Dtroit Member Username: Dtroit
Post Number: 10 Registered: 03-2007
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:37 am: | |
For better or worse... Chrysler is now 80% owned by a non-automotive company. The UAW is gonna go through hell with this one |
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn
Post Number: 406 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:44 am: | |
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll /article?AID=/20070514/BUSINES S01/70514015 it was purchased by Cerberus management. any word on what this means? will it remain in auburn hills? |
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa
Post Number: 833 Registered: 09-2005
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:48 am: | |
Too bad that Magna did not get it. Although the headlines would have been: Chrysler to move to Toronto (actually Chrysler to move 45 minutes North of Toronto...). |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 1176 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:49 am: | |
Is the "chairman John Snow" they mention in the article the same John Snow that was Bush's Secretary of Treasury? |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 752 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:53 am: | |
"Too bad that Magna did not get it. Although the headlines would have been: Chrysler to move to Toronto (actually Chrysler to move 45 minutes North of Toronto...)." Probably more like "Chrysler to move to Windsor" as Chrysler Canada is already HQ'd there. |
Quozl Member Username: Quozl
Post Number: 597 Registered: 07-2005
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:53 am: | |
The same person The Jesus
quote:John William Snow, Ph.D., LL.B. (born August 2, 1939, in Toledo, Ohio) served as the 73rd United States Secretary of the Treasury. He replaced Secretary Paul O'Neill on February 3, 2003 and was succeeded by Henry Paulson on July 3, 2006, in a move that had been anticipated for several weeks. Snow submitted a letter of resignation on May 30, 2006, effective "after an orderly transition period for my successor."[5] To replace him, U.S. President George W. Bush nominated Henry M. Paulson, Jr. Snow announced on Thursday, June 29, 2006 that he had completed his last day on the job; Robert Kimmitt served as acting secretary until Paulson was sworn in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J ohn_W._Snow |
Bobj Member Username: Bobj
Post Number: 2149 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:54 am: | |
This might be what the whole domestic auto industry needs, someone not from the good old boys! |
Quozl Member Username: Quozl
Post Number: 600 Registered: 07-2005
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:59 am: | |
Ironic that Cerberus Capital Management LP, is named after the three-headed hound that guarded the gates of hell in Greek mythology. |
Kslice Member Username: Kslice
Post Number: 34 Registered: 04-2007
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:01 am: | |
I like it, Chrysler is finally an American company again. well, 80% American. I have high hopes for chrysler now. Why would the HQ move to canada? Cerberus is an American company! I didn't like the looks of Magna. It would have been like Buddy's pizza buying Pizza Hut (if pizza hut was losing millions of dollars). |
Quozl Member Username: Quozl
Post Number: 601 Registered: 07-2005
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:03 am: | |
Cerberus was founded in 1992, and has specialized in buying distressed companies and then turning them around through heavy cost-cutting. With some $25 billion of assets under management, the firm owns about 50 companies with combined revenue of more than $60 billion, according to its Web site. Those companies include a broad swath of industries, including everything from Formica Corp. to Air Canada. In the auto industry, Cerberus owns Guilford Mills, the largest automotive seating supplier in the U.S., and Peguform Group, a German-based manufacturer of interior and exterior plastic parts used in automobiles. It also owns a 51 percent stake in GMAC Financial Services and is in the midst of a $1 billion takeover of Tower Automotive Inc. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 754 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:06 am: | |
"I didn't like the looks of Magna. It would have been like Buddy's pizza buying Pizza Hut (if pizza hut was losing millions of dollars)." Magna has a lot more incentive to keep Chrysler together as one entity than Cerberus does. Cerberus is a private equity firm and at the end of the day all they care about is the profit margin, all else be damned. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2144 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:11 am: | |
Cerberus also owns National and Alamo car rentals and tried to get Delphi. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05 /14/automobiles/14cnd-chrysler .html?pagewanted=1&hp |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 1181 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:21 am: | |
"Cerberus does. Cerberus is a private equity firm and at the end of the day all they care about is the profit margin, all else be damned." newsflash...ALL companies only care about the profit margin at the end of the day, as well they should for the good of their employees, customers and shareholders... Magna would not be any different... |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 757 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:28 am: | |
"Magna would not be any different..." Magna is an auto supplier and Chrysler is one of its largest customers. They damn well have a vested interest in keeping Chrysler together and OPEN. Cerberus is a capital firm whose business is money. If they can make a reasonable profit from shutting the doors on Chrysler tomorrow and liquidating everything then you can bet that is what they will do. |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 1183 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:30 am: | |
... (Message edited by thejesus on May 14, 2007) |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 1184 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:30 am: | |
