Jeep Commander Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,337 Posts
You beat me to it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367931927624611.html?mod=djemITP

If they were able to form a holding company that would manage their assets while allowing the brands to remain distinct, it could actually benefit both sides. They could then manage their union obligations more efficiently, share technology and increase their market share. It might also help boost Chrysler's quality and public image as well as help increase their global market share. It sounds funny on paper but, if done correctly, could actually work out quite well.

Sadly, if Chrysler keeps going down its current path, I think it will be out of business in five years, with Jeep being bought by another company, most likely a foreign one. They don't have any other vehicles that I would consider buying right now, even though I can get their affiliate discount through my company.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,503 Posts
Nothing good can come out of this, other than the minivan and the Wrangler there's nothing GM doesn't have. In 1 yr you will see where Chrysler is headed with some awesome product and Chrysler will again be the maker of what people crave.
Cerberus is doin a good job with Chrysler and as long as the people running the show can keep digging deeper within, they'll find the source of the quality problems and excessive spending where things are outsourced and end up costing 3X as much but it's ok cause it comes out of a different pocket.
GM is in no shape to eat Chrysler and they'll choke if they do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,503 Posts
My gut tells me it's a done deal! This exactly the way we first heard of the Daimler "merger", no one denies it they just don't comment.

Deutsche Bank's Rod Lache estimated that more than $6 billion is savings could be realized through the combination of the two automakers, but he noted that GM would also benefit from Chrysler's demise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
I'm a GM fan, and even to me this isn't good news. As a consumer I like selection, and with GM producing how many different vehicles, I don't think they would keep around much of the Chrysler vehicles, or they would look the same as the rest of GM's. The only thing they would do is eliminate competition, and that isn't good for the consumer in any way you look at it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
What would this mean for the Lifetime Powertrain Warranty? That's the whole reason we own two new Chrysler products. I wouldn't have ever bought new if it weren't for the amazing warranty!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,103 Posts
What would this mean for the Lifetime Powertrain Warranty? That's the whole reason we own two new Chrysler products. I wouldn't have ever bought new if it weren't for the amazing warranty!
They would have to honor it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
527 Posts
At this point, Chrysler is looking like that girl at school that got passed around one too many times at a party.... What is the deal with cerebrus?

Sad that just 3-4 years ago, D/C Motor Company had some of the best products on the market. What happened??? I cant imagine GM/Chrysler merger. Ive never been a MOPAR guy, more of a GM guy when it came to American Cars, and still havent forgiven GM for killing the oldest American Car company. They should have killed Pontiac with its gimmicky ghetto appeal, and focussed on the Sport/Euro market that they put Saturn into.

But back to topic, if GM buys Chrysler, I think it will spell bad tidings for all. They killed SAAB...... It's just like this crazy mortgage buy out. In a few years, to deal with all the absorbed and added losses, GM will end up splitting up, stock values will be destroyed, the company reorganized, the CEO's with FAT trust funds.........

Funny, in the last year, everyone in my family but myself and my dad has bought a Toyota/Lexus product, and I can understand why.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,337 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,262 Posts
At one time in the fifties, G.M. had market penetration approaching 70%
This had the F.T.C. discussing a breakup of the G.M. divisions because they were rapidly approaching the boundries of a monopoly.
To prevent that, G.M., it was reported, had discussions with A.M.C., who as usual was in some financial disarray.
It was reported that, if A.M.C. came too close to bankrupcy, G.M. was prepared to infuse capitol to keep the F.T.C. at bay.
Well, fortunes change, G.M.s market share dropped back, A.M.C. got financially healthy again, and to those who follow automotive history, you already know the rest of A.M.C.s story.
When A.M.C. was purchassed by Chrysler, G.M.s market share had dropped back to the point that the F.T.C. agreed 3 automakers with the current market penetration, would not be approaching monopoly status.
Regarding this possible G.M./Chrysler issue: I wouldn't be surprised if G.M. wasn't trying to prop up Chrysler, like they did A.M.C. , just to try to make certain that monopoly issue never can come up.
It could, even though G.M. only has just under 30% of the domestic market.

