errant cousin, Ernst Piëch, to sell his shares to a Kuwaiti investor. Instead, the Porsches bought him out, which allowed Wolfgang Porsche’s eventual appointment as chairman years later.

Four years ago, Porsche acquired a 20 percent stake in Volkswagen. Porsche’s chief executive, Wendelin Wiedeking, called the move defensive, and said that it was aimed at protecting one of his company’s most important partners from a hostile takeover.

But as time passed, it became clear that Porsche wanted full control of VW, so that the tiny carmaker could share the costs of developing new technologies with the much larger VW.

That reflected a conviction, recently articulated by Sergio Marchionne, the chief executive of Fiat, that only automakers that command economies of scale will survive in the global economy.

In October, Porsche began an epic “short-squeeze” by announcing it had acquired shares and options equal to nearly 75 percent of Volkswagen’s stock.

That forced hedge funds and traders who had sold the shares short — a process that involves lending them out — to buy them back at astronomical prices. For a brief period, VW was the world’s most valuable company.

But, in retrospect, Porsche appears to have scored a pyrrhic victory.

Getting the last 8 to 10 percent of Volkswagen may have been what broke Porsche, according to a person familiar with its finances, who requested anonymity because it involved confidential data. Porsche appears to have paid about 6 billion euros for that batch of stock, enlarging its debt load at precisely the moment that capital markets turned reluctant to lend money.

Now Wolfgang Porsche is having to accept Porsche’s integration into Volkswagen, rather than the hoped-for David-versus-Goliath takeover. And Porsche is seeking a loan from the German government and a cash infusion — from Arab investors.

The company has started exclusive talks with the Qatar Investment Authority, the country’s sovereign wealth fund. The fund could acquire up to 25 percent of Porsche’s voting shares, which have long kept the Porsche family in charge. The Qataris, who would get a seat on Porsche’s supervisory board, may also purchase the options Porsche has on VW shares.

Qatar could bring up to 5 billion euros ($6.9 billion) to the company, analysts estimate, helping to relieve the 9 billion euro debt load that Porsche incurred to acquire 50.76 percent of Volkswagen.

To tide it over, Porsche has applied for a 1.75 billion euro loan from a fund the German government set up in March to help companies weather the financial crisis. The request is being reviewed in Berlin, with a response expected in days or weeks.

But even a Qatari investment or a loan from the government will not revive Porsche’s VW project, analysts said. “That scenario does not exist anymore,” said Daniel Schwarz, an automotive analyst at Commerzbank in Frankfurt.

On May 6, Porsche and Volkswagen set a four-week deadline to create an “integrated” auto concern, but the deadline came and went amid some very public sniping from Mr. Piëch. The conflict centers on whether a fusion would simply make Porsche the 10th brand within the sprawling VW empire, or whether it would be a merger of equals.

An alpha male who is known to create fear among his underlings, Mr. Piëch has made clear that the goal was to reel in Porsche on VW’s terms.

In mid-May at the unveiling of a new version of VW’s Polo, a small hatchback, Mr. Piëch publicly criticized Mr. Wiedeking and Holger Härter, the chief financial officer who masterminded cornering VW stock. The men were partly responsible for Porsche’s precarious financial position, Mr. Piëch said, and VW’s cash would come with strings attached.

The statement stunned Porsche shareholders. Analysts say it is likely Volkswagen will now push harder to seize control of Porsche.

“German law clearly says you cannot say things publicly that violate the overriding general interest of the company,” said Christian Strenger, a board member of DWS Investment, one of Germany’s largest fund managers. “But Mr. Piëch apparently wishes to put Porsche on the ropes.”

