GM went bankrupt. Ford would have without government intervention. Each have had periods of profitability but they weren't ever anything like microsoft/google etc. Ford has underperformed the stock market average since it went public like 70 odd years ago. GM got so big in the first place via acquisitions, not because the business of cars lent itself to a dominant player.
Huge by itself isn't the same as huge winner.
>GM went bankrupt.
I'd call an 80 year run pretty damn good. having my company not just survive me and my children, but dominate an industry for that time seems like a good deal. It shows it wasn't my fault it failed.
>the business of cars lent itself to a dominant player.
I'd rather measure my business by impact, not stock numbers. That mentality is exactly why GM fell very slowly through the 70's (defying a while bunch of strategies Ford implemented to beat out the compeition. like knowledge retention ) and crashed by the 90's.
Money to keep operating is important too, but I don't think Ford lived a life of Picasso here.
Yup, it's pretty good.
It's just not a huge winner. Many industries don't work that way, there are no "huge winners" even if there are some companies that are huge. Oil & gas doesn't really have "huge winners". The huge companies are a result of huge amounts of capital being put to work.
That's recent. Ford was founded in 1903. GM in 1908.
GM was America's largest employer as recently as the 90s.
Largest employer is a strange way to describe a huge winner.