Chrysler's Three Options

jwmorrice

Gentleman by Profession
Jun 30, 2003
7,133
2
0
In the laboratory.
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081022.wrchrysler23/BNStory/Business/home
Chrysler's future crumbling along with troubled economy
GREG KEENAN AND JACQUIE MCNISH
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
October 22, 2008 at 8:59 PM EDT


Back before the DaimlerChrysler AG automotive marriage made in heaven went on the rocks, Dieter Zetsche envisioned Chrysler selling three million vehicles a year. Daimler and Mr. Zetsche are gone, any hope of hitting that target has vanished and Chrysler LLC itself is about to go, too.

Whether it's a takeover by General Motors Corp. [GM-N], the purchase of an equity stake by Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. [NSANY-Q] or the worst-case scenario of Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, the days of Chrysler as an auto maker that can stand on its own are quickly coming to an end.

“The globalization of the auto industry hits Chrysler right between the eyes,” said industry analyst Bill Pochiluk, Automotive Compass LLC president.

The potential GM deal, which amounts to a takeover even though it's billed as a merger, would in theory help solve a cash crisis for GM by giving it access to $11.7-billion (U.S.) in cash Chrysler said it had on its books as of June 30.

But the overlap of vehicles between GM and Chrysler would mean plant shutdowns and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, perhaps as many as two-thirds of Chrysler's 66,000 employees.

“The GM plan is to buy it and effectively close it,” said John Casesa, a veteran auto industry analyst and now managing partner of Casesa Shapiro Group LLC in New York.

Analysts figure GM would retain Chrysler's Jeep brand and its minivan franchise, but gut the rest of Chrysler's operations, including its car-assembly plants and car lineup. It would close the worldwide head office in Auburn Hills, Mich., and the Chrysler Canada Inc. head office in Windsor, Ont.

“You wouldn't expect too many Chrysler assets to remain,” said Sean McAlinden, chief economist and vice-president of research of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. “[GM] doesn't need the transmissions, they don't need the engines, they really don't need their small cars and they may not need the new Ram [pickup].”

Another scenario is Nissan buying 20 per cent of Chrysler. That would mean the No. 3 Detroit auto maker would be scaled back, but with Nissan as a partner, it's likely to be healthier.

For one thing, Nissan and its partner, Renault SA, have demonstrated how a partnership can be successful. Chrysler has already signed manufacturing alliances with Nissan on small cars and big trucks, but could also use Nissan engines and transmissions in other vehicles.

There would be fewer job cuts than there would be with GM.

Chrysler also needs to shed dealers, which would be a major and expensive headache for GM. GM also has too many dealers in the U.S. market, but found out how difficult it is to reduce the size of that group when it killed off its Oldsmobile division in 2000.

“GM had 300 Oldsmobile dealers that were hanging on for dear life and it cost [GM] an arm and a leg,” said one industry source. Chrysler has about 3,000 U.S. dealers.

The keys to any deal lie mainly with Steve Feinberg, the reclusive Wall Street founder of Cerberus Capital Management LP, which owns 80.1 per cent of Chrysler. Cerberus, named after the mythical three-headed dog that guards the gates of Hades, built its name and a large fortune in the past decade by investing and turning around distressed companies in the U.S. housing and automotive-finance sectors and in Canada's lead airline, Air Canada [AC.A-T].

Its $7-billion purchase of Chrysler from Daimler looked like another daring money maker until late last year, when the triple forces of the slowing U.S. economy, rising gas prices and the global credit crunch began forcing North American auto makers on to the critical list.

“They're facing the prospect of Chapter 11,” Mr. Casesa said of what Cerberus is staring at now that the bottom has fallen out of U.S. auto sales in a slump that is expected to last through next year. “To avoid Chapter 11, what can they do? They can either put more capital in or get somebody else to help them out.”

The GM deal could be a trade, where Cerberus deals Chrysler for GM's 49-per-cent stake in GMAC LLC, giving the private equity fund 100 per cent of the automotive and mortgage financing giant.

If Nissan buys 20 per cent, Cerberus is left with a large ownership stake in a company it wants to jettison.

