Mrjoshua Member Username: Mrjoshua
Post Number: 857 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 89.136.139.22
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 11:15 am: | |
Tracinda: Renault, Nissan want GM stake NEW YORK - Automakers Renault SA and Nissan Motor Co. are interested in purchasing a significant stake in General Motors Corp. and including the struggling Detroit company in their alliance, according to a letter sent Friday to GM from billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian's investment company. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 60630/ap_on_bi_ge/tracinda_gm_ alliance |
Gannon
Member Username: Gannon
Post Number: 6088 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 70.236.198.22
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 11:34 am: | |
Very curious. This is either sheer genius corporate poetry or the world's biggest time bomb. Or both. |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 95 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 11:40 am: | |
tick....tick....tick.... |
56packman Member Username: 56packman
Post Number: 438 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 129.9.163.105
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 11:52 am: | |
Renault did so much for AMC |
Sknutson
Member Username: Sknutson
Post Number: 613 Registered: 03-2004 Posted From: 67.114.23.202
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 12:34 pm: | |
Renault did something for AMC: it got me to buy a 1984 Renualt Encore! I loved that little car. |
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm
Post Number: 803 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 68.35.85.184
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 12:50 pm: | |
In 5-6 years, Carlos Ghosn has completely turned Nissan around, from multi-billion losses to nearly the most profitable car company in the world. Renault has become one of the most profitable and well run European car companies. GM would completely become a very different, and incredibly better run, company with his involvement. |
Sharmaal Member Username: Sharmaal
Post Number: 840 Registered: 09-2004 Posted From: 136.1.1.33
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 12:53 pm: | |
Let's see how Nissan is doing in a few years. I think Carlos is being given alot of credit for short-term success. Alot of it hinges on his latest gamble, moving designers out of Cali. |
Ct4438 Member Username: Ct4438
Post Number: 19 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 67.37.215.187
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 1:32 pm: | |
Sknutson Someone else who owned a Renault? I had a 1985 Alliance.....such a great little car. 1.2 liter engine...only had to put gasoline in it once a week at best. Now I'm getting nostalgic. |
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 967 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 1:53 pm: | |
I once had a Renault Dauphine--all 32 HP of it. It sucked gasoline right out of the air on which it ran. |
Rustic Member Username: Rustic
Post Number: 2593 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 130.132.177.245
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 1:53 pm: | |
Question for the auto guys on this forum who would know: has Nissan been siphoning market share off of the domestics or Toyota? If Nissan has simply been eating Chevy's lunch this proposed merger would be a stopgap not addressing the real problem. OTOH, if Nissan is spanking toyota ... well .... that's a different story ... (Message edited by rustic on June 30, 2006) |
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies
Post Number: 1972 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.234
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 2:58 pm: | |
Market share is being lost by the domestics and the second tier imports. Honda and Toyota are the ones that are gaining the most market share. The question I have is what does this give GM that they don't already have. Renault is a non player in GM's weakest market. Nissan only controls 6.3% of the US market. They are bit players in the markets GM is struggling in. They offer no technology that GM can't get from it's current partners/subsidiaries. GM is being told to cut divisions not add them. GM has way more money in the bank than either of these companies. The UAW isn't going to let GM build at non union Nissan plants in the US. GM's kicking everyones ass in China. They are the number one company there. The Japanese are struggling in China. I can't think of a single reason this makes any sense. Sounds like PR to bump the stock price to me. |
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch
Post Number: 1638 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 208.44.117.10
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 3:06 pm: | |
Enough of the logic Ndavies...Ghosn is a bad ass... |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 96 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 3:42 pm: | |
GM had to pay $2B to get out of their disasterous financial and technical alliance with Fiat. I doubt that the GM Board of directors will want to play with fire again, even if there might be a huge chunk of cash coming their way. Regarding Nissan, they are currently "whistling past the graveyard". In 2003, they had some serious launch and quality problems at their plant in Canton, MS (which builds the Armada and Infiniti QX56 fullsize SUVs, the Titan fullsize pickup, the Nissan Quest minivan and Altima sedan) but they have since put those problems behind them. Nissan/Infinity has six product launches this year which are being closely watched by the auto beat writers, given their past launch problems. On top of all these launches, Nissan is right now in the middle of moving their 1,300 HQ personnel from LA to Nashville at CEO Carlos Ghosn's insistence. However, more than half of them quit or retired rather than make the move! Nissan's May 2006 sales were down 3% from the same month in 2005, while Toyota and Honda saw their sales increase 9%. Ghosn's "golden touch" reputation is on the line. Methinks Kirk and Jerry are getting desparate. tick....tick....tick..... |
Imperfectly Member Username: Imperfectly
Post Number: 113 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 24.192.186.228
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 5:18 pm: | |
i had a renault encore also ....well it was my moms and then i drove it to school. that is until a snowplow hit me and demolished it!! |
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies
Post Number: 1974 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.227.12.109
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 6:09 pm: | |
I think shorting GM stock would be a good play right now. I'm sure GM will give back the 8% jump in stock price in the next couple of weeks. |
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm
Post Number: 806 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 68.35.85.184
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 7:22 pm: | |
US Market share 2004 - 2005: GM 27.2% - 26.0% Ford 18.3 - 17.4 D-C 13.0 - 13.6 Toyota 12.2 - 13.3 Honda 8.2 - 8.6 Nissan 5.8 - 6.3 |
Commodore64 Member Username: Commodore64
Post Number: 220 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 71.65.11.254
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 8:21 pm: | |
That renault fuego was a great looking car! |
7milekid Member Username: 7milekid
Post Number: 111 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 68.61.161.193
| Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 9:18 pm: | |
what a horrible idea, lets keep the american companies american, bump all this global shit. We need to go back to the days of isolationism. |
Thnk2mch Member Username: Thnk2mch
Post Number: 183 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 71.65.11.152
| Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 10:33 am: | |
quote:Renault did something for AMC: it got me to buy a 1984 Renualt Encore! I loved that little car.
