- #92 of 874
-
Re: cross-posted brand cutting [cooterbfd]
by nippononly
-
Nov 29, 2008 (8:57 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Nov 29, 2008 1:29 pm)
What good would dropping brands do if the dealers need to be paid off??? Dropping 1 brand may work, as they can tell the BPG dealers they still have 2, or offer Saturn dealers BPG, but to rid them all would cost billions.
Well, I was thinking they could sell the Saab and Saturn brands wholesale - no need to pay off any dealers there. I don't know about Pontiac, but then again I'm not the one suggesting it, GM is as part of their bailout plan.
|
- #93 of 874
-
What If...
by jchan2
-
Nov 29, 2008 (9:06 pm)
-
|
GM took the Saab and Saturn brands and sold them together as a package- the dealer networks of the 2 are pretty complimentary, and the two brands could have some degree of economies of scale as an independent entity.
GM could even do an IPO, spin off the two brands, and retain maybe 33% in the new company. Then again, an IPO in this market is the kiss of death.
Saab and Saturn were the last two to be integrated into GM- wouldn't this also mean that they would be the easiest to divorce from GM?
The complication here is so many Saab dealers have become Cadillac-Hummer-Saab...
|
- #94 of 874
-
Re: cross-posted brand cutting [fezo]
by bpizzuti
-
Nov 30, 2008 (4:42 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: fezo (Nov 29, 2008 2:46 pm)
That's because Ford was actually SMART, and is already mid-way through their plan...not like they needed to come up with anything new for Congress, just go over the plan that's already in progress. Remember, Ford already had started to turn the company around and made a profit earlier this year before the recession hit. They just don't want to derail the current master plan, which just happens to be working. They even managed to secure credit, and may not need a bailout (not that they'd be dumb enough to turn money down if it was offered, of course).
As for GM...my master plan for them is to get out of the car business, buy the rest of GMAC, become a bank holding company in order to get Fed loans, and become a successful mortgage originator and automotive financing company...they can finance and lease Ford vehicles. 
|
- #95 of 874
-
Re: cross-posted brand cutting [bpizzuti]
by gagrice
-
Nov 30, 2008 (6:39 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (Nov 30, 2008 4:42 am)
As for GM...my master plan for them is to get out of the car business, buy the rest of GMAC
That is a good idea. Sadly it looks like Cerberus is the one that will pull it off. Cerberus wants the remaining part of GMAC in return for what is left of Chrysler. GM management is dumb enough to fall for it. They did sell 51% of GMAC that is partially responsible for their current condition. GM is the next Enron from where I am sitting. Wagoner and company should be tried for fraud in taking $millions while the company was losing $billions.
|
- #96 of 874
-
Re: cross-posted brand cutting [nippononly]
by cooterbfd
-
Nov 30, 2008 (9:23 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Nov 29, 2008 8:57 pm)
See, I'd agree that selling the divisions makes sense, except for one important thing, the buzzards that want them are waiting for the animal to die first.
|
- #97 of 874
-
Re: cross-posted brand cutting [cooterbfd]
by fezo
-
Nov 30, 2008 (1:51 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Nov 30, 2008 9:23 am)
Yeah, that and if you sell a division to someone who is going to actually make the car? I mean Saab has its own plants for the most part but Saturn and Pontiacs are made at regular GM plants.
|
- #98 of 874
-
Re: cross-posted brand cutting [fezo]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Nov 30, 2008 (6:16 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: fezo (Nov 30, 2008 1:51 pm)
Unlike some types of manufacturing, downsizing in the auto industry is enormously expensive. We think of it as "cost-saving" but initially it is "cost-producing". Any kind of panic-slashing may turn out to be the last nail in the coffin. As evidence of the irony of downsizing, consider in automotive history that the last cars produced by dying companies were often among their most magnificent efforts. (Auburn, Pierce-Arrow, '56 Packard, Studebaker Avanti). They had talent and engineering and even factories, but no capital.
|
- #99 of 874
-
Re: cross-posted brand cutting [Mr_Shiftright]
by gagrice
-
Nov 30, 2008 (6:35 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 30, 2008 6:16 pm)
They had talent and engineering and even factories, but no capital.
Sounds like GM. Let em die before we waste $Billions trying to resuscitate them.
|
- #100 of 874
-
Re: cross-posted brand cutting [Mr_Shiftright]
by dtownfb
-
Dec 01, 2008 (6:59 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 30, 2008 6:16 pm)
Absolutely correct about the cost of reducing being high but this where you ask the government to help with the "bridge" loan. Develop a consolidation plan that creates a viable company that can be profitable with US sales at 12 million. Then you ask the government to help fund this plan since you will need cash to buy out dealers, suppliers, etc.
|
- #101 of 874
-
Re: cross-posted brand cutting [dtownfb]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Dec 01, 2008 (8:37 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: dtownfb (Dec 01, 2008 6:59 am)
Question is: (to which I don't know the answer)....is GM a viable business or is it, as Thenation.com recently said about AIG and Citigroug.....an "insolvent mastodon"?
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views 
