Not much time for commentary today. I’ve got two days work to do and one day to do it in.
The most prominent story on my feed reader today came from Autocar:
Wagoner: Saab is not for sale
General Motors does not intend to sell any of its brands except Hummer, company CEO Rick Wagoner has confirmed.
Asked whether the company was going to disperse its brands, Wagoner told Automotive News: “Our focus right now in this regard is exclusively on Hummer. We want to see how that plays out. We are getting some interest in it.”
Wagoner said that the company has not had any offers for Opel-Vauxhall or GM of China.
“We’ve got some other assets that we’re looking at selling,” he said, “but not brands.”
That means Saab, whose future within GM has at times looked distinctly uncertain – and which has had the launch of its critical new 9-5 model pushed back until 2010 – will stay as part of the car maker’s portfolio.
This is based on the interview he did with Automotive News. You can see it on video if you’re an AN subscriber.
Wagoner didn’t say exactly what’s written in the headline, but the inference is there.
The get-out clause is the use of “right now”. We’re only looking at Hummer “right now”.
So, it seems that if the ship goes down, we’ll be the ones playing the violins, stoic to the end. And if the ship powers on and those who buy GM shares today see a 500%-1000% gain in the next two years, then we’ll be happy campers.
–
Of course Rick. You can’t sell that many brands because you have integrated them all (most). The market value of one brand which is so intertwined and integrated in development, design, production process, parts and even distribution with other (GM) brands, is, completely on its own, worth nothing much. What other assets can you sell? That might be complete operational divisions within geographical boundaries. Hence: no brands. I don’t even believe Hummer will be sold other that to Dubai (like the QE2) for tourists who want “dune bashing”.
Can we thank the Saab enthusiast in Russia for putting
Saab higher on the GM totem pole than Hummer?
That’s really important, as said by Sven, Saab is highly integrated in GM structure, and now its really dificult to separate from GM. Also as I said in comments before, nowadays Saab is becoming really important in some issues, like enviromentally friendly tech(turbo engines and so), safety, advanced production technics….
Swade did you check the autonews.com link I posted?? its strange I log off from the website and I could see the video.
cheers
The main reason GM wants to sell Hummer is because the brand is dragging down their CAFE average. Realistically, a Hummer costs GM little more to produce than the pickup trucks it’s derived from, and sells for twice as much.
I personally think that Hummer should build a vehicle in the spirit of the old Suzuki LJ; tiny, cheap, light, crude, and capable of going through any terrain. It would be the ultimate off-roader, as well as a great city car.
Perhaps the government appointed receiver will have different ideas? Anyway I don’t think GM would directly talk about selling Saab until it’s ready. It needs to make Saab look like it’s actually worth something and that includes showing the new 9-5 which it hasn’t done yet.
They say that Volvo is even more integrated into Ford than Saab is to GM, but it still rumoured to be up for sale. Where there is a will there’s always a way. We just don’t want Saab going down with the Titanic….
Re-Volt(ing)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122645159441719325.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Wow, one sentence in, and that WSJ article already annoyed me. You can’t take anything their op-ed section says seriously. They’re all so far right, they make Roger Ailes look like Bill Clinton.
The Big 3 need bailouts, and they need them now, regardless of what the right says about socialism. I’d rather not go through a 20 year depression for the sake of some ridiculous “self-reliance” bull.
These are the same people who thought deregulation of the meat industry was a good idea, and want to see Social Security privatized.
The WSJ is a fine paper, however, they are as biased as anyone. We all know consumers wanted big trucks and SUVs. GM, Ford and everyone else did what a business is supposed to do – build what customers are after.
True, they did not diversify, but let us for a moment turn the tables and assume consumer demand for smaller, fuel-efficient cars has all of a sudden dried up. Everyone wants big, huge pickup trucks. Where does that leave Toyota and Honda, exactly?
It was common sense gas prices will come down. Well, they did. Will probably dive even further south. Is gas realistically worth $150 a barrel? Nowhere near that. This will a) resuscitate demand for larger vehicles; b) slow down green vehicular developments. Expect gas to stay cheap pretty much throughout 2012 and then come watch the same scenario repeat.
Ironically, the WSJ article takes a rather socialist view in suggesting consumers should drive fuel efficient cars and hence Detroit should have developed such. Who is to say what consumers should demand? Consumers speak with their money and if memory serves me right they’d blow them on Silverados, F-150s and Escalades. Look at what are (still) the best selling vehicles in the U.S. market and make your own conclusions. If the Ford F-150 took the number one spot with gas at $4 a gallon, what did anyone think will happen when gas is $1.50?
The question is how to extract Saab from the GM Borg? The answer: death and resurrection.
Let me explain. What does the modern BMW-owned Mini have in common with the classic Mini? From a mechanical perspective, absolutely nothing. Instead BMW kept the spirit of Mini:
- The Name
- Design themes
- Philosophy
These are the intangibles that express themselves in sheetmetal. Saab has these quality in spades, even if the current vehicles have been ‘diluted’. Mini’s example points the way for Saab:
1. GM sells the rights to Saab to another manufacturer (BMW, PSA, Tata, etc…)
2. While the new owners develop the new Saabs, GM continues to sell the current 9-3, 9-5, 9-7and possibly the 9-4 is cancelled.
3. At some point, GM stops building new Saabs and sells off its remaining inventory. GM continues to provide the warranties and repairs on these car.
4. The new owners release their new Saabs. Nothing in common with the previous GM cars except for the name, design, and philosophy. The also have no responsibility for the GM cars either. Saab lives on.
The only issue would be the distribution channel. BMW sells the new Mini through its own dealerships which share space with BMW dealerships. A new Saab may belong to a company that may need to establish a distribution channel in the U.S.
The WSJ is caution light. Remember the Trabant was a car that made a government happy, if not the people who used them. Each intervention has led to economic problems which required even more intervention. If this doesn’t stop somewhere, GM will be run by Government. The Greens may like that, but car lovers will weep. If you love cars, regulation will not work for you because your passion is the last thing on some bureaucrat’s mind.
Smoke_Jaguar4, you make good points. Let us hope that Saab escapes this way
I keep remembering the (Farago?) rumor that GM is planning to kill Saab (a la Oldsmobile) by starving it to death, rather than sell it. It sure as heck looks to me as if this is what’s going on…
I read a few days ago the assets that GM is trying to sell other than Hummer: AC Delco (aftermarket parts) and its technical and manufacturing center in Starsbourg, France.
Whatever happened with the big Delphi crisis of last year? Did that resolve itself or what? I remember reading that if Delphi went bankrupt GM was on the hook for billions of dollars in guarantees or something.
One of the many things GM and the ‘other 2′ have failed in, is to foresee where the market is going. With cities clogging up and a constant growth of anti-SUV feelings, it does not require tarot cards or a crystal ball to see that the “future is smaller”. Still the ‘big 3′ have totally ignored this, and did not use their monumental profits from the SUV/light-truck success to plan the future. Big surprise when the markets are now changing, then?
I just wonder.. What is GM not telling us? Why do they hold on to Saab when they don´t want to invest in the brand? Or doo they? Then tell us! Tell the people interested in buing a new car now or the comming year/s what can be expected from Saab. Please!