>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.