RE: Chrysler is sold

RE: Chrysler is sold

Tuesday 15th May 2007

Chrysler is sold

DaimlerChrysler group is split with £3.7bn sale



One of the world’s largest car companies has been split: DaimlerChrysler has sold 80.1 per cent of Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge to Cerberus Capital Management, a New York-based private equity group.

The sale is worth £3.7bn and concludes after three months of negotiations. It’s been a difficult nine years since the group was formed; Chrysler was valued at £18bn back in 1999 and is worth only £4.66bn today.

Daimler Chrysler has given some insight into the reasons behind the sale, citing a lack of future synergies and cost-savings: “The synergies possible between Mercedes-Benz and Chrysler have been fully utilised. Additional potential for collaboration is limited between two businesses operating in such different market segments. The strong volatility and pressure on margins in the Chrysler Group’s North American core market have an increasingly negative impact on DaimlerChrysler’s overall profitability and share-price development.”

Although the newly-formed Daimler AG will continue to work with Chrysler on existing projects, it remains to be seen how the new Chrysler Corporation LLC will manage to fund a new range of platforms. Currently, much of Chrysler’s vehicles use previous-generation Mercedes Benz technology such as the old E class platform for the 300C/Dodge Charger. Clearly this technology will need replacing in the not too distance future.

Significantly, Chrysler’s pension and health insurance liabilities will transfer to the new Cerberus-owned company. Analysts value this liability at around $19bn (£9.6bn) alone.

Cerberus chairman John W. Snow said: "We welcome Chrysler into the Cerberus family of companies and believe Cerberus will be a good home for Chrysler. Cerberus believes in the inherent strength of US manufacturing and of the US auto industry. Most importantly, we believe in Chrysler.

"We would like to thank DaimlerChrysler for their good stewardship of this American icon over the last decade. We are aware that Chrysler faces significant challenges, but we are confident that they can and will be overcome. A private investment firm like Cerberus will provide management with the opportunity to focus on their long-term plans rather than the pressures of short-term earnings expectations."

DaimlerChrysler chief Dieter Zetsche was bullish about Daimler’s goals for the future: "We will be the leading manufacturer of premium products and a provider of premium services in every market segment we serve worldwide. And we will pursue our commitment to excellence based on a common culture, a great heritage of innovation and pioneering achievements and – with Mercedes-Benz – the strongest automotive brand in the world."

Author
Discussion

andyinpembs

Original Poster:

5,646 posts

221 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
The US unions are crapping themselves over this. I believe it was this lot that took over Deplhi (Lucas, CAV etc) and caused such a hoo-har - that's still ongoing. They'll come in and make huge changes / cutbacks / layoffs to get back in the black.

iluvmercs

7,541 posts

234 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
Good ridance is what I say! Funny how the deterioration of MB products coincided with the Daimler-Chrysler union....

Darren

pasthim

15,989 posts

241 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
andyinpembs said:
The US unions are crapping themselves over this. I believe it was this lot that took over Deplhi (Lucas, CAV etc) and caused such a hoo-har - that's still ongoing. They'll come in and make huge changes / cutbacks / layoffs to get back in the black.


They need to!

Andrew D

968 posts

247 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
I'm not sure about this lack of future "synergies" stuff. Recycling previous Merc platforms seemed like a good idea to me. It's a good source of reliable technologies that have already been paid for. I'm sure a compact version of the 300C based on the W203 C-Class would have sold well.

It seems to me that Daimler aren't really interested in anything further than the Mercedes-Benz brand. They seem to have cut and run from Smart (bar the token retention of the ForTwo), and could have made a better effort of the Chrysler partnership. I think that diversification is the key in the future automotive market. BMW's branch out into MINI means they can offer (in most cases several) cars to suit every pocket between £10k and £90k. Whilst Merc might make a lot of margin per car, I doubt they'll sell enough to earn the cash to keep VW, Toyota, et al, at bay.

andyinPembs

Original Poster:

5,646 posts

221 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
pasthim said:
andyinpembs said:
The US unions are crapping themselves over this. I believe it was this lot that took over Deplhi (Lucas, CAV etc) and caused such a hoo-har - that's still ongoing. They'll come in and make huge changes / cutbacks / layoffs to get back in the black.


They need to!


Sure do. I wouldn't buy one!

hendry

1,945 posts

289 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
andyinpembs said:
The US unions are crapping themselves over this. I believe it was this lot that took over Deplhi (Lucas, CAV etc) and caused such a hoo-har - that's still ongoing. They'll come in and make huge changes / cutbacks / layoffs to get back in the black.


Not what the other thread reports. The NAW have been reported as saying they welcome it. I think it was this or inevitable redundancies.

And MB products started to step off before the DC merger.

As for Chrysler, they had/have a fairly good relationship with Mitsubishi for some time, so there could be some platform sharing go on there. And there are still plenty of car makers across the globe who don't get as much out of economies of scale as they could, but would be interested in platform sharing and the like. I am thinking a partnership with Mitsubishi & PSA or one with Renault/Nissan.


scimmy ben

34 posts

213 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
Andrew D said:
I'm not sure about this lack of future "synergies" stuff. Recycling previous Merc platforms seemed like a good idea to me. It's a good source of reliable technologies that have already been paid for. I'm sure a compact version of the 300C based on the W203 C-Class would have sold well.