and if Magna ended up where they though they'd be in a more favorable position if they sold off Chrysler instead of running it, they would do the same, just as you just witnessed Daimler do |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 758 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:35 am: | |
"and if Magna ended up where they though they'd be in a more favorable position if they sold off Chrysler instead of running it, they would do the same, just as you just witnessed Daimler do" Yeah, so? To my knowledge, Benz and Chrysler didn't have combined interests like Magna and Chrysler before the merger. Even after the merger, the Germans were very careful to keep Benz and Chrysler separate. What I'm saying is that out of the two Magna's interest are much more closely aligned with Chrysler employees (and s/e Michigan for that matter) than are Cerberus'. |
Tarkus Member Username: Tarkus
Post Number: 325 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:49 am: | |
Maybe they will make Chrysler a "right to work" employer. If the UAW or Michigan doesn't accept it, than bye bye. |
Club_boss Member Username: Club_boss
Post Number: 90 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:52 am: | |
This summers UAW talks should be interesting. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2146 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 12:02 pm: | |
If Cerberus hasn't already set up their own health insurance company maybe they should buy one to underwrite all their businesses. |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 997 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 12:03 pm: | |
How many of Cerberus Capital Management LP's current holding are 'right to work'? That would probably be a good indication of what they might do with Chrysler. |
Quozl Member Username: Quozl
Post Number: 603 Registered: 07-2005
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 12:03 pm: | |
You are wasting your time Thejesus, ole Iheartthedimwit is ALWAYS correct and consistently backs up his scatterbrained assertions with cold, hard facts don't cha know? You have to give DaimlerChrysler and Cerberus credit for moving quickly to work out a deal for Chrysler. Auto companies are complicated beasts and letting Chrysler dangle in the wind was in nobody's best interest. The big surprise was getting the United Auto Workers on board in time for the announcement. Labor leaders, who had been lobbying against a sale to private equity, could have been a major impediment. As for the U.S. auto industry as a whole, however, the Chrysler-Cerberus deal sends very mixed messages. On the plus side, putting Chrysler in the hands of a private equity group will hasten the industry's rationalization. The Cerberus guys will have no romantic ties to Chrysler's past and can be expected to move quickly to remove unneeded people, brands, dealers, and assembly capacity, which should benefit General Motors and Ford in efforts to stabilize their market shares. The deal also removes the threat that a wounded and flailing Chrysler would unleash a price war that would force GM and Ford into a mutual blood-letting. Also, that the UAW has agreed, at least in principle, to a Cerberus takeover sends a positive signal about industry-wide contract negotiations this summer. One of the biggest questions has been whether UAW leaders would be able to convince members of the need for flexibility in dealing with the wounded automakers. The fact that UAW President Ron Gettelfinger was willing to bless the Cerberus deal at the outset indicates that he, at least, is willing to step out front and issue a clear directive to his members. The more militant Canadian Auto Workers, however, may be more difficult to bring around. On the negative side, the deal puts an embarrassingly low value on Chrysler. Forget the $7.4 billion dollar figure displayed prominently in the headlines. Dig a little deeper and you realize that $5 billion represents Cerberus' capital infusion into the auto business and another $1 billion an infusion into the finance business. When all the bookkeeping is completed, Daimler will actually record a net cash outflow of $650 million to be rid of Chrysler. Remember, several factors weighed in Daimler's favor in getting the best possible price. Chrysler had several competing buyers, and Cerberus wasn't even considered the leading contender. Also, although it had the appearance of a fire sale, Daimler always had the option of retaining ownership of Chrysler, and in fact will hang on to 20 percent of the company when the transaction closes. What this indicates is that while there may be plenty of capital sloshing around the world, and plenty of firms eager to deploy it, they aren't so eager as to want to overpay for a damaged asset. This will undoubtedly put more pressure on restive members of the Ford family who may be looking to cash out of their holdings, now worth less than half what they were five and a half years ago. A sale of their stake to private equity has always been on the list of options. So has reorganizing Ford Motor as a holding company and selling or spinning off the money-losing North American operations. On the whole, the industry's best interests will be served by the Chrysler deal going forward. It will remove uncertainty from the business and accelerate a restructuring that has been going on in fits and starts for 30 years. The process of getting smaller, leaner, and more profitable will need to pick up speed, however, to keep one of the three companies from going into bankruptcy - and dragging the other two down with it. |
Izzadore Member Username: Izzadore
Post Number: 23 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 12:12 pm: | |
It'll be interesting to see where the HQ ends up. I've always thought that the only people who ever really wanted to drive to a HQ in Auburn Hills were people from Mich. Is there any reason why the new HQ would not be located closer to Downtown? Or in a suburb closer to DTW? |
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 101 Registered: 02-2007
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 12:14 pm: | |
Cerberus buys American based manufacturing and outsources as much as they can to Asia. They make companys' profitable no matter what. This is not good. And whatever these folks do, Ford and GM will probably follow suit to some degree. UAW talks? Ron Gettelfinger better start planning his retirement. Thank You Bill Clinton and Al Gore for NAFTA and the most ridiculous and damaging trade policies in the history of our country. Thank you George Bush and Dick Cheney for chasing the boogeyman while our nation is collapsing. |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1827 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 12:17 pm: | |
