GM, Chrysler reportedly hold merger discussions (could eliminate Chrysler afterwards)
10-16-08, 10:41 AM
#16
Super Moderator
GM could eliminate Chrysler after acquisition
Thursday, October 16, 2008
One plan: GM may absorb Chrysler
Possible scenario would eliminate rival, reduce excess capacity; pact similar to AMC purchase.
David Shepardson, Christine Tierney and Alisa Priddle / The Detroit News
General Motors Corp. could swallow Chrysler LLC and end the Auburn Hills automaker's 83-year existence under one scenario being discussed by GM and Chrysler's owner, Cerberus Capital Management LP, said a source briefed on the talks.
Such a deal, similar to Chrysler's 1987 acquisition of American Motors Corp., would allow GM to pick up some of Chrysler's 2.7 million in annual sales -- while avoiding the bulk of Chrysler's costs, the source said.
GM, Cerberus and Chrysler all declined to comment.
Advertisement
Click here to find out more!
Sources familiar with the negotiations say the talks still are in early stages, and many combinations are being considered.
Analysts say a deal along the lines of Chrysler's purchase of AMC, which eliminated Detroit's No. 4 automaker as an entity and all its brands except Jeep, would make sense for GM.
Such a deal would differ from the 1998 acquisition of Chrysler by Germany's Daimler-Benz AG, which left the U.S. carmaker operating intact as a separate division. Instead, Chrysler would be completely absorbed into GM and melded into its car making and other operations over time.
"That would be the likely scenario, if such a thing were to happen," said Aaron Bragman, an analyst at Global Insight.
Besides the Jeep brand and Chrysler's minivans, the company has few assets of value to its bigger rival, he said.
"For GM, the only reason to absorb Chrysler would be to eliminate a competitor," he said.
Many industry experts believe GM's interest in Chrysler, both now and in 2007, when DaimlerChrysler AG put the American unit up for sale, reflected its goal to reduce the excess capacity in the U.S. auto industry that has hurt all of Detroit's carmakers.
"The others (automakers) will be delighted to have Chrysler just die and take 1.5 million units out of the industry, which is about what the excess is," said Gerald Meyers, former chairman of AMC and now a professor at the University of Michigan.
Such a deal would surely worsen Michigan's economic woes, eliminating thousands more auto jobs in Metro Detroit, canceling contracts with suppliers and prompting more plant closures.
The source familiar with the negotiations told The Detroit News that GM could cut costs by eliminating much of Chrysler's staff and gradually shifting production of Chrysler vehicles to use more GM components.
Lincoln Merrihew, an analyst with TNS Automotive in Boston, said he didn't see the Dodge or Chrysler brands surviving if such a deal were concluded. "In the situation the Big Three face, you're looking for hard-core, quick economies of scale," he said.
At Chrysler's Auburn Hills headquarters, morale is bleak as employees fear huge job losses in any GM deal, while the top bosses installed by Cerberus are expected to leave with fortunes.
GM, struggling with huge losses and a liquidity squeeze, might use Chrysler's cash -- $11.7 billion at the end of June -- to close Chrysler dealers and some of its businesses, as well as shore up GM's finances, analysts say.
Sources close to the negotiations say Chrysler might survive -- or at least fare better -- in a three-way deal with the Renault-Nissan alliance.
But it is unclear whether the French-Japanese partnership still is interested in Chrysler.
Renault SA is in debt, and executives are studying whether Nissan Motor Co. has enough cash to comfortably afford a deal in this difficult economic environment.
Carlos Ghosn, the CEO of Renault and Nissan, is said to have been more inclined to do a deal with Cerberus a few months ago.
At GM, many top executives support acquiring Chrysler, but only in a deal like Chrysler's acquisition of AMC from Renault.
Renault agreed in 1987 to sell its 46.1 percent stake in AMC, and AMC's board sold the remainder to Chrysler in a $1.2 billion deal, the biggest merger in the U.S. auto industry at the time. Chrysler ended all of AMC's car lines, keeping only the Jeep brand.