“What's good for Cerberus isn't necessarily good for Chrysler and vice-versa,” Mr. Pochiluk said.

Originally, Cerberus had hoped to modernize Chrysler's cars and trucks, but as economic conditions worsened, it has instead been forced to slash thousands of jobs and millions of dollars of expenses.

By this spring, sources said, the outlook at Chrysler had become so dire that Mr. Feinberg turned his attention to the sale of some or all of the Cerberus stake to avoid a potential bankruptcy proceeding that would be devastating to the fund's reputation.
 
Sad news, as I'm a big fan of the PT Cruiser and the Calibre. I certainly hope GM doesn't take them over, even if they don't just destroy the company, they'd just force Chrysler to produce crap cars.
 
It is very sad.

At the end of the day however, there are too many car companies in the world and some sort of rationalization is going to happen.

Last count, I believe there were 43 car manufacturers in the world.
 
Maybe there's a 4th option: Magna

I believe they were close to a deal before Cerberus outbid them.
While I'm no fan of the Stronach family, I would like to see a Canadian auto manufacturer. Makes sense to me, since Magna produces so many parts for Chrysler vehicles.
 
Magna does not have the available cash for the deal, and getting financing right now would be next to impossible.
 
landscaper said:
Magna does not have the available cash for the deal, and getting financing right now would be next to impossible.

Chrysler has $10B in cash on hand. That is the reason it is attractive to GM.
 
I find it sad too because Chrysler was really being innovative in their thinking with their new designs. The PT Cruiser, Prowler, Hemi Trucks, Charger, Challenger, Crossfire. Although all weren't the hits you'd imagine, at least they were trying (unlike the other 2 NA car makers).

Whatever happens this is going to hit the economy pretty hard (but Chrysler's been on the ropes before and been bailed out, let's hope if they do survive the unions don't go on strike for money immediately afterwards like last time).
 
dreamblade said:
Sad news, as I'm a big fan of the PT Cruiser and the Calibre. I certainly hope GM doesn't take them over, even if they don't just destroy the company, they'd just force Chrysler to produce crap cars.

They already produce crap cars...like the PT cruiser and Caliber.
 
Well, with this in the news I bet you could get an amazing deal on a vehicle. I know someone who went to trade in/pay out their lease of a hemi truck and it was $40K when they leased it and they are currently selling for $24K (the buyback on the $40K truck).
 
tboy said:
I find it sad too because Chrysler was really being innovative in their thinking with their new designs. The PT Cruiser, Prowler, Hemi Trucks, Charger, Challenger, Crossfire. Although all weren't the hits you'd imagine, at least they were trying

I don't think they were trying hard enough. Those vehicles were innovative mostly in a superficial way - new clothes for old technology. Sure they looked cool but "cool" doesn't sustain a company in the long run. Apple makes cool products but they have great underlying technology too. There has been little in the way of real technological innovation from Chrysler or Ford and GM for that matter.
 
Chrysler was at least trying to redress the lineup, the Prowler and Viper for example were were proof that there was a living presence in the design studio. G.M. in particular simply outputs the same car in 4 or 5 different costumes and calls it a design inovation. Ford is learning slowly but probably will improve now that the last of the old guard is history.

G.M. wants Chryslers bank accounts as well as gettin rid of a competitor. That may run afoul of the antitrust legislation in the states, not to mention the screaming the unions will kick up about the lost jobs.

Side note here just saw the leader of the CAW on BNN he was catigorically refusing the idea of a merger because of the job loses, when asked if contracts could be renegotiated to bring them inline with the american contracts he refused and walked off . Seems like everybody but his membership should bear the pain.

Back to Chrysler, their manufacturing plants in the states are generally older technology than the competitions they have not upgraded as much as ford or G.M. the exception is Bramalea but with workers earning less in the states that plant could go.

Interesting times all over
 
landscaper said:
....

Side note here just saw the leader of the CAW on BNN he was catigorically refusing the idea of a merger because of the job loses, when asked if contracts could be renegotiated to bring them inline with the american contracts he refused and walked off . Seems like everybody but his membership should bear the pain.
......