2009年6月17日 星期三

美國計劃對金融監管進行歷史性改革


2009年06月18日10:09



國總統奧巴馬(Barack Obama)週三督促國會重定美國金融監管規定﹐他公佈了一份影響深遠的監管改革計劃﹐幾乎涉及銀行和市場的每個方面。

美國白宮希望國會能在年底前完成這項工作。但這份計劃肯定會同時遭遇到左右兩派人士的反對﹔一些右派人士指責該計劃可能會扼殺自由市場﹔而一些左派人士則認為改革力度還不夠大。一些議員還警告不能匆忙行事。

這份改革提案是奧巴馬政府尋求對私有行業擴大影響力的最新例證。白宮官員表示﹐當前危機帶來的損害顯示了美國需要一個更為強有力的“聯邦軍火庫”來保護金融體系。

奧巴馬說﹐由於其他人的不負責任以及美國政府未能提供適當監管﹐數百萬辛勤工作、行為負責的美國人目睹了他們的人生夢想無情幻滅。這種監管失職已經給我們的整體經濟帶來了破壞。

奧巴馬政府計劃向消費者提供更多普通的金融產品。政府計劃成立一個新機構﹐監管抵押貸款等消費者金融產品。

監管改革計劃將出台規定以減緩市場的起伏波動。美國政府將獲得授權﹐接管走勢蹣跚的金融巨頭﹐監管那些可能威脅到金融穩定性的金融公司﹐即便它們旗下沒有銀行。

高管薪酬和對沖基金將面臨更多的嚴格檢查。銀行監管可能會有所順暢。政府將要求金融公司增加資本。

這份改革提議沒有過於嚴厲﹐令華爾街鬆了一口氣﹔他們也意識到﹐危機之後風險偏好下降的狀況可能會成為他們長期面臨的一個因素。

現在流程已經轉向了美國國會。新計劃的一個原則已經令一些議員感到不舒服:即授予美聯儲更多的權力。

銀行業已經表示反對改革計劃中成立一個新消費者機構的規定。銀行業表示﹐這條規定可能會扼殺創新﹐使得貸款更加昂貴。隨著法案進入國會的審批程序﹐銀行業可能會大力遊說。

美國財政部長蓋特納(Timothy Geithner)週四將參加參眾兩院的兩場聽證會﹐屆時他將初步瞭解到國會的態度。

對此類事務持保守態度的阿拉巴馬州共和黨參議員謝爾比(Richard Shelby)說﹐倉促行事很危險﹐尤其是當你處理的是事關金融體系全面改革問題時。這可能是銀行委員會50年來面臨的最重要的法案。

Damian Paletta

ACER VOWS TO REPEAT ITS PC TRICK WITH LOWER-COST SMARTPHONES

ACER VOWS TO REPEAT ITS PC TRICK WITH LOWER-COST SMARTPHONES

By Robin Kwong in Taipei 2009-06-17

Acer, the world's third-biggest PC maker, vowed yesterday to be among the top five smartphone vendors in three to five years as it made its first foray into the fast-growing segment.

The Taiwanese computer maker launched four smartphones for the Taiwan market and promised a further six by the end of the year.

Acer's move into smartphones reflects the continued convergence between the computing and communications industries, and the fact that computer makers are looking for sources of growth amid a PC market battered by the economic downturn.


Few phone makers are switching to computer manufacture, but several of Acer's rivals, such as the smaller Asus, are developing smartphones, which accounted for 12 per cent of mobile sales in the fourth quarter of last year, according to research firm Gartner.

The market is dominated by Nokia, which has a 41 per cent share, followed by BlackBerry-maker Research in Motion, Apple, HTC and Samsung.

Aymar de Lencquesaing, president of Acer's smart handheld unit, said smartphones represented a “very big opportunity” for the computer maker, which expects to have a 6-7 per cent market share and to ship 20m smartphones annually by 2012.

Acer appears prepared to undercut its rivals to reach that goal, as it did in the stiffly competitive PC market. The four models Acer is selling in Taiwan range between T$15,000 and T$20,000 (US$455-$607) compared with T$20,000-T$25,000 for HTC's smartphones and about T$26,000 for Apple iPhones.


全球第三大个人电脑制造商宏碁(Acer)昨日首度进军快速增长的智能手机市场,并立志将在3到5年内跻身智能手机销售商的前五强。

这家台湾电脑制造商在台湾市场推出了4款智能手机,并承诺将在今年年底前再推出6款机型。

宏碁进军智能手机之举,体现了电脑与通讯产业的不断趋同,也反映出在经济衰退令个人电脑市场一蹶不振的情况下,电脑制造商正在寻找新的增长点。

You’re the Boss

紐約時報的新的小型老板blog
You’re the Boss
Introducing a new blog where small business owners can compare notes, ask questions, get advice and learn from one another’s mistakes.