In their discussions, GM and Cerberus also have looked at their shared ownership of GMAC Financial Services since 2006, when GM sold 51 percent to Cerberus. Cerberus wants to acquire the rest, but GM wants GMAC focused on its auto sales business.
This week, after GMAC's announcement that it would consider auto loans only for customers with high credit ratings many wondered whether Cerberus was putting pressure on GM.
At Cerberus, officials deny any ulterior motive. GMAC spokeswoman Gina Proia said the decision to increase credit requirements was a result "of the current market environment that has reduced access to funds and increased the cost of funds."
One plan: GM may absorb Chrysler
Possible scenario would eliminate rival, reduce excess capacity; pact similar to AMC purchase.
David Shepardson, Christine Tierney and Alisa Priddle / The Detroit News
General Motors Corp. could swallow Chrysler LLC and end the Auburn Hills automaker's 83-year existence under one scenario being discussed by GM and Chrysler's owner, Cerberus Capital Management LP, said a source briefed on the talks.
Such a deal, similar to Chrysler's 1987 acquisition of American Motors Corp., would allow GM to pick up some of Chrysler's 2.7 million in annual sales -- while avoiding the bulk of Chrysler's costs, the source said.
GM, Cerberus and Chrysler all declined to comment.
Advertisement
Click here to find out more!
Sources familiar with the negotiations say the talks still are in early stages, and many combinations are being considered.
Analysts say a deal along the lines of Chrysler's purchase of AMC, which eliminated Detroit's No. 4 automaker as an entity and all its brands except Jeep, would make sense for GM.
Such a deal would differ from the 1998 acquisition of Chrysler by Germany's Daimler-Benz AG, which left the U.S. carmaker operating intact as a separate division. Instead, Chrysler would be completely absorbed into GM and melded into its car making and other operations over time.
"That would be the likely scenario, if such a thing were to happen," said Aaron Bragman, an analyst at Global Insight.
Besides the Jeep brand and Chrysler's minivans, the company has few assets of value to its bigger rival, he said.
"For GM, the only reason to absorb Chrysler would be to eliminate a competitor," he said.
Many industry experts believe GM's interest in Chrysler, both now and in 2007, when DaimlerChrysler AG put the American unit up for sale, reflected its goal to reduce the excess capacity in the U.S. auto industry that has hurt all of Detroit's carmakers.
"The others (automakers) will be delighted to have Chrysler just die and take 1.5 million units out of the industry, which is about what the excess is," said Gerald Meyers, former chairman of AMC and now a professor at the University of Michigan.
Such a deal would surely worsen Michigan's economic woes, eliminating thousands more auto jobs in Metro Detroit, canceling contracts with suppliers and prompting more plant closures.
The source familiar with the negotiations told The Detroit News that GM could cut costs by eliminating much of Chrysler's staff and gradually shifting production of Chrysler vehicles to use more GM components.
Lincoln Merrihew, an analyst with TNS Automotive in Boston, said he didn't see the Dodge or Chrysler brands surviving if such a deal were concluded. "In the situation the Big Three face, you're looking for hard-core, quick economies of scale," he said.
At Chrysler's Auburn Hills headquarters, morale is bleak as employees fear huge job losses in any GM deal, while the top bosses installed by Cerberus are expected to leave with fortunes.
GM, struggling with huge losses and a liquidity squeeze, might use Chrysler's cash -- $11.7 billion at the end of June -- to close Chrysler dealers and some of its businesses, as well as shore up GM's finances, analysts say.
Sources close to the negotiations say Chrysler might survive -- or at least fare better -- in a three-way deal with the Renault-Nissan alliance.
But it is unclear whether the French-Japanese partnership still is interested in Chrysler.
Renault SA is in debt, and executives are studying whether Nissan Motor Co. has enough cash to comfortably afford a deal in this difficult economic environment.