I don't think the UAW had any other choice but to back the eventually winning bidder. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 762 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 12:57 pm: | |
"Cerberus buys American based manufacturing and outsources as much as they can to Asia. They make companys' profitable no matter what. " As is the nature of a private equity firm. Obviously, some of the other posters of this forum are unaware of the nature of a private equity firm. |
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 357 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 1:05 pm: | |
Izzadore, To me a more interesting question is: will they keep the headquarters in Michigan at all? Any thoughts, folks? Quite a few of the Detroit corporate buyouts over the past decades have seen the Detroit HQ shrink or disappear: Sperry-Burroughs merging into Unisys and moving to Sperry's old digs in PA, KMart "buying" Sears and moving to Sears' IL HQ, Dayton buying Hudson, and so on. Now, granted, this is not like those; a car company isn't buying and merging with the C. But still, capital usually wants to be close to money, so I wonder if they aren't thinking about moving the whole corporate shebang to one or another big banking center? Just random speculation... feel free to opine... |
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 358 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 1:09 pm: | |
...and F everybody's I, this is what the three-headed Greek hell-guard says is its investment philosophy (on its own web site): "At Cerberus, we have a long-term investment horizon and focus on value creation. We invest in undervalued companies and their people, and help them to realize their potential. We partner with our portfolio companies to help them become industry leaders. We believe competition makes the global economy more productive and more efficient, which enables companies to succeed long-term in the globally competitive marketplace. We encourage our companies to focus on the future through prudent capital investment, R&D, new product marketing, talent development, improved operations and appropriate strategic acquisitions." OK, so that's corpbuzzspeak of the vaguest kind, but that's what they choose to say about themselves. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 764 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 1:12 pm: | |
"We believe competition makes the global economy more productive and more efficient, which enables companies to succeed long-term in the globally competitive marketplace." Translation: Outsourcing is good. |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 1193 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 1:16 pm: | |
"As is the nature of a private equity firm. Obviously, some of the other posters of this forum are unaware of the nature of a private equity firm." actually, I think you're the only one |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 1194 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 1:20 pm: | |
"Translation: Outsourcing is good." I love how extremist liberals like to tout equality and sharing (i.e., wealth distribution, Affitmative Action programs) when it benefits them, but as soon as THEIR interests are threated, we get, "Fuck them foreigners!" why don't you guys want give up your jobs so others in poor countries can have something, much in the same way you ask the wealthy and people of certain races to given up their $$$ and their jobs so others can have them? (Message edited by thejesus on May 14, 2007) |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 765 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 1:31 pm: | |
LOL at you labeling me an extremist liberal... but whatever. I'll be glad when they start outsourcing law students... |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 1196 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 1:33 pm: | |
answer the question |
Quozl Member Username: Quozl
Post Number: 604 Registered: 07-2005
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 1:34 pm: | |
Look inside the companies owned by major private-equity firms like Cerberus, talk to the executives who run the ship there, and you'll find a distinctive way of managing that's sharply different from what goes on in most publicly traded companies like Daimler or most private companies under conventional ownership. Privately held firms - at least if they're owned by one of the major buyout shops - have important advantages over competitors, and why they're regrading the playing field in several industries. Many of the lessons apply to virtually any organization. The differences begin at the most fundamental level, with new objectives. Private-equity firms want to buy companies for their portfolio, fix them, grow them and sell them in three to five years. The eventual buyer could be another company in the portfolio company's industry, another private-equity firm or the public, through an IPO. The holding period is occasionally less than a year or as long as ten years. But always the goal from day one is to sell the company at a profit. Facing a goal like that changes a manager's mindset - usually in positive ways. No longer seeing a corporate future that stretches indefinitely into the distance, executives realize that they gain nothing by resisting change: With the exit looming, driving change is their only hope. Everybody in the company knows you're on a sprint to do well. It's not this mindset of working for a company that's been there for 100 years and will continue for another 100 years. Pay is a whole different concept in PE-owned companies. Don't come to play unless you're prepared to put significant skin in the game. While public companies talk a lot about aligning executive pay with performance, they typically award stock options and restricted stock on top of already substantial pay packages, giving executives lots to gain but little to lose. And in big companies those options reflect the fortunes of the overall corporation, not the specific business a manager is