Agreed. I brought up this very point with a colleague while discussing the subject of Yahoo & Carl Icahn. I would like to see some type of activist investor (or group of investors) rise up, and begin asking for management/leadership changes.

I personally feel that any CEO should be paid only with stock options and be rewarded when his/her company does well. Larry Ellison of Oracle made a name for himself doing this during the lean years.

My take on Ford’s pseudo-shotgun marriage to GM in this fiasco is primarily based on two key points:

1) It’s awesome press for Ford because they are the best looking horse in a field full of beaten down old paints… since they actually have some cash left and they were the only automaker to rank in the top 5 vehicles sold in the U.S.
2) They’re getting hurt from suppliers asking for cash instead of credit. According to CNBC’s interview with Chrysler (that I saw today), cash on hand is the supplier’s best way of reducing their own risk to their businesses – which makes perfect sense.

Does Ford need GM? Not in my opinion. However, from a business standpoint, I think getting a cash infusion from the government and being able to blame it on GM and Chrysler could pay dividends in the future. Plus, Ford’s stock has essentially doubled in just a few weeks.

Jury is still out, but it will be an interesting ride.

So FORD needs GM?

http://nomedals.blogspot.com