Just something to think about, since we're all speculating anyways,
My $.02 .......Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,503 Posts
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/OPINION03/810160363

Daniel Howes: Commentary
Merger may be too big to ignore

Leave it to Klaus Franz, an unapologetic European unionist, to cut to the heart of General Motors Corp.'s potential acquisition of Chrysler LLC: It would be, the German labor leader was quoted as saying, an "absolute catastrophe."

He's right. Seen from the viewpoint of blue-collar labor, white-collar employees, local governments, dealers, the state of Michigan and the industrial Midwest, just about anyone whose livelihood depends on the dubious survival of Chrysler would pay a dear price. GM's acquisition of Detroit's No. 3 automaker would eliminate Chrysler as we know it, just as surely as Chrysler's absorption of American Motors Corp., minus its Jeep brand, relegated AMC 20 years ago to history.

Except for this: In the near term, a fattened GM in the United States arguably could become "too big to fail," a cynically convenient achievement in today's climate of political change, economic uncertainty and market intervention. How better to position the combined GM-Chrysler entity to lobby an Obama Administration and a solidly Democratic Congress for a direct government bailout than by making it indispensable?

Implicit here are the assumptions -- and few are more adept at making bold assumptions than top GM executives -- that getting taxpayer dough to survive the credit crunch and imploding sales would position GM to reap 2010-and-beyond rewards of lower labor costs, less production capacity, one fewer competitor and satisfying pent-up demand. And, second, that GM truly could deliver a solid turnaround as the market improves.

Advertisement

There are all sorts of reasons why GM shouldn't qualify for fed help: That its troubles are self-made, the legacy of decades of labor-management ineptitude; that its brands are destroyed, despite recent revival; and that its reach isn't "systemic" in the way that big Wall Street banks and insurers are to the global financial system.

All true, and all beside the point. The auto industry represents 14 percent of U.S. manufacturing, says Sean McAlinden, chief economist of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. A combined GM and Chrysler would account for at least 35 percent of the manufacturing total, he estimates -- more when you include suppliers, automotive tooling and research and development.

"There would be political gain in all this," he says, pointing to the presidential election and its aftermath. "They could lose the entire congressional delegation in Ohio if they let GM and Chrysler die. A Democratic Congress and White House couldn't possibly let them go down."
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,103 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
527 Posts
My guess, if they do this, Chrysler goes away, GM increases market share, eliminates an opponent. With talk of their exploring dumping Hummer, who knows what they will do with Jeep.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,337 Posts
Interesting, that's different from the WSJ article that said Chrysler was still possibly entertaining a three way partnership with Renault & Nissan if the GM deal falls apart. The stumbling block for the deal is Cerberus wants 100% of GMAC & GM doesn't want to give up control. That's causing some financiers to back away from the deal.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,103 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
527 Posts
Cerberus may carve up Chrysler

Carmaker could be sold off to more than one buyer, a source says.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/22/autos/bc.na.us.chrysler.ap/index.htm
Its stories like this that gives one pause in commitment to capitalism and a true free market economy.......... Just a pause though. True, thats a simplistic way of looking at it, either GM & Chrysler have what it takes to stay afloat, or they dont..... Its this merger to eliminate and/or force government bail out/help that gets me.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Cerebrus has never bought things to "hold on to them". Jeep and the Chrysler Minivans are most likely attractive to GM. The rest is not. If GM does buy, it will be for the mini vans and Jeep with another auto company (or more) buying up the Dodge trucks and someone else Viper.

They are getting ready to lay off a TON of white collar workers real soon. All identified employees with less than 10 years service will be offered the following to leave:

$50K
$25K voucher for a new car
health care for 6 months
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top