Carlos Ghosn, the CEO of Renault and Nissan, is said to have been more inclined to do a deal with Cerberus a few months ago.
At GM, many top executives support acquiring Chrysler, but only in a deal like Chrysler's acquisition of AMC from Renault.
Renault agreed in 1987 to sell its 46.1 percent stake in AMC, and AMC's board sold the remainder to Chrysler in a $1.2 billion deal, the biggest merger in the U.S. auto industry at the time. Chrysler ended all of AMC's car lines, keeping only the Jeep brand.
In their discussions, GM and Cerberus also have looked at their shared ownership of GMAC Financial Services since 2006, when GM sold 51 percent to Cerberus. Cerberus wants to acquire the rest, but GM wants GMAC focused on its auto sales business.
This week, after GMAC's announcement that it would consider auto loans only for customers with high credit ratings many wondered whether Cerberus was putting pressure on GM.
At Cerberus, officials deny any ulterior motive. GMAC spokeswoman Gina Proia said the decision to increase credit requirements was a result "of the current market environment that has reduced access to funds and increased the cost of funds."
10-16-08, 01:53 PM
#17
heh, interesting. it'll be sad for chrysler if it goes away. think about no more dodge demon or viper =/
I could only see the jeep brand surviving.
Would GM allow the Viper to stay alive and compete with their Corvette?
Same with the Challenger vs Camaro?
Esp in these hard times when the general public seems to be running towards fuel efficient vehicles?
I could only see the jeep brand surviving.
Would GM allow the Viper to stay alive and compete with their Corvette?
Same with the Challenger vs Camaro?
Esp in these hard times when the general public seems to be running towards fuel efficient vehicles?
10-16-08, 02:12 PM
#18
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: so. cal
Posts: 1,789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heh, interesting. it'll be sad for chrysler if it goes away. think about no more dodge demon or viper =/
I could only see the jeep brand surviving.
Would GM allow the Viper to stay alive and compete with their Corvette?
Same with the Challenger vs Camaro?
Esp in these hard times when the general public seems to be running towards fuel efficient vehicles?
I could only see the jeep brand surviving.
Would GM allow the Viper to stay alive and compete with their Corvette?
Same with the Challenger vs Camaro?
Esp in these hard times when the general public seems to be running towards fuel efficient vehicles?
It would be easier to just let Chrysler die and then buy the brands for cheap than to buy the company and then start shutting down brands
10-16-08, 07:44 PM
#19
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What get's me is that Chrysler has more cash than GM!! GM is expected to run out of cash next year in fact, while Chrysler is not expected to run out of cash.
Yet, GM can buy a multi-billion dollar company?
That's why to me, only a merger would seem possible, not a purchase.
It would be sad to see Chrysler and Dodge killed off after a 100 year history.
No more Dodge Ram? Looking at the '09 Ram, it would be quite a shame. The new truck is light years ahead of the old and IMO far better than GM's trucks.
Yet, GM can buy a multi-billion dollar company?
That's why to me, only a merger would seem possible, not a purchase.
It would be sad to see Chrysler and Dodge killed off after a 100 year history.
No more Dodge Ram? Looking at the '09 Ram, it would be quite a shame. The new truck is light years ahead of the old and IMO far better than GM's trucks.
10-16-08, 07:51 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
A couple things.
1. I don't want to say FU Mercedes Benz, but they acquired Chrysler, spent ALL THEIR MONEY, left them with nothing but what the 300C and Crossfire on old Benz parts. Benz has a lot to do with Chrysler in this mess.
2. Amazing to think this company once owned the tallest building in the world and was a source of huge American pride.
1. I don't want to say FU Mercedes Benz, but they acquired Chrysler, spent ALL THEIR MONEY, left them with nothing but what the 300C and Crossfire on old Benz parts. Benz has a lot to do with Chrysler in this mess.
2. Amazing to think this company once owned the tallest building in the world and was a source of huge American pride.
10-16-08, 07:55 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Look at Chryslers lineup. It is a hot damn mess. Not one fuel efficient car. Most are ugly, old or failed SUVs. Jeep is the best thing they have.