Did you expect anything less from a union leader? Fuck everybody else, we want our cut and don't you dare expect us to be like everyone else and cut back......

As for technology investment, there really hasn't been any advancement in auto technology in the last 20 yrs. I mean, yeah, there's little breakthroughs here and there but it is mostly cosmetic, gadgetry (like self parking), but really, the overall basic design/power plant hasn't changed much. Sure, BMW built a car that could race around a track with no driver input but BFD. It still burned gasoline, used 2 wheels to drive, 2 wheels to steer and used the same basic design for brakes, power, etc.

I think any auto maker has to see the writing on the wall: the way we're doing things now can't continue.
 
eighthsamurai said:
Maybe there's a 4th option: Magna

I believe they were close to a deal before Cerberus outbid them.
While I'm no fan of the Stronach family, I would like to see a Canadian auto manufacturer. Makes sense to me, since Magna produces so many parts for Chrysler vehicles.



Magna did have the cash, Russian partner pulled out of the co.because US would not allow him to visit!
 
JD75 said:
They already produce crap cars...like the PT cruiser and Caliber.
I'll second that.
Do a little research, Chrysler ranks pretty low on quality.
 
WoodPeckr said:
I'll second that.
Do a little research, Chrysler ranks pretty low on quality.

How do they make out on price? I bet you'll find on similar vehicles they are the cheapest as well. Well, maybe not as bad as lada or kia but compared to the big players I bet you'll find they are....

The whole problem is people expect grade A top of the line quality but at half the cost. You can't have it both ways. I always have this same problem in my biz: people want to pay lada prices but end up with a bentley.
 
tboy said:
How do they make out on price? I bet you'll find on similar vehicles they are the cheapest as well. Well, maybe not as bad as lada or kia but compared to the big players I bet you'll find they are....

The whole problem is people expect grade A top of the line quality but at half the cost. You can't have it both ways. I always have this same problem in my biz: people want to pay lada prices but end up with a bentley.



If take a good look at new Bentley, if Chrysler built a 2Dr 300, it would just look like one! Difference of $Hundreds of thousands. Lol
 
eldoguy said:
If take a good look at new Bentley, if Chrysler built a 2Dr 300, it would just like one! Lol

I have to assume you meant "look lke one" and you're right. In north america I find people are so wrapped up in what it looks like more than how good it is. The difference between a chrysler and a bentley is I bet you could use a micrometer on the door/hood/trunk gaps and I bet you wouldn't find any over a 1 mm out. But hey, that's what you get for a cool half mill......

back to the biz at hand though, I mean, if there are already enough new and used cars in North America for every man, woman, teen, toddler and new born IN North America, and you're trying to build more, I'd be looking at another business because the population isn't growing as fast as they're building.....
 
tboy said:
I have to assume you meant "look lke one" and you're right. In north america I find people are so wrapped up in what it looks like more than how good it is. The difference between a chrysler and a bentley is I bet you could use a micrometer on the door/hood/trunk gaps and I bet you wouldn't find any over a 1 mm out. But hey, that's what you get for a cool half mill......

back to the biz at hand though, I mean, if there are already enough new and used cars in North America for every man, woman, teen, toddler and new born IN North America, and you're trying to build more, I'd be looking at another business because the population isn't growing as fast as they're building.....

on the door gap issue untill the early 70's the Big Three automakers had manufacturing tolerances of 5/16's of an inch on panels and up to 1 thou on drive train, hense the use of lead to smooth seams and break in operiods for engines. Quality is job 1 does not mean much when quality is negotiable
 
landscaper said:
on the door gap issue untill the early 70's the Big Three automakers had manufacturing tolerances of 5/16's of an inch on panels and up to 1 thou on drive train, hense the use of lead to smooth seams and break in operiods for engines. Quality is job 1 does not mean much when quality is negotiable

Which reminds me of the fiero and the body assembly machine (commonly referred to a mill and drill). The rolling chassis was moved into position and measured. Then the machine picked up ALL the body panels and positioned them to 0/16" of an inch spacing (I forget the tolerance) and then machined the nylon mounting blocks to insure the body panels filt perfectedly. It was an amazing machine.