2009年6月16日 星期二

Credit Issuers Slashing Card Balances

Credit Issuers Slashing Card Balances

Peter Wynn Thompson for The New York Times

HSBC told Edward McClelland it would forgive 20 percent of his balance if he paid it off. He declined and later got a better deal.


Published: June 15, 2009

The banks were bailed out last fall, the automobile companies last winter. For Edward McClelland, a writer in Chicago, deliverance finally arrived a few days ago.

Readers' Comments

Share your thoughts.

Mr. McClelland’s credit card company was calling yet again, wondering when it could expect the next installment on his delinquent account. He proposed paying half of his $5,486 balance and calling the matter even.

It’s a deal, the account representative immediately said, not even bothering to check with a supervisor.

As they confront unprecedented numbers of troubled customers, credit card companies are increasingly doing something they have historically scorned: settling delinquent accounts for substantially less than the amount owed.

The practice started last fall as the economy worsened. But in recent months, with unemployment topping 9 percent and more people having trouble paying their bills, experts say this approach has risen drastically.

They say many credit card issuers have revised internal guidelines to give front-line employees the power to cut deals with consumers. The workers do not even have to wait for customers to call and ask for a break.

“Now it’s the card company calling you and saying, ‘Let’s talk turkey,’ ” said David Robertson, publisher of the credit industry journal The Nilson Report.

Only a few creditors are willing to confirm the practice. Bank of America and American Express say they decide on a case-by-case basis whether to accept less than the full balance. Other card companies refuse to discuss the subject, but their trade group, the American Bankers Association, acknowledges that settlements are becoming more common.

The shift comes as the financial services industry finds itself losing some of its legendary power. A credit card reform bill that makes it harder to raise rates on existing balances and prevents certain automatic fees flew through Congress and was signed by President Obama in late May.

Borrowers still have a crushing amount of debt to deal with, however.

Revolving credit, a close approximation of credit card debt, totaled $939.6 billion in March. The Federal Reserve reported that 6.5 percent of credit card debt was at least 30 days past due in the first quarter, the highest percentage since it began tracking the number in 1991. The amount being written off was also at peak levels.

After a balance has been delinquent for six months, regulations require the card company to reduce the value of the debt on its books to zero. If a borrower has not paid by this point, chances are he never will.

“The creditors would rather have a piece of something now instead of absolutely nothing down the road,” said Adam K. Levin, the founder of the consumer education Web site Credit.com.

Banks and credit card companies are discussing new programs that would, for the first time, allow credit counselors to invoke reductions of principal as a routine part of their strategy, said Jeffrey S. Tenenbaum, a lawyer for many counseling agencies. In the past, counselors could persuade card issuers to adjust interest rates and modify late fees, but the balance was untouchable.

An example of how quickly the card companies are shifting their approach is in the behavior of HSBC, a major issuer, toward Mr. McClelland.

He was paying fitfully on his card, which was canceled for delinquency. In April, HSBC offered him full settlement at 20 percent off. He declined. A few weeks later, it agreed to let him pay half.

Traditionally, the creditors could play tough with any accounts that became delinquent because the cardholders had assets. The creditors could sue or place a lien on a cardholder’s house.

As the recession grinds on, though, many cardholders have less to lose. Mr. McClelland, 42, is a renter. Since he is self-employed, he has no wages to garnish. But he did not want to feel like a deadbeat.

“Having this over and done with was appealing,” he said. He raised the agreed-upon $2,743 and sent it off electronically last week. He has spared himself the prospect of years of collection calls.

HSBC said it did not comment on individual cardholders and would not discuss its policy toward settlements. “Every customer situation is unique,” said a spokeswoman, Cindy Savio.

The card companies, perhaps understandably, do not want to promote the idea that settlements have become merely a matter of asking nicely. The creditors also point out that a delinquency, like a foreclosure, destroys a credit record.