running. By contrast, private-equity firms make the game much more serious. Not only is a far larger share of executive pay tied to the performance of an executive's business, but top managers may also be required to put a major chunk of their own money into the deal. Another effect: People WORK harder. They are owners, so you fight harder for targets, fight harder to see where else you can go, stretch yourself more. In this era of outrage at grossly overpaid executives, any public company that paid, say, a $20 million signing bonus or offered a package with a potential nine-figure payout would be pilloried by governance activists and the press. Making a big new investment or taking a write-off for a plant closing may be the best thing for the business, but many public companies hesitate because such actions could cause the stock to tank. One often hears that freedom from public markets carries another boon for privately held companies - no more compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley or the many other regulations on public firms. What makes a huge difference is the release of managerial time from trying to placate and massage the public markets. Talking to shareholders, analysts and the media may be important jobs for a public-company CEO, but they're massive distractions from the company's operations. In practice, a public-company CEO is lucky if he spends 60 percent of his time actually running the place. In a PE-owned firm those distractions disappear, and the CEO is free to spend close to 100 percent of his time focused on the business. Increased managerial attention comes to many PE-owned companies in another way as well. Several of these companies were initially parts of much larger outfits where they were not central to the mission. The parent firm focused top-management time and corporate resources elsewhere, which not only was bad for the stepchildren financially but also demoralized the managers. Much of that attention in PE-owned companies comes from a source that makes some public-company CEOs uncomfortable: the board. But the boards of PE-owned companies are fundamentally different from the public boards that are the focus of governance activists. They're typically smaller and consist only of representatives of the PE owners plus industry experts whose explicit job is to help management create and execute strategy; many directors fulfill both roles. Clarity is a running theme in why PE-owned companies on average perform so well. They suffer no confusion about the role of the board, who's ultimately in charge and the eventual goal. They benefit also from a clear view of what they're managing along the way: It's cash. Public companies often get caught up in disagreements over what to measure - earnings per share, return on equity, Ebitda, return on net assets. PE-owned firms generally bypass that debate. They're managed for cash, the ultimate business reality. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 766 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 1:36 pm: | |
They already heavily outsource in my field. |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 1198 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 1:47 pm: | |
answer the question "why don't you guys want give up your jobs so others in poor countries can have something, much in the same way you ask the wealthy and people of certain races to given up their $$$ and their jobs so others can have them?" (Message edited by thejesus on May 14, 2007) |
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1
Post Number: 9139 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 1:51 pm: | |
quote:"Translation: Outsourcing is good." I love how extremist liberals like to tout equality and sharing (i.e., wealth distribution, Affitmative Action programs) when it benefits them, but as soon as THEIR interests are threated, we get, "Fuck them foreigners!" why don't you guys want give up your jobs so others in poor countries can have something, much in the same way you ask the wealthy and people of certain races to given up their $$$ and their jobs so others can have them? While I am not an extreme liberal and I am fine with outsourcing to some extent and am anti-union I will take a stab at it. Equality and sharing in the US helps our American citizens that need help the most and will be beneficial for the country in the long run. Helping foreign economies does nothing to help those that need the most help here. I am fine with my tax dollars going to programs to assist Americans that need assistance. I am not fine with my tax dollars going to help rebuild Iraq or help other coutries that have no economic or social impact in the US when we ignore those that need help here. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 768 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 1:52 pm: | |
I've answered all of that question which applies to me. |
Goat Member Username: Goat
Post Number: 9420 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 2:03 pm: | |
Wolfgang Bernhard is the adviser for Chrylser Holdings. If you recall he was the former chief operating officer. I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. On a side note I wonder what will happpen to the contract between Chrysler and BBDO? They have done the marketing for Chrysler for almost 50 year! Will they stick with BBDO or depart? If they depart that is another 400+ jobs gone in the region. I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling about this acquisition. |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 1202 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 2:07 pm: | |
"I've answered all of that question which applies to me." no you didn't...you didn't even attempt to...stating that they outsource in your field has zero relevance to the question |
Goat Member Username: Goat
Post Number: 9421 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 2:08 pm: | |
Not true. Cerberus is not holding any of the debt incurred by DCX. They (Cerberus) will however, will be paying for the pensions and healthcare costs. |
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77
Post Number: 348 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 2:11 pm: | |
Until they eventually play hardball with the union and let the company go into bankruptcy so they can hand over the pension liabilities to the government. Just wait. |