Code:
Chrysler LLC U.S. Sales Summary Thru September 2008
Month Sales Vol %
Model Curr Yr Pr Yr Change
Sebring 5,450 6,057 -10%
300 4,287 9,231 -54%
Crossfire 113 501 -77%
PT Cruiser 2,410 6,140 -61%
Aspen 1,313 3,875 -66%
Pacifica 544 4,183 -87%
Town & Country 9,229 8,681 6%
CHRYSLER BRAND 23,346 38,668 -40%
Compass 993 2,852 -65%
Patriot 3,190 4,245 -25%
Wrangler 6,130 8,605 -29%
Liberty 4,963 6,830 -27%
Grand Cherokee 4,565 10,419 -56%
Commander 1,590 4,509 -65%
JEEP BRAND 21,431 37,460 -43%
Caliber 6,129 6,348 -3%
Avenger 4,500 8,318 -46%
Charger 8,118 9,265 -12%
Challenger 2,376 0 0%
Viper 86 24 258%
Magnum 35 3,628 -99%
Dakota 622 4,188 -85%
Ram P/U 20,812 30,100 -31%
Journey 4,860 0 0%
Caravan 11,056 10,417 6%
Durango 616 2,850 -78%
Nitro 2,531 7,044 -64%
Sprinter 831 1,489 -44%
DODGE BRAND 62,572 83,671 -25%
TOTAL CHRYSLER LLC 107,349 159,799 -33%
TOTAL CAR 31,099 43,681 -29%
TOTAL TRUCK 76,250 116,118 -34%
Selling Days 24 25
Sales CYTD Vol %
Model Curr Yr Pr Yr Change
Sebring 61,428 68,277 -10%
300 51,807 90,251 -43%
Crossfire 1,566 8,290 -81%
PT Cruiser 42,345 77,383 -45%
Aspen 17,681 22,468 -21%
Pacifica 5,621 42,874 -87%
Town & Country 95,287 99,134 -4%
CHRYSLER BRAND 275,735 408,677 -33%
Compass 22,389 31,273 -28%
Patriot 47,344 27,612 71%
Wrangler 65,135 92,549 -30%
Liberty 54,293 68,865 -21%
Grand Cherokee 57,333 93,246 -39%
Commander 22,654 50,124 -55%
JEEP BRAND 269,148 363,669 -26%
Caliber 74,069 80,352 -8%
Avenger 53,828 59,148 -9%
Charger 80,220 89,490 -10%
Challenger 8,443 0 0%
Viper 872 348 151%
Magnum 6,777 22,342 -70%
Dakota 21,626 41,376 -48%
Ram P/U 196,058 276,978 -29%
Journey 35,627 0 0%
Caravan 102,398 130,472 -22%
Durango 17,339 37,511 -54%
Nitro 30,071 55,789 -46%
Sprinter 11,308 11,193 1%
DODGE BRAND 638,636 806,477 -21%
TOTAL CHRYSLER LLC 1,183,519 1,578,823 -25%
TOTAL CAR 340,101 429,876 -21%
TOTAL TRUCK 843,418 1,148,947 -27%
Selling Days 230 230
10-16-08, 08:00 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not one vehicle is in the +. Most have huge declines. Their dumbasses invested in a retro, limited sales Challenger that is going to sell even worse the next 4 years.
Their dumbass forecasters predicted people wanted SUVs and Crossovers and not economy cars, so they give the NEON the shaft and bring us the Nitro and Compass and Caliber.
They don't have ONE fuel efficient car.
GM on the other hand is bringing the Volt, the new Malibu has been great, Saturn and Pontiac are turning the corner, the Vette is fantastic, Buick is turning the corner. GM GETS it. Caddy also is far from the Caddy of old.
GM can make it, they just need to continue to pump out great products and have some INCREDIBLE marketing to have people check out their products again.
