FAILING UP? Why Haven’t The Auto Company Execs Who Virtually Destroyed Their Companies By Going Electric Been Fired Or Called Out In the Media?
In recent years, major automakers like General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis aggressively pivoted toward electric vehicles (EVs), driven by regulatory pressure, government incentives, and lofty predictions of rapid consumer adoption. Executives promised a transformative future, pouring billions into battery plants, EV models, and ambitious production targets. Yet reality has delivered a harsh reckoning: sluggish demand, massive financial losses, and strategic retreats. Despite the wreckage, few top leaders have faced meaningful accountability or sharp media scrutiny.
The costs have been staggering. Ford announced a $19.5 billion write-down on its EV business in late 2025, following cumulative losses exceeding $35 billion since 2023 on its Model e division. General Motors took a $7.1 billion charge in early 2026, much of it tied to overbuilt EV capacity and missed targets under CEO Mary Barra. Stellantis suffered the deepest blow—a €22.2 billion ($26+ billion) impairment in February 2026, contributing to a historic $26.3 billion annual net loss. Industry-wide, legacy automakers have written off an estimated $55–114 billion related to EV overcommitments.
This “failing up” dynamic raises uncomfortable questions. Why do executives like Barra (GM) and Jim Farley (Ford) remain in place, often with multimillion-dollar compensation packages, while lower-level employees face layoffs, reduced bonuses, and restructuring pain? Media coverage has frequently framed these write-downs as prudent “resets” or blamed shifting regulations rather than probing flawed forecasting, overreliance on subsidies, or misreading consumer preferences for affordable, reliable vehicles. Hybrids and traditional ICE models continue to outsell many EVs in key segments, exposing the gap between executive vision and market signals.
Shareholder Impact
The damage to shareholders has been particularly acute. Stellantis shares cratered nearly 25% in a single day after its massive charge, erasing billions in market value and prompting a dividend suspension—directly punishing long-term investors who trusted the EV growth narrative. Ford’s write-off represented roughly 36% of its market cap at the time, while GM’s repeated hits have weighed on stock performance amid broader industry turbulence. These losses compound through diluted equity, forgone dividends, and eroded confidence, as capital that could have strengthened core truck/SUV businesses or returned value to owners was instead burned on underperforming EV lines. Retiree pensions, mutual funds, and individual portfolios tied to these stocks absorbed the hit, highlighting how executive bets on mandated transitions transferred risk downward.
Critics argue this reflects a deeper issue: insulated corporate leadership insulated by regulatory alignment and sympathetic narratives, contrasted with swift consequences for rank-and-file workers. As the industry pivots back toward customer-driven choices—including hybrids—accountability remains elusive.
What do you think? Should boards and shareholders demand more accountability from these executives? Why has media scrutiny been relatively muted? Share your thoughts in the comments below.