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77
Post Number: 349 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 2:13 pm: | |
So I wonder why Gettlefinger refused to let Cerberus buy Delphi but when it comes to Chrysler its ok? Hmmm... (Message edited by stecks77 on May 14, 2007) |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 772 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 2:28 pm: | |
"no you didn't...you didn't even attempt to...stating that they outsource in your field has zero relevance to the question" That's the only part of the question that applied to me. My job is being given up for me. I didn't ask any rich or white people to pay anything that they don't already owe. |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 1205 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 2:29 pm: | |
"I didn't ask any rich or white people to pay anything that they don't already owe." explain |
Spacemonkey Member Username: Spacemonkey
Post Number: 195 Registered: 03-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 2:56 pm: | |
My realtor told me that Chrysler HQ was planning to move to Indianapolis. She told me this back in January. Realtors seem to know the iside scoop on stuff like that. Does a move to Indiana make any sense? |
Cinderpath Member Username: Cinderpath
Post Number: 77 Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 3:19 pm: | |
God Help us- John Snow, is the Cerberus Chairman? You have got to be kidding me. This is the former Treasury Secretary Bush sacked (falling US Dollar anyone?) And former chairman of the worst run (Class I) US Railroad- CSX. If you read anything about his days at CSX, this should make you nervous. (Very little investment in the infrastructure and track maintenance, which lead to a rotten safety record. He left a mess, and blamed others for the problems, and went out the door with 80 million). This guy has no business running a car company. Scary. --"The cost of the war will be small. We can afford the war, and we'll put it behind us." Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, New York Times, 3/9/03 -- Here is a good article about little known Cerberus. http://www.businessweek.com/ma gazine/content/05_40/b3953110. htm |
Quozl Member Username: Quozl
Post Number: 607 Registered: 07-2005
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 3:19 pm: | |
I read it was moving to Dubai U.A.E. but most of the admin staff is being outsourced from New Delhi and Karachi. The Plymouth Road Jeep and Truck office is moving as well down to Monterey, N.L. Mexico to the new Santa Catarina Industrial Complex by year end. |
Bobj Member Username: Bobj
Post Number: 2161 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 3:20 pm: | |
I highly doubt they would move, especially Indianapolis. Moving the HQ is a HUGE disruption to the organization and that decision is not taken lightly. Some great employees won't go, people are not very productive from the time announced until move day, etc They have a new HQ (state of the art), in an area of lots of auto talent and educational opportunites, near suppliers, etc. |
Supersport Member Username: Supersport
Post Number: 11567 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 3:20 pm: | |
Welcome back Big 3, we missed ya!!! While I loved the direction Chrysler has headed under German control in regards to styling, performance, and power, it just didn't feel right that the mighty Mopar was no longer really an American company. Now we don't have to argue over whether it's the Big 2 or 2.5, it's now once again the Big 3 automakers. |
Quozl Member Username: Quozl
Post Number: 608 Registered: 07-2005
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 3:27 pm: | |
Huh? You need to quit smelling the Dobie Dookie Sporto. More like "The Big 3 + Little Chrysler" since Toyota is the new guy on the block kicking our butts with well built, well engineered cars & trucks that AMERICA loves! |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1828 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 3:40 pm: | |
quote:Translation: Outsourcing is good. If you want to keep your Job Banks, $12,000 a year health insurance, fully company funded pensions there are two ways, outsourcing or layoffs. Take your pick. Expenses have to get in line with revenues. They do not get in line by magic, of course many in this country believe this happens that way. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2149 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 7:27 pm: | |
Little Chrysler, huh? Little Chrysler has a pretty big bodyguard now (Cerberus = Sporto love). They might even find someone else to synergize with... |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 551 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 9:56 pm: | |
If the UAW doesn't cooperate with Cerebrus, the threat would be to do as companies of this sort often do...break it apart, and sell it. This could be a good thing for the Big 2 as follow: The UAW cuts to the bone for Chrysler as described above. Ford and GM use this as a spring board in their union negotiation to their credit. This could, in the big picture, be a very good thing for the US auto industry and the region. Very cautiously optimistic is my current feeling |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2152 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:03 pm: | |
Cutting wages in the region would be good? Um, nope. Better than losing jobs, yeah, but still not good. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2157 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:33 pm: | |
I wonder, given those involved with Cerberus, if attitudes about employer funded health care will change once they see firsthand how it affects American businesses that function globally. |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 555 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:39 pm: | |
It will be good in the long run. Short term higher wages and benefits for less productivity is nice for those who have been lucky enough to get it, but if it makes us noncompetetive, then we are killing the goose that layed the golden egg. We are faced with a choice, union status quo and slow death. Or capitalistic restructuring to become competitive and thrive...that is what is good for the region. |