And there can be a Catch-22: those with the fewest assets are the likeliest to receive a settlement offer, but they are also the least able to come up with the cash for that final negotiated payment. Some creditors, though, are helpfully letting people stretch this out over months.

Still, a line has been crossed, credit experts say.

“Even in the early stages of delinquency, settlements can be dramatic,” said Carmine Dorio, a longtime industry executive who ran collection departments for Citibank, Bank of America and Washington Mutual.

During the boom, nonpayers were treated more harshly because, paradoxically, their debt was more valuable. Collection agencies were eager to buy bundles of old debt from the card companies for as much as 15 cents on the dollar. In a healthy economy, even the hopelessly indebted can pay something.

In this recession, where collection agencies have little hope of collecting from the unemployed, that business model is suffering. Experts say 5 cents on the dollar is now the most a card company can hope to get for its past-due accounts.

Another factor undermining the card companies is the rise of debt settlement firms. These are profit-making companies that charge fees, nearly always in advance, to bargain with creditors on a consumer’s behalf.

Settlement companies are under fire from regulators, who say they promise much and deliver little. But their ubiquitous ads, which make a settlement seem not only easy but also a moral victory over shamelessly gouging card companies, have done much to spread the idea.

Although there are few independent statistics on the settlement industry, there is no doubt that some generous deals are being done.

Consider Bedros Alikcioglu, a gas station owner in Newport Beach, Calif. He owed $112,000 on four cards and was paying $3,000 a month in interest and late fees. “It was so hard to earn that money, and paying it to nowhere didn’t make sense anymore,” said Mr. Alikcioglu, 75.

He signed up with a debt settlement company named Hope Financial, which negotiated deals with his creditors to settle for about 35 percent of his balance. Hope Financial is charging Mr. Alikcioglu about 12 percent of his original debt.

“I did not want to leave the legacy of bankruptcy,” Mr. Alikcioglu said. “I am now at peace.”

2009年6月9日 星期二

Royal Dutch Shell has agreed to pay $15.5 million

Human Rights | 09.06.2009

European oil giant Shell settles lawsuit over killing of Nigerian activists

In a landmark case, oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has agreed to pay $15.5 million (11.2 million euros) to the families of six Nigerian activists executed in 1995 but has refused to accept any liability for the violence.

Europe's largest oil company agreed on Monday to a $15.5 million payout to settle a lawsuit over alleged complicity in human rights abuses under the former military regime in Nigeria during the 1990s.

The case, initiated 13 years ago, had been due for trial in the US next week.

The victims included the Nigerian writer and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa who led a non-violent protest against environmental destruction and abuses against the Ogoni people in the Niger Delta. He was hanged in 1995 along with other activists after standing trial in a military court. The activists' deaths triggered international condemnation and outrage.

Though willing to pay up, Shell was quick to reject the claims concerning the 1995 execution of six anti-Shell activists by the African country's military regime.

"Shell has always maintained the allegations were false," Malcolm Brinded, executive director for exploration and production, said in a statement. "This gesture also acknowledges that, even though Shell had no part in the violence that took place, the plaintiffs and others have suffered."

A Nigerian policeman standing in front of burning gas flares  Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Shell is still active in Nigeria, the world's eighth biggest oil exporter

Marco Simons, one of the lawyers representing the victims' families, said the agreement was a "very significant milestone."

"For Shell globally that may not be significant, but if you are talking about the operating cost for that project, that is a substantial sum," Simons said.

The money will go to the plaintiffs, a trust to benefit the Ogoni, and will also be used to cover the costs of litigation.

Timeless justice

The case, which is considered a landmark in the human rights legal field, was repeatedly delayed in the run-up to Monday's announcement of a settlement.

Human rights lawyers hailed the agreement in New York as a precedent for holding Shell and other multinational oil giants responsible for activities in countries with repressive regimes.

The Shell case was filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a law dating back to 1789 which is applied for multinational companies with a substantial American presence under US law across the globe.

nk/AFP/AP

Editor: Sonia Phalnikar

2009年6月8日 星期一

A.G. Lafley's Advice for Future Leaders

A.G. Lafley's Advice for Future Leaders


Longtime Procter & Gamble Co. Chief Executive A.G. Lafley, who is expected to step down July 1, wrote just last month about the CEO's most important duties in a Harvard Business Review article called "What Only the CEO Can Do."