BMW seemto disagree as well. Their current review of Volvo would point to an intention of reusing their (BMW RWD, MINI FWD) platforms with Volvo skins.

bigbadbikercats

636 posts

215 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
scimmy ben said:

BMW seemto disagree as well. Their current review of Volvo would point to an intention of reusing their (BMW RWD, MINI FWD) platforms with Volvo skins.


Did I miss something? I'm sure last time I looked Volvo were owned by Ford...

--
Jonathon

anonymous-user

61 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
bigbadbikercats said:
scimmy ben said:

BMW seemto disagree as well. Their current review of Volvo would point to an intention of reusing their (BMW RWD, MINI FWD) platforms with Volvo skins.


Did I miss something? I'm sure last time I looked Volvo were owned by Ford...

--
Jonathon


Yes but they have been contemplating purchasing Volvo!

lathamjohnp

4,419 posts

291 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
bigbadbikercats said:
Did I miss something? I'm sure last time I looked Volvo were owned by Ford...


Yes, but...

www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/BMW-X5/225528/

John

collateral

7,238 posts

225 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
Hope this doesn't mean they will can the Challenger...

runnersp

1,061 posts

227 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
Los Angeles said:
Merc sell off Chrysler ... what took them so long? A legacy of the same foolhardy CEO who reduced Merc quality to increase profits and wiped out decades of reputation in a few years. He's gone now but so has the company's standing in the public mind.


My thoughts exaclty... Why on earth did Merc buy into this leviathan? IMHO all they ever got out of it was a legacy of underused factories, union wrangling and crap, underdeveloped, ugly or plain boring model lineups...

pasthim

15,989 posts

241 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
Los Angeles said:
Merc sell off Chrysler ... what took them so long? A legacy of the same foolhardy CEO who reduced Merc quality to increase profits and wiped out decades of reputation in a few years. He's gone now but so has the company's standing in the public mind.



Who was that then?

dodgey_rog

1,994 posts

267 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
I read in the New York Times yesterday that the sale was some $6.7bn, slightly less than the $37bn they paid for it.

malaccamax

1,343 posts

238 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
dodgey rog said:

I read in the New York Times yesterday that the sale was some $6.7bn, slightly less than the $37bn they paid for it.


Daimler didn't pay, it was a paper transaction only (ie merged). But they have taken a huge bath, no doubt.

scotty_917

1,034 posts

229 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
the US is almost as bad as the UK for managing volume car brands!!! yes.....don't worry, in a few years Toyota will buy the 'big three' outright, after heavy losses, health care and pension rights issues have brought them to their knees (or are they there already?)??? scratchchin

havoc

30,901 posts

242 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
scotty_917 said:
the US is almost as bad as the UK for managing volume car brands!!! yes.....don't worry, in a few years Toyota will buy the 'big three' outright, after heavy losses, health care and pension rights issues have brought them to their knees (or are they there already?)??? scratchchin


Not far off the truth.

The 'Big 3' have been mired in a combination of legacy union deals and pension liabilities, combined with major-league complacency in their home market. 'yota (and the other Japs) have come along, taken market-share everywhere they don't "salute the flag every time they pee", and shown how US workers CAN be efficient. Result is, IIRC, 'yota's market cap far exceeds those three put together.

Ford actually seem to be trying to sort themselves out the right way - product-led - but it's a financially-uphill battle given their credit-rating (Ford Credit has been carrying Ford US for AGES...billions of profit in FC, billions of losses in FUS...yet the recent credit rating drops have badly hit FC's cost-base).

GM looks more healthy until you review their product line-up, and sorry to say but that dinosaur Lutz needs to go if they're not to end up in Chapter-11. And their credit rating is also heading south quickly.

Chrysler has been the 'US patient' for about a decade, and needs the biggest shake-up to actually get anywhere.


It'll be interesting to see what is left in 5 years. My guess is a newly-healthy (or healthier) Ford, a GM that is 'bouncing back' but perhaps too slowly, and as for Chrysler...no ideas, as don't know much about Cerberus.

rimmer

6,687 posts

213 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
chryslers are shite anyway no loss

rimmer

6,687 posts

213 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
who would want to buy chrysler anyway?

julesv

1,800 posts

231 months

Tuesday 15th May 2007
quotequote all
More evidence that the German auto makers are not fit custodians of foreign brands. Maybe Chrysler would have performed better if it had been allowed to use current Merc technology, not old hand-me-downs. Why didn't they base the Chrysler saloons on the current E class? Same story with BMW and Rover. They are so paranoid about their image that any other firm under the same umbrella cannot be allowed to compete.

Personally I would rather have a Chrysler 300 or a Dodge Magnum over a Mercedes anyway but they would be even better cars had they been allowed to be.