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 364 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 12:28 am: | |
1. John Snow will not be running Chrysler. He's the front-man for the money part of the whole shebang. 2. The US is the only major first-world industrial nation where individual companies are on the hook for health care. That has to change or all US manufacturing is dead. 3. The jobs bank is the most idiotic thing ever devised, and I doubt Cerberus will put up with it for long. 4. Keeping people employed but paying them less is better than not employing people at all. Just a few random observations. Still doubting that Chrysler will remain anywhere within commuting distance of the D, but we'll see. |
Supersport Member Username: Supersport
Post Number: 11568 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 10:48 am: | |
quote:Huh? You need to quit smelling the Dobie Dookie Sporto. More like "The Big 3 + Little Chrysler" since Toyota is the new guy on the block kicking our butts with well built, well engineered cars & trucks that AMERICA loves! Retard, Toyota IS NOT an American company. Hence, they ARE NOT one of the big 3, nor can they ever be, unless an American company buys them. |
Gwyrah Member Username: Gwyrah
Post Number: 27 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 10:53 am: | |
Be scared, Cerberus' Chairman for Global investments is... Dan Qualye |
Quozl Member Username: Quozl
Post Number: 612 Registered: 07-2005
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 11:41 am: | |
Sporto wrote:
quote:Toyota IS NOT an American company. Sorry Sporto, I disagree with your EXPERT assessment, Toyota Motor North America, Inc is indeed an American company. What historically has been known as "The Big Three" are the top three automakers in the UNITED STATES all of which were headquartered in Michigan. That is not the case anymore Sporto, as the number TWO United States automaker, Toyota Motor North America, Inc, you know, manufacturing, sales and R&D is headquartered in New York, New York and is registered as a Delaware (you know, as in United States) Corporation. Did they not have Geography classes down in Adrian? That whole "Big Three" mentality you possess is so...20th Century Sporto. The times are a changin' and it is time for you to get on the new bus to progress, unless you are happy and content workin' for some Temp Job downtown. Oh, BTW, speakin of retards, you still packing that piece when you walk through the WSU Campus with the mutts? I hope not because they are on to you! As you can see Sporto, they have loads of Manufacturing Plants here in North America and EVEN have an R&D Tech Center in Ann Arbor:
Lastly Sporto, you really need to wake up and smell the mayo. Last year Toyota spent more than $26 billion for parts, materials, goods and services from hundreds of North American suppliers and business partners. In turn, their purchases from these suppliers directly create more than 45,000 local jobs. Maybe when you change your attitude, ONE of those jobs could be yours! (Message edited by quozl on May 15, 2007) |
Supersport Member Username: Supersport
Post Number: 11570 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 12:11 pm: | |
Hey Q, whatever helps you sleep better at night. In my opinion, Toyota makes some of the ugliest, most bland autos on the road. But people don't buy them for their styling. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2160 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 12:12 pm: | |
Toyota's world headquarters is in Japan - they are not an American company, they just have an American division |
Quozl Member Username: Quozl
Post Number: 614 Registered: 07-2005
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 12:30 pm: | |
I agree Sporto, Toyota makes ugly cars and trucks, you will never see one parked in my garage. I would never trade my Ford F250 for their Tundra. I will ignore your post Lilpup as I loathe ignorance and to respond would be an exercise in futility. |
Xd_brklyn Member Username: Xd_brklyn
Post Number: 229 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 12:57 pm: | |
Huh? Toyota is a Japanese company. In fact, it is probably due to their Japanese mindset that made Toyota the successful company it is today. To say Toyota is one of the three largest manufacturer's of cars today in the US is one thing, but to say Toyota is an American company really doesn't do justice to the Japanese sensibility for patience, quality, and sense of protocol; all characteristics that benefit their current manufacturing prowess. Although I'll always drive an American car because of family ties to the industry, my respect for the Japanese is such that I hate to see us Americans take credit for what they've done. I don't know what goes on at the Toyota plants, but knowing the Japanese, I highly doubt there are a lot of decisions that originate in this country when it comes to producing their final product. And one last note, if Toyota is not a Japanese company, why does the Chinese people bring up the old issue of their war with Japan when Toyota looks build a plant on Chinese soil? |
Quozl Member Username: Quozl
Post Number: 615 Registered: 07-2005
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 1:10 pm: | |
Toyota Motor Corporation is indeed a Japanese company. Their North American Operations is indeed an American Corporation with fantastic Japanese principles. All I am saying is, as an automaker MANUFACTURING entity here in the UNITED STATES, Toyota Motor North America, Inc is clearly one of the Big Three now as they have pushed Ford to 3rd place and Chrysler to 4th place in units sold. When Daimler-Benz AG bought Chrysler in 1998 and the firm bacame DaimlerChrysler, did it cease being included the "The Big Three" because the parent corporation was headquartered in Germany? No, it did not, and neither should Toyota not be included in "The Big Three" because the parent corporation is headquartered in Japan. I simply get so sick and tired of this incessant whining on this board of all these purported "American" jobs going overseas, etc. Plenty of GLOBAL companies are coming to North America with the commitment to offer good jobs and careers. The fact of the matter is the jobs are not coming to Michigan and for good reason. Many years ago I was a consultant to Toyota for the location of their new truck plant. We considered Michigan and Detroit was on our "long list". I would have loved for my hometown to get the plant but it was not meant to be. There were too many negative factors that I cannot enumerate due to confidentiality. We ultimately chose San Antonio, Texas. Toyota will be further expanding their manufacturing operations in the next three years and I am sad to say they are considering another Texas location. (Message edited by quozl on May 15, 2007) |