The piece, which appeared in the May issue of HBR , was an in-depth look into the mind of a sitting CEO. Now, it also sheds light on how Mr. Lafley views his managerial legacy at the consumer-goods giant and offers lessons for up-and-coming CEOs – like his expected successor, Robert McDonald.

Mr. Lafley is already a darling of management professors, who celebrate his tenure as an example of wise, focused and progressive leadership. Mr. Lafley led a turnaround at P&G after taking over in 2000 in the wake of a big share drop and a "crisis of confidence," as Mr. Lafley put it.

Drawing on the work of the late management guru Peter Drucker and his own nine years at P&G's helm, Mr. Lafley outlined the four key responsibilities of every CEO:

1. Defining the "meaningful outside"

Mr. Lafley argued that the CEO's foremost job is to act as a bridge to the outside world. He wrote the CEO alone can determine which stakeholders – consumers, retailers, suppliers, investors, employees or shareholders – matter most and which results are most meaningful.

"People view the importance of various stakeholders according to where they themselves sit," he wrote. "The CEO has both a clear perspective across the organization and accountability to the outside."

For Mr. Lafley, that meant driving home one point – "the consumer is boss" – and developing a performance metric to link managers' pay to consumer behavior, he wrote.

2. Asking "what business are we in and what business are we not in?"

Mr. Lafley advised CEOs to consider three main points when deciding where to invest the company's resources: the "structural attractiveness" of a business, the company's position relative to competitors, and the strategic fit of the business with the company's core strengths.

These principles spurred Mr. Lafley to expand P&G's core businesses by focusing on its most popular products and making closely-related acquisitions, such as the $57 billion purchase of Gillette Co. Also during his tenure, he orchestrated the sale of less central businesses, like Crisco, Jif and Folgers, and weak brands, like Comet and Noxzema, he says.

Other executives and managers "find it exceedingly hard to recommend shutting down or selling a business they're a part of," Mr. Lafley observed. "Disposing of assets is not as sexy as acquiring them, but it's just as important."

3. Balancing short-term results with long-term goals

Balancing short-term yields against long-term investments is "as much art as science" and "entails the riskiest choices a CEO can make," Mr. Lafley wrote .

He suggested CEOs first define realistic growth goals, recognizing that both fast-growing and slow-growing segments are valuable. He also recommended creating a flexible budget and fostering innovation aimed at both the mid-term (three to five years) and the long-term (10 to 15 years).

He added that CEOs should identify and groom talented employees with an eye to the future, allowing them to tackle not only problems but opportunities. "I know the top 500 people in the company, and I am personally involved in career planning for the 150 who are potential presidents or function heads," Mr. Lafley says. "Little if anything else that I do as CEO will have as enduring an impact on P&G's long-term future."

4. Shaping the company's values and standards

The CEOs fourth and final task is to interpret the company's values and set its standards, Mr. Lafley wrote. Focusing on P&G's core values of trust and competitiveness helped Mr. Lafley as he struggled to alter employees' internally-focused mindset upon taking control earlier this decade, he said.

"Trust had come to mean that employees could rely on the company to provide lifetime employment," he wrote. "We redefined it as consumers' trust in P&G brands and investors' trust in P&G as a long-term investment."

Lastly, Mr. Lafley said he set a new standard for business performance – operating total shareholder return – to align employees' interests with those of P&G's shareholders.

Write to Cari Tuna at cari.tuna@wsj.com

2009年6月3日 星期三

Chinese Company Buying G.M.’s Hummer Brand


Chinese Company Buying G.M.’s Hummer Brand

Jeff Kowalsky/Bloomberg News

Hummer vehicles were on display Tuesday at Hummer of Novi, above, in Michigan, one of 153 dealers in the United States. G.M. filed for bankruptcy Monday.


Published: June 2, 2009

General Motors has reached a preliminary agreement for the sale of its Hummer brand of large sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks to a machinery company in western China with ambitions to become a carmaker.