It does kind of drain me people would rather be seen in UGLY *** Hondas, Toyotas, Nissans instead of some pretty good Fords and GMs (and maybe a rare Chrysler).
There was a "buy America" surge back in the early 1990s but I doubt that happens again.
Their dumbass forecasters predicted people wanted SUVs and Crossovers and not economy cars, so they give the NEON the shaft and bring us the Nitro and Compass and Caliber.
They don't have ONE fuel efficient car.
GM on the other hand is bringing the Volt, the new Malibu has been great, Saturn and Pontiac are turning the corner, the Vette is fantastic, Buick is turning the corner. GM GETS it. Caddy also is far from the Caddy of old.
GM can make it, they just need to continue to pump out great products and have some INCREDIBLE marketing to have people check out their products again.
It does kind of drain me people would rather be seen in UGLY *** Hondas, Toyotas, Nissans instead of some pretty good Fords and GMs (and maybe a rare Chrysler).
There was a "buy America" surge back in the early 1990s but I doubt that happens again.
10-16-08, 08:08 PM
#23
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not one vehicle is in the +. Most have huge declines. Their dumbasses invested in a retro, limited sales Challenger that is going to sell even worse the next 4 years.
Their dumbass forecasters predicted people wanted SUVs and Crossovers and not economy cars, so they give the NEON the shaft and bring us the Nitro and Compass and Caliber.
They don't have ONE fuel efficient car.
GM on the other hand is bringing the Volt, the new Malibu has been great, Saturn and Pontiac are turning the corner, the Vette is fantastic, Buick is turning the corner. GM GETS it. Caddy also is far from the Caddy of old.
GM can make it, they just need to continue to pump out great products and have some INCREDIBLE marketing to have people check out their products again.
It does kind of drain me people would rather be seen in UGLY *** Hondas, Toyotas, Nissans instead of some pretty good Fords and GMs (and maybe a rare Chrysler).
There was a "buy America" surge back in the early 1990s but I doubt that happens again.
Their dumbass forecasters predicted people wanted SUVs and Crossovers and not economy cars, so they give the NEON the shaft and bring us the Nitro and Compass and Caliber.
They don't have ONE fuel efficient car.
GM on the other hand is bringing the Volt, the new Malibu has been great, Saturn and Pontiac are turning the corner, the Vette is fantastic, Buick is turning the corner. GM GETS it. Caddy also is far from the Caddy of old.
GM can make it, they just need to continue to pump out great products and have some INCREDIBLE marketing to have people check out their products again.
It does kind of drain me people would rather be seen in UGLY *** Hondas, Toyotas, Nissans instead of some pretty good Fords and GMs (and maybe a rare Chrysler).
There was a "buy America" surge back in the early 1990s but I doubt that happens again.
In all fairness, just about every car in the industry is experiencing declines because of the financial crisis. But yeah, Chrysler is among the weakest.
It kills me *** well that Chrysler developed (on there own) the small Neon when gas was LESS than $1 a gallon in the '90's. When it's $4 a gallon, the most fuel efficient vehicle is the Caliber (not even a small car) which does 30 mpg at best.
10-16-08, 08:19 PM
#24
Moderator
Two wrongs don't make a right...
10-17-08, 10:38 AM
#25
Super Moderator
10-17-08, 11:04 AM
#26
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC/ATL
Posts: 2,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This does not make sense, an article in the New York Times, said GM/Cerberus essentially want Chrysler for their 11 billion dollar reserve, keeping certain models and eventually turning them into GM vehicles, GM also seems to think if Chrysler was gone their would be another 1.5 million sales of GM vehicles
If you can't beat them, buy them and erase them
If you can't beat them, buy them and erase them
10-17-08, 01:26 PM
#27
A couple things.
1. I don't want to say FU Mercedes Benz, but they acquired Chrysler, spent ALL THEIR MONEY, left them with nothing but what the 300C and Crossfire on old Benz parts. Benz has a lot to do with Chrysler in this mess.