Xd_brklyn Member Username: Xd_brklyn
Post Number: 230 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 1:29 pm: | |
Ok--to the original unedited post about Toyota's manufacturing presence in the U.S. (Message edited by xD_brklyn on May 15, 2007) |
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 104 Registered: 02-2007
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 5:07 pm: | |
Quote: Toyota Motor North America, Inc is clearly one of the Big Three According to you, not to me. The people will decide who the "Big 3" is or isn't. A foreign reap the american dollar and run institution is not part of the American auto industry for me. Our ridiculous trade policies have allowed these companies in with their take it all and give nothing back mentality. It's not going to last forever. "Global companies" LOL They aren't coming here for OUR benefit. You say you've worked for them, then you know how they are. I've worked for them too or at least quoted to some of them. They'll keep you busy if you want to work for 2 dollars an hour. One guy I know submitted a quote to one of them and after he was awarded the job that was low to begin with, they wanted to negotiate it. Clearly, not the way business is done here. In my business dealings we Americans say what we mean and mean what we say. If the price is agreed upon, thats the price. |
Mauser765 Member Username: Mauser765
Post Number: 1347 Registered: 01-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 7:38 pm: | |
The National news told the truth about the HellHound company. They "devour prey" and will do whatever they freakin want to reap profits. Dont listen to local news on this issue ! They are trying to keep people pacified during the transition. This will be a massacre for the autoworkers. Pensions ? Buh bye. |
Mauser765 Member Username: Mauser765
Post Number: 1348 Registered: 01-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 7:42 pm: | |
|
Track75 Member Username: Track75
Post Number: 2533 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 9:21 pm: | |
quote:The National news told the truth about the HellHound company. They "devour prey" and will do whatever they freakin want to reap profits. Dont listen to local news on this issue ! They are trying to keep people pacified during the transition. This will be a massacre for the autoworkers. Pensions ? Buh bye. Scenario 1: Moribund American automaker is bought by private equity company, radically restructured into a lean, mean profit machine. Result: At first some workers lose jobs, others have pay/benefits reduced, retiree benefits are scaled back, what remains is a profitable company poised to grow, create jobs and benefit the Detroit region. Scenario 2: Moribund American automaker isn't bought by private equity company, isn't radically restructured into a lean, mean profit machine. Continues to lose money, shed jobs, lose sales to more more nimble competitors. Result: Some workers lose jobs, others have pay/benefits reduced, retiree benefits are scaled back, what remains is an unprofitable company poised to shrink, shed more jobs and remain a drag on the Detroit region. This death spiral continues until the company is bankrupt. The long period of decline left the company far behind its competitors. The post-bankruptcy company goes under again and this time it's left buried. If we'd had Scenario 1 ten years ago we'd be well past the worst of it and Detroit would probably be home to three smaller but much more profitable auto companies prepared for continued growth. It's like taking an amputation below the knee vs. letting gangrene eventually consume the whole leg. (Message edited by track75 on May 15, 2007) |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 562 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 10:20 pm: | |
Yes, let's get on with making a strong future rather than mourning the "good old days" that threatened to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. |
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 366 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 10:48 pm: | |
For what it's worth, ever since the D-C deal, I've always used the phrase "big two and a half". Now I suppose I'll use "big three" again. It means what it means, kids; Toyota just doesn't get to play in that particular sandbox, sorry. I mentioned HQ move earlier so I'll quote from Freep article: Cerberus bought the ailing Vanguard Car Rental, which operates the Alamo and National brands, out of bankruptcy in October 2003. Within months, Cerberus announced it would move Vanguard's headquarters from Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., to Tulsa, Okla. Then it closed a Florida call center, cutting several hundred jobs. Norm Taylor, director of economic development for Broward County, Fla., recalled Monday that the headquarters decision came suddenly. "Were there any opportunities for us to make any efforts to retain the company? No. It appeared to be irrevocable at that point," he said. What do you think? |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 571 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 10:59 pm: | |
If the state and the unions make the environment business friendly to Cerebrus, there is a chance they will stay. The headquarters in Auburn Hills is mammoth and getting out from under it would be a major costly headache. The state and unions would have to screw up really badly to cause that exodus (but this is Granholm's socialist state of Michigan {the GSSM}, so....let's just hope they don't screw it up). |
Mauser765 Member Username: Mauser765
Post Number: 1353 Registered: 01-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 6:35 am: | |