quote:Someone else who owned a Renault? I had a 1985 Alliance.....such a great little car. 1.2 liter engine...only had to put gasoline in it once a week at best. Now I'm getting nostalgic.
quote:I once had a Renault Dauphine--all 32 HP of it. It sucked gasoline right out of the air on which it ran.
quote:i had a renault encore also ....well it was my moms and then i drove it to school. that is until a snowplow hit me and demolished it!!
Maybe if you would have bought a G.M., this thread would not be a topic..... |
Ct4438 Member Username: Ct4438
Post Number: 20 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 67.37.215.187
| Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 7:18 am: | |
It was my first car....bought it used, so I was contributing to my local economy. My other car purchases (those from a dealership) have all been Ford/GM. |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 107 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244
| Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 8:22 am: | |
quote:.... bought it used, so I was contributing to my local economy.
And you were also contributing a sale price data point that was collected by the used car "blue book" companies. These days more than ever, you are also making an indirect impact on that manufacturer's bottom line with your used car purchase decision. By contributing to the demand that keeps a used model's residual value high, you help generate huge profits on leases offered by the manufacturer's financing arm. This can happen in two ways: a) if the actual residual value of a model is higher at end of lease than it was estimated to be at the start, the financing company gets a windfall profit on almost all of the leases they wrote for that model, b) future new car leases for that model can be written with very competitive monthly rates that are lower because the gap between the transaction price and the estimated future residual value is now narrower. The other way that your contribution to used car demand can help an OEM's bottom line is that the manufacturer's new model offerings can command a higher transaction price, leading to more profits on their new car sales. A higher resale value supported by "blue book" data is always a salespersons' best selling point. |
Romanized Member Username: Romanized
Post Number: 212 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 71.4.97.100
| Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 9:02 am: | |
Nissan's quality issues are overblown. (I think they had a temporary issue with the paint process. That's it.) GM is already doing major collaborations with foreign automakers. So this story is overblown. Its a good ideal. |
Ct4438 Member Username: Ct4438
Post Number: 21 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 67.37.215.187
| Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 10:19 am: | |
I bought a 1985 car used, not from a dealership in 1992. I purchased the car from an acquaintance. By that time, Renault was no longer selling new vehicles.....I'm certain of that because when there was a recall affecting my vehicle I had to take it to a Chrysler dealership to be repaired. My point was that I missed my economical car...great on gasoline which cannot be said for most of the vehicles on the road today. |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 108 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244
| Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 10:45 am: | |
Romanized- Can you find any facts to support your statement? The ones I find tend to dispute it. Nissan's quality issues extended beyond paint to metal finish, squeaks/rattles/wind noise and fit/finish issues. While they appear to have since contained those quality issues with the original products, it remains to be seen whether they can launch the redesigned products at Canton without a quality spike. Regarding GM doing major collaborations with foreign automakers, that used to be the case, but not any more. GM's $2.4B alliance with Fiat in 2000 cost them another $2B to exit only five years later. GM used to have 20% stakes in both Fuji Heavy Industries and Suzuki, which were sold earlier this year to raise cash. That leaves GM with a 7.9% stake in Isuzu, which is also on the block, plus some technical agreements with Toyota through which they cooperate in the development of new fuel cell technology. |
Romanized Member Username: Romanized
Post Number: 213 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 71.4.97.100
| Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 3:03 pm: | |
Mikeg, Those issues are minor at best. Many other autos exist with them. GM has shown a willingness to collaborate in the past (those projects are more involved than you describe) and realize its only a matter of time before a move like occurs. Now is as good a time as any. |
Trefoil Member Username: Trefoil
Post Number: 169 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.185.128.111
| Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 8:11 pm: | |
Maybe GM and Ford should merge. |
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 502 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.242.39.114
| Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 9:26 pm: | |
"Maybe GM and Ford should merge." Ah, nothing like two drowning people joining hands and drowning faster... |
Hagglerock Member Username: Hagglerock
Post Number: 261 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 12.214.243.66
| Posted on Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - 11:45 pm: | |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 60705/ap_on_bi_ge/gm_alliance This new term, takeover, sounds much worse than a merger. If something like this were to happen it probably wouldn't be great having a pissed off Kerkorian bitter towards a struggling SE Michigan. Any thoughts? D |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 116 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244
| Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 10:38 am: | |
This is all about Kirkorian's desire (and need, after all, he is 89 yrs old) to pump up GM's stock price so he is "above water" on his investment. Earlier this year, he got his man, Jerry York, placed on GM's board to make things happen faster, not necessarily better. A corporate raider like Kirkorian typically tries to increase shareholder value by selling off marketable portions of the business and then after it has been milked dry, they bail out and leave the shell of the former business to try and survive without critical assets and a sustainable strategy. Merger, takeover, whatever you want to call it, the end result of this gambit from Kirkorian's viewpoint is to get his own man in charge of GM's business. Ghosn sounds like he is willing to do Kirkorian's bidding if Renault/Nissan are willing to part with a paltry $3B to take a 20% ownership stake in GM. Ghosn will find it a lot tougher to find and take his own actions to turn GM around faster since unlike Nissan, most of the low-hanging fruit at GM has already been picked. If this happens, look for Ghosn to take advantage of GM's underutilized assembly capacity to build Nissan products that would compete against Chevrolet models. Also expect very contentious negotiations with the UAW in search of a new national agreement in 2007. |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1423 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.220.230.150
| Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 11:09 am: | |
quote:Maybe GM and Ford should merge.
Actually it would have to be Ford and GM, that is why they wouldn't merge with Benz, becuase the Dailmer had to come first. |
Sknutson
Member Username: Sknutson
Post Number: 617 Registered: 03-2004 Posted From: 67.114.23.202
| Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 12:23 pm: | |
The Encore and Alliance were built in Kenosha by AMC, providing American jobs. |
Bobj Member Username: Bobj
Post Number: 757 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 65.221.183.220
| Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 12:33 pm: | |
I think that GM needs more major cost cutting and a major culture change. They still have a cost structure that cannot be supported and they most likely need a bad a** outsider to do it. On a side note, I was at a 4th of July party where a GM white collar worker was bragging about being off this week for the Summer shutdown and mildly complaining that he is also off next week but has to take vacation. After he walked away from the group of 10 people or so, the ripping on GM began. Lots of people would like to have 2 weeks off in the middle of Summer while being charged for only one week. |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 118 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244
| Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 4:12 pm: | |
That GM worker was apparently a union member. GM salaried workers all are forced to take two weeks of their vacation time during the shutdown. Union members used to get those two weeks off without having to take any vacation time, since the plants were shut down for model changeover. Based on their contract with GM, they received sub-pay (supplemental unemployment benefits which, when combined with state unemployment benefits, give the worker 95% of their base pay) for those two weeks. When GM went to a company-wide shutdown in the 1990's to save money, the union balked at any switch from sub-pay to vacation time. I think more recently they may have agreed to give up one week of sub-pay and make their members use vacation time. GM and the UAW need to make numerous changes in their next national agreement. This shut-down pay issue is "small potatoes" compared to the changes that are needed in the "jobs bank" provisions, which is a huge structural cost burden to GM, and one which the transplant auto manufacturers do not have to bear. If the current management and union leaders don't solve the "jobs bank" and other issues in the next negotiations, they will ultimately get solved in GM's favor by a Federal bankruptcy judge, and the union knows it. |
Danny Member Username: Danny
Post Number: 4491 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 198.111.165.50
| Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 4:15 pm: | |
This plan could work for GM. It'd desperatly needs to be in the global automobile industry in order to make a profit. As for right now GM sales in China had gone up 12% in sales. |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 119 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244
| Posted on Thursday, July 06, 2006 - 4:54 pm: | |
GM is already well-positioned in the global automobile industry. More than half their vehicle sales are outside North America. North America is the only region where they are not currently profitable, primarily due to their structural costs which are still locked in at a level commensurate with the 34% market share type company they used to be. The recent agreements on early retirements and buyouts are a good first step towards making GM profitable in North America again. GM management and the UAW are both aware that each of their long-term survivals depend on making additional changes in the next national contract that will fix the remaining problems. To try and force a reopening of the GM-UAW national contract before the current one expires in Sept. 2007 would be counterproductive. There are no synergies to be obtained from a Renault-Nissan "takeover" that will fix GM's structural cost problems in North America. The only outcome will be a management takeover of GM which will lead to a swift dismantling of GM's operations around the world and a shattered UAW. |