2. Amazing to think this company once owned the tallest building in the world and was a source of huge American pride.
1. I don't want to say FU Mercedes Benz, but they acquired Chrysler, spent ALL THEIR MONEY, left them with nothing but what the 300C and Crossfire on old Benz parts. Benz has a lot to do with Chrysler in this mess.
2. Amazing to think this company once owned the tallest building in the world and was a source of huge American pride.
Thank you for pointing this out, most believe Benz did Chrysler a favor by taking them over, to the contrary Chrysler had a profitable line up, a team of good young designers who were all fired and most importantly more cash on hand than any automaker in the world, then they dump them off to an investment firm who only cares about the bottom line, thanks Benz.
10-18-08, 05:57 AM
#28
Nice little tid bit from Robert Salomon, agree with most of what is said:
The New York Times is reporting that GM and Chrysler are discussing combining operations (see GM Said to Seek Merger).
G. M. executives approached Ford about a possible merger in July, but Ford rejected the idea and ended the discussions last month, these people said.
After Ford decided to remain independent amid an increasingly difficult auto market, G. M. turned its attention to Chrysler. For the last month, it has been in preliminary merger talks with Chrysler’s owner, the private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management.
People with knowledge of the talks described the chances of a deal as “50-50.”
It’s a pretty straightforward deal: an oligopolistic play in an industry burdened by overcapacity. By coming together, the two firms figure that they can rationalize operations, reduce industry capacity, and gain some pricing power.
This type of strategic rationale can work, as there is no quicker way to gain market share and increase pricing power than to remove a direct competitor. However, I’ve never been a big fan of combining two failing firms in the hopes of creating one healthy one. You generally end up with managerial attention diverted to a complicated integration, and away from what they should be doing in the first place - managing the individual businesses to make them healthy.
According to the WSJ, GM expects $10B in benefits by combining with Chrysler (see GM had Talks with Chrysler).
Pray, do tell, how?
Unless GM is expecting to shut Chrysler down and pocket their nearly $11B in cash reserves, $10B in benefits seems improbable to me.
Their best bet would be to get rid of half the products of the combined GM-Chrysler, keeping only the best-in-class product from each firm (e.g., the Jeep brand for SUV’s and the Chevy brand for the mass market). Their product portfolios overlap almost exactly, so the thinking has to be that by rationalizing operations, GM-Chrysler would be able to do so while effectively combining Chrysler’s 11% U.S. market share with GM’s 24% market share.
But again, I am skeptical. Do Chrysler and GM truly believe that they will be operationally improved after combining operations? This integration will cost far more than either can imagine, at a time when there is little room for error on either side. As the WSJ astutely points out:
A GM-Chrysler deal would be a highly complicated maneuver, which would involve the rationalizing of more than 100 automotive plants and about 190,000 employees in North America. It would also likely force a streamlining of 11 automotive brands — from Chrysler to Cadillac — and more than 10,000 auto dealers in the United States, Mexico and Canada.
So if you are GM, why not wait until Chrysler goes bankrupt? That accomplishes the same thing without the trouble of the integration. You get to capture Chrysler’s market share (or at least split it with Ford), without having to assume responsibility for its operations. Unless, of course, GM is worried that it might be the first to go…
In the end, the whole thing reeks of desperation. And sadly, the only firm this deal benefits is Cerberus, providing them an exit from an ugly, ugly deal.
G. M. executives approached Ford about a possible merger in July, but Ford rejected the idea and ended the discussions last month, these people said.
After Ford decided to remain independent amid an increasingly difficult auto market, G. M. turned its attention to Chrysler. For the last month, it has been in preliminary merger talks with Chrysler’s owner, the private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management.
People with knowledge of the talks described the chances of a deal as “50-50.”
It’s a pretty straightforward deal: an oligopolistic play in an industry burdened by overcapacity. By coming together, the two firms figure that they can rationalize operations, reduce industry capacity, and gain some pricing power.