Yeah, uh, lets try out a real world scenario: Cerberus immediately seeks bankruptcy to bust down the union and to force draconian cuts in staffing, benefits and pensions. The UAW is forced to capitulate, accepts an extremely harsh concession, and the workers are sold down the river. There is absolutely nothing about this deal that has anything to do with running a car company. Congress is opening an investigation into private investment firms that "devour" companies for pure capitalistic motives, and profit from the life blood of workers. This is a DIRECT result of Chrysler being consumed by Cerberus. For our brain dead Congress to act on such a thing is testament to the severity. The end results will be good for Cerberus, and nobody else. Plain and simple. Not a time for fantasizing. |
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 368 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 10:44 am: | |
Mauser, Sure that's possible, but that's not Cerberus' normal business model. I think they're likely to deal with Chrysler the way they deal with most of their holdings, which is not the disaster you describe. Granted, there are equity firms that operate in that manner. |
Mauser765 Member Username: Mauser765
Post Number: 1356 Registered: 01-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 1:40 pm: | |
Lets hope and pray. |
Ptpelee Member Username: Ptpelee
Post Number: 15 Registered: 09-2005
| Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 5:21 pm: | |
Now is the time to revive the Plymouth name. Perhaps an imported Korean (or Chinese!)mini car with a grand old name on it to kick back Toyota. Plymouth saved Chrysler during the Great Depression perhaps it could again. |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 576 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 8:27 pm: | |
Mauser, that is possible to be sure, but the fact it is possible will motivate the UAW to cut an attractive deal to avert this worst case scenario. |
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13
Post Number: 1657 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 8:30 pm: | |
Better yet, how about a new Plymouth that's a well-engineered, North American-built small car with ample interior space, gets 40 mpg, and sells for $15,000? Call it the "Barracuda" or the "Satellite." Now, THAT could bring Chrysler back. |
Jaj Member Username: Jaj
Post Number: 3 Registered: 05-2007
| Posted on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 11:46 pm: | |
As a 30+ year CHRYSLER employee (I never say the D German word)... I'll predict the following... If the new Chrysler Holding LLC is successful Cerberus will take it public and get out If the new Chrysler Holding LLc is not a success they'll sell 1.. Jeep to GM 2.. Dodge Truck to BMW (they currently have no truck) and 3.. Minivans to Porsche-VW In the near term (within 18 months) pensions will be terminated and turned over to PBGC Healthcare will cost much more... Vision & Dental will be a thing of the past If Cerberus gets Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) (it has made a bid for it) 2000+ ITM (Information Technology Mgt) jobs will be outsourced ... ACS has 58000 ITM employees and is a Fortune 500 company. Who needs Chrysler ITM?? UAW?? God only knows what's going to happen in the fall.. And one last thing... before "the great merger" of 1998... Chrysler had $12,000,000,000 cash it disappeared... and that is the right word... no reason was adequately given by the Huns as to where it went...but new plants started popping up on the other side of the ocean.. |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 747 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 12:13 am: | |
Get out if they take it public? Cash in, yes, and why not? That is what they are in business to do and why they invest 8 billion dollars. Going public doesn't mean that they will walk away, in fact, if successful, they will want to continure to get maximum return on investment by way of future earnings and hold a major/controlling stake in the company. Why would other car companies spend money to buy a competing product line? Just let it go bankrupt (if that is the direction it is going) and be ready to fill any void in the market. If they bought a division, just like Daimler, they would be taking the liabilities as well. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2219 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 12:18 am: | |
not necessarily, just depends how the deal is cut the Jeep name is valuable, the other lines could complement other companies' present products it's a lot easier and less expensive to use an existing nameplate than establishing one from scratch |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 750 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 12:37 am: | |
How valuable (in dollars)? It isn't just the selling price at stake, it is the labor costs, legacy costs, contract obligations, etc. All of the larger auto companies have products in the major lines and would not need a new nameplate (or to buy an old one) just sell the existing products absent a major competitor or introduce a new product to fill a void (which they do all the time). |
Jaj Member Username: Jaj
Post Number: 13 Registered: 05-2007
| Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 8:38 pm: | |
Here's a little info..DCX was already building an office for Wolfgang Bernhard ...2 weeks BEFORE the Cerberus agreement was announced at DCX's COB building on Featherstone. Bernhard, you'll remember was Zetsche's right hand man before going to VW,, then quitting, then being hired by Cerberus as a consultant... The deal was done back in March... |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 1017 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 9:45 pm: | |
Of course deals are made in advance of being announced. |
Jaj Member Username: Jaj
Post Number: 15 Registered: 05-2007
| Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 12:12 am: | |
Yes of course deals are made in advance of being announced, but this activity was going on very close to the bidding/presentation process timetable if not in that very timeframe.. I am just presenting information give by fellow employees affected by the renovation/construction... draw your own conclusion.. |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 1036 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 12:14 am: | |
Even still, the main players know what they are willing to offer, and what the competition is also. It is not hard to predict at the later stages which direction it is going to go in. |