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

The buyer is the Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company, based in Chengdu, G.M. said Tuesday. The price was not disclosed, but industry analysts had estimated that the Hummer division would sell for less than $500 million.

The deal, expected to close in the third quarter, would make Tengzhong the first Chinese company to sell vehicles in North America, though Hummer’s operations would remain in the United States.

“The Hummer brand is synonymous with adventure, freedom and exhilaration, and we plan to continue that heritage by investing in the business, allowing Hummer to innovate and grow in exciting new ways under the leadership and continuity of its current management team,” Yang Yi, the chief executive of Tengzhong, said in a statement released by G.M. “We will be investing in the Hummer brand and its research and development capabilities, which will allow Hummer to better meet demand for new products such as more fuel-efficient vehicles in the U.S.”

Hummer is one of four brands that G.M., which filed for bankruptcy protection Monday, plans to drop. The company also plans to close or sell Saturn and Saab later this year and to eliminate Pontiac in 2010. G.M. revealed Tuesday that it had 16 bidders for Saturn and three for Saab.

G.M. announced the deal early Tuesday in Detroit but said that the memorandum of understanding would not allow it to reveal the buyer or the price. It confirmed that the buyer was Tengzhong after The New York Times reported on its Web site that the company was seeking approval for the purchase in China.

The White House welcomed the pending sale of Hummer while quickly pointing out that it had not been involved. The transaction “is good news for the 3,000 Americans who will be able to keep their jobs, the two American plants that will remain open and the more than 100 Hummer dealers that should be able to stay in business all around the country,” said Bill Burton, a presidential spokesman.

“As the president said, the U.S. government is not going to get involved in the day-to-day business decisions of G.M. — and this is an example in which it did not,” he added. “This sale came as a result of a commercial process and G.M. reached an agreement that will keep thousands of Americans working in a situation that could have ended instead with a devastating liquidation of this company.”

Tengzhong is a privately owned company, but Tuesday’s deal required preliminary vetting by Beijing officials, who retain the right to veto any effort at an overseas acquisition by a Chinese company and who give special attention to deals of more than $100 million.

Tengzhong is known in China for making a wide range of road equipment, from bridge piers to highway construction and maintenance machinery. But even before the Hummer deal, the company had been moving more into heavy-duty trucks, including tow trucks and oil tankers.

“Over all, we’re pretty pleased,” said a Hummer spokesman, Nick Richards. “If you think about the qualities we’d want in a new owner for the brand, this buyer really met all the criteria. They’ve got a proven track record in international business, and they’ve got a long-term vision for the brand. They’ve got the capital to invest in more efficient vehicles, which is what’s necessary to grow the brand.”

If the deal is completed, it would be the first acquisition of a well-known American auto brand by a Chinese company, after many months of speculation about such a deal. Chinese automakers have already purchased the MG and Rover brands, two of the most famous names in British automotive history.

As a Chinese company, Tengzhong could face a challenge in presenting the deal to American Hummer owners. The brand has long sought to emphasize patriotism, stressing that the Hummer H1 was essentially the same vehicle built in the same factory as the Humvee that carries American soldiers into battle in Iraq and elsewhere.

It was Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California who persuaded the longtime maker of Humvees, A. M. General in Mishawaka, Ind., to build a civilian version. As he recounted at a Hummer news conference in 2001, Mr. Schwarzenegger was filming the movie “Kindergarten Cop” in Oregon in 1990 when he saw a convoy of 50 Humvees drive by and decided that he had to have a civilian model of the same vehicle, which became the Hummer H1.

G.M. bought the rights to the Hummer brand in 1999 and began making somewhat smaller Hummers. G.M. initially procured the H1 from A. M. General, but discontinued the model in 2006.

Under the preliminary agreement announced on Tuesday, G.M. will initially continue to manufacture Hummers under contract for Tengzhong, which will then market them around the world. G.M. will continue making the H3 and H3T models in Shreveport, La., through the end of next year and the company said it might enter into a long-term agreement to build Hummers and important parts for Tengzhong.