This type of strategic rationale can work, as there is no quicker way to gain market share and increase pricing power than to remove a direct competitor. However, I’ve never been a big fan of combining two failing firms in the hopes of creating one healthy one. You generally end up with managerial attention diverted to a complicated integration, and away from what they should be doing in the first place - managing the individual businesses to make them healthy.
According to the WSJ, GM expects $10B in benefits by combining with Chrysler (see GM had Talks with Chrysler).
Pray, do tell, how?
Unless GM is expecting to shut Chrysler down and pocket their nearly $11B in cash reserves, $10B in benefits seems improbable to me.
Their best bet would be to get rid of half the products of the combined GM-Chrysler, keeping only the best-in-class product from each firm (e.g., the Jeep brand for SUV’s and the Chevy brand for the mass market). Their product portfolios overlap almost exactly, so the thinking has to be that by rationalizing operations, GM-Chrysler would be able to do so while effectively combining Chrysler’s 11% U.S. market share with GM’s 24% market share.
But again, I am skeptical. Do Chrysler and GM truly believe that they will be operationally improved after combining operations? This integration will cost far more than either can imagine, at a time when there is little room for error on either side. As the WSJ astutely points out:
A GM-Chrysler deal would be a highly complicated maneuver, which would involve the rationalizing of more than 100 automotive plants and about 190,000 employees in North America. It would also likely force a streamlining of 11 automotive brands — from Chrysler to Cadillac — and more than 10,000 auto dealers in the United States, Mexico and Canada.
So if you are GM, why not wait until Chrysler goes bankrupt? That accomplishes the same thing without the trouble of the integration. You get to capture Chrysler’s market share (or at least split it with Ford), without having to assume responsibility for its operations. Unless, of course, GM is worried that it might be the first to go…
In the end, the whole thing reeks of desperation. And sadly, the only firm this deal benefits is Cerberus, providing them an exit from an ugly, ugly deal.
10-18-08, 12:12 PM
#29
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: California
Posts: 6,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More variations on the theme:
Worries grow as GM-Chrysler talks gain momentum
By TOM KRISHER, AP Auto Writer
DETROIT – In the doomsday scenario raising anxiety around the Motor City, General Motors Corp. makes a deal for Chrysler LLC, keeps Jeep and the minivans, and vaporizes the rest of the company.
Tens of thousands of Chrysler's 66,409 employees lose their jobs as cash-desperate GM swiftly cuts redundant operations and sheds unprofitable models. Factories and dealerships are closed, and the lights go out at Chrysler's gleaming corporate headquarters campus in the northern suburb of Auburn Hills.
For the full article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/...merger_talks_6
Still hoping GM, Chryco, and Ford all merge. If for no other reason than to see NASCAR turn into Toyota Camrys against a (Fusion-Impala-Charger) Fumper.
Worries grow as GM-Chrysler talks gain momentum
By TOM KRISHER, AP Auto Writer
DETROIT – In the doomsday scenario raising anxiety around the Motor City, General Motors Corp. makes a deal for Chrysler LLC, keeps Jeep and the minivans, and vaporizes the rest of the company.
Tens of thousands of Chrysler's 66,409 employees lose their jobs as cash-desperate GM swiftly cuts redundant operations and sheds unprofitable models. Factories and dealerships are closed, and the lights go out at Chrysler's gleaming corporate headquarters campus in the northern suburb of Auburn Hills.
For the full article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/...merger_talks_6
Still hoping GM, Chryco, and Ford all merge. If for no other reason than to see NASCAR turn into Toyota Camrys against a (Fusion-Impala-Charger) Fumper.
10-18-08, 12:24 PM
#30
Lexus Fanatic
They don't have ONE fuel efficient car.
GM on the other hand is bringing the Volt, the new Malibu has been great, Saturn and Pontiac are turning the corner, the Vette is fantastic, Buick is turning the corner. GM GETS it. Caddy also is far from the Caddy of old.
There was a "buy America" surge back in the early 1990s but I doubt that happens again.