Tengzhong plans to shift additional production of the H3 from a plant in South Africa to Shreveport, G.M. said.

Tengzhong could bring Hummers to the crowded streets of China’s cities, although the vehicles would face the 40 percent tax that China imposes on cars, sport utility vehicles and minivans with engines over 4 liters.

Once considered the ultimate muscle car, the Hummer became a symbol of what was wrong with G.M. and the American auto industry — big, bulky and gas-guzzling. Sales of Hummers fell 51 percent last year, the worst drop in the industry, and are down 67 percent so far in 2009.

Mr. Richards said the buyer planned to continue selling Hummer’s current lineup as it developed more fuel-efficient vehicles. The brand will eventually sell trucks fueled by diesel, ethanol and other alternative fuels, he said.

Derek Scissors, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, said that the Obama administration should review the Hummer sale on national security grounds to make sure that no sensitive technology from the Humvee is transferred to China.

But with the H1 discontinued, the Hummer brand essentially consists these days of G.M. S.U.V.’s with military-looking sheet metal.

In a telephone conference call, G.M.’s chief financial officer, Ray Young, said G.M. had been approached by 16 parties that were interested in bidding on its Saturn division. The group includes financial investors and companies that are interested in distributing Saturn vehicles.

He said G.M. had not set a date when it would winnow down the group to a handful of finalists, or when it hoped to announce a sale. One complication is devising the right operating plan for an independent Saturn, he said.

G.M. said it would work with the bidders to come up with the right idea. Mr. Young said that G.M. was using advisers and that prospective bidders also had retained advisers, but he would not be more specific.

G.M., which will be 60 percent owned by the federal government after exiting bankruptcy, will keep four brands: Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC.

Shearman & Sterling is providing legal advice to Tengzhong, and Credit Suisse is the Chinese company’s financial adviser. G.M.’s adviser is Citigroup.

Micheline Maynard contributed reporting.

2009年6月1日 星期一

After Many Stumbles, Fall of an American Giant

After Many Stumbles, Fall of an American Giant

Associated Press

SUNNIER DAYS The 1941 Oldsmobile four-door sedan from G.M., a car that, among other G.M. models, embodied the spacious and expanding quality of American life at the time.


Published: May 31, 2009

It is a company that helped lift hundreds of thousands of American workers into the middle class. It transformed Detroit into the Silicon Valley of its day, a symbol of America’s talent for innovation. It built celebrated cars, like Cadillacs, that became synonymous with luxury.

Skip to next paragraph
Associated Press

A Cadillac Eldorado outside Tavern on the Green in New York City circa 1958.

Dan Loftin/Associated Press

In 1985, Gov. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, flanked by other government officials, announced the opening of a G.M. Saturn plant in Spring Hill, just outside Nashville.

And now it is filing for bankruptcy, something that would have been unfathomable even a few years ago, much less decades ago, when it was a dominant force in the American economy.

Rarely has a company fallen so far and so fast as General Motors. And while its bankruptcy appeared increasingly likely in recent weeks, the arrival of the moment is still a staggering blow, particularly for anyone with ties to the company.

“I never ever could have believed that one day this thing would go that way,” said Jim Wangers, a retired G.M. executive who was part of the team that developed the Pontiac GTO, and the author of “Glory Days,” about Pontiac’s heyday in the muscle-car era of the 1960s. “We were so successful,” he added.

Founded in 1908, G.M. ruled the car industry for more than half a century, with a broad range of vehicles, reflecting the company’s promise to offer “a car for every purse and purpose.”

The expression “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country” entered the lexicon, even though it was a slight misquotation of Charles E. Wilson, G.M.’s president in the early 1950s.

But then G.M. began a long and slow process of undermining itself. Its strengths, like the rigid structure that provided discipline early on, became weaknesses, and it lost its feel for reading the American car market it helped create, as Japanese automakers lured away even its most loyal buyers.

Only eight months ago, Rick Wagoner, then its chief executive, stood before hundreds of G.M. employees to celebrate the company’s 100th anniversary. “We’re a company that’s ready to lead for 100 years to come,” Mr. Wagoner said.

Instead of leading, G.M. will instead be following other failed companies on a well-worn path into bankruptcy court.

The moment will reverberate beyond G.M.’s epicenter in Detroit, to factory towns in other parts of Michigan and in states like Indiana, Tennessee and Louisiana. It will even be felt on Fifth Avenue in New York, where it built its financial headquarters, and Epcot at Walt Disney World in Florida, where G.M. sponsors the Test Track Pavilion, a showcase of its latest cars.

G.M. factories churned out family cars, pickup trucks and memorable muscle cars with taut, sculptured body panels that were rolling displays of American DNA.

A G.M. plant was a ticket to prosperity for the communities lucky enough to land one. G.M. literally put Spring Hill, Tenn., on the map when it picked the town outside Nashville for its Saturn plant in 1985, prompting the hamlet to swell with new homes, motels and restaurants.

Now city officials around the country, including those in Spring Hill, nervously await phone calls on Monday to tell them if their plants will be among the 14 G.M. is expected to announce it will close in the latest round of cuts.

But even after its deep cuts, G.M. can still claim to be the country’s largest automaker.

For G.M., that simple fact — its sheer size — was long used as a trump card to end debates. If the critics were so right about all that was wrong with G.M., why did so many people buy its cars?

The company did have vast numbers of loyal buyers, but G.M. lost them through a series of strategic and cultural missteps starting in the 1960s.

It bungled efforts in the 1980s to cut costs by sharing the underpinnings of its cars across different brands, blurring their distinctiveness.

G.M. gave in to union demands in 1990 and created a program that paid workers even when plants were not running, forcing it to build cars and trucks it could not sell without big incentives.

Its finance staff argued with product developers and marketers who pushed for aggressive spending on new cars and trucks. But forced to feed so many brands, G.M. often resorted to a practice called “launch and leave” — spending billions upfront to bring vehicles to market, but then failing to keep supporting them with sustained advertising.

With its market share shrinking, G.M. could not give its multiple brands and car models the individual attention that helped Honda attract customers to the Accord and Toyota to its Camry.

It also lost interest in vehicles that needed time to find their audience, as happened when the company introduced the EV1 electric vehicle and then dropped it in 1999 after only three years.

Now G.M.’s brand lineup is being halved, with the company jettisoning divisions like Pontiac.

“Nobody gave any respect to this thing called image because it wasn’t in the business plan,” Mr. Wangers said. “It was all about, ‘When is this going to earn a profit?’ ”

Over the years, G.M. executives became practiced at the art of explaining their problems, attributing blame to everyone but themselves.

That list included the United Automobile Workers, for demanding health care coverage and pensions (even though G.M. agreed to provide them); government regulators, for imposing rules that G.M. said hampered its competitiveness; the Japanese government, for unfairly helping its own carmakers break into the United States market; and the news media, for failing to appreciate G.M. vehicles and the strides the company was making to improve them.

Asked in 1995 why he had not moved faster to reorganize the company, the late G.M. chief executive Roger Smith replied, “Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if we could have flipped a switch?”

Even last week, G.M.’s newly retired vice chairman, Robert A. Lutz, said the automaker had experienced a “world of hurt, much of it not of our own doing.”

Sloganeering was not backed up by execution. Executives wore lapel pins, for example, in 2002, with the number “29” — referring to the market share the company vowed to regain (most companies focus on profits). Through April of this year, its share was 19 percent, a steep drop from its peak of 54 percent in 1954.

Consumers started blaming G.M. for sub-par vehicles. They may have given them second and third chances, but many eventually started switching to other brands, which will make it that much harder for G.M. to win them back.

Mr. Wagoner was able to hold on to his job for longer than people expected, as G.M.’s stock fell steadily from about $70 when he took charge at the start of the decade. It closed at 75 cents a share on Friday.

Mr. Wagoner was pushed out by the Obama administration, which is now making the call to push the company into bankruptcy court.

A judge will then start the process of building a new, though much diminished, G.M. into a company that might have a shot at a second century. But the automaker that so dominated center stage in the American car market for so long will have to earn that place back.

Nick Bunkley contributed reporting from Detroit.

網誌存檔