FIAT Claims to Assume NONE of Chrysler's Debt

[MyerShift]

FIAT Denies ANY Responsibility of Chrysler's U.S. Government Debt

Indeed, FIAT seems to be merely using Chrysler as an easy way into the U.S. and nothing more.

I guess it's to be expected.

Edited March 21, 2009 by MyerShift

[Brougham-Holiday]

Sounds like things at Chrysler might be just as f'ed up as at GM. This whole thing reminds me of the various statements given about the future of Pontiac over the last few months.

[Intrepidation]

From CAB in regards to what Chrysler gains from an alliance with Fiat:

• It would enable us to obtain world-class small engines and powertrains, ultimately facilitating synergies in purchasing, engineering and distribution.
• Fiat's product portfolio complements ours, so we gain increased R&D and design capabilities.

[Z-06]

From CAB in regards to what Chrysler gains from an alliance with Fiat:

They said the same thing regarding the D&C alliance/merger. Except this time around C is broke and it is not a complete acquisition.

[Intrepidation]

They said the same thing regarding the D&C alliance/merger. Except this time around C is broke and it is not a complete acquisition.

Customer Advisory Board didn't exist until after Cerberus took ownership...so I don't think they said it.

[longtooth]

I think Chrysler is going at it full-tilt as to playing "Head Games" (Foreigner?) in dissing GM's position earlier this week and now this.

And they ask if GM's Wagoner should step down.

At least GM's Chairman is uniformly coherent and stalwart conversing with the media.

I would have imploded were I exposed to the crushing weight of the scrutiny that GM's chief has been subjected to. My theory as to why some of these guys are paid the big bucks. For meritoriously commendable composure under the harshest conditions.

One has to wonder who's minding the store at Chrysler/Cerberus.

[Intrepidation]

What about GM did they diss? Did I miss it?

[longtooth]

What about GM did they diss? Did I miss it?

Someone from Chrysler, maybe a CFO-type, said something on Wednesday about GM's viability as a "going concern" being much more tenuous than Chrysler's viability.

I think that for the sake of sanity that they should be playing nice in the press as opposed to slinging mud.

[Intrepidation]

That was a Chrysler exec? I saw something about that in a headline but haven't read the story yet. Yeah they should play nice for now.

[longtooth]

That was a Chrysler exec? I saw something about that in a headline but haven't read the story yet. Yeah they should play nice for now.

I'll try 'data-mining' the source later Dodge'.

Heard it on CNBC while in transit.

[longtooth]

Right here.

http://www.egmcartech.com/2009/03/19/chrys...general-motors/

"Chrysler sees itself better off than General Motors"

A Chrysler executive said today that the company is better equipped to survive the current economic recession than its rival General Motors. While comments like these are expected from Chrysler’s Jim Press, this one comes straight from the man responsible for the company’s financials - CFO Ron Kolka.

Kolka said that Chrysler is a safer bet for U.S. tax payers who are helping keeping the company afloat. He said that Chrysler can become profitable and repay its federal loans at a lower level of sales than General Motors.

“If you look at it on a pure-business basis, we are clearly more viable,” Kolka said in an interview with Bloomberg.

What did GM have to say about this? While spokeswoman Renee Rashid-Merem had no comment about Kolka’s statement she said that GM is on a “clearly defined path to long-term viability.”

[end quote]

Kolka: The Nightstalker

[Z-06]

Customer Advisory Board didn't exist until after Cerberus took ownership...so I don't think they said it.

Call it CAB or call it decision making honchos heading Chrysler the effect is the same. Just because you name a committee which works with the decision of future of the company and has a fascinating name does not take away the strategic decisions it makes and justifications it provides about those decisions.

CAB might not have existed then, but someone did make the decision of merging with Diamler and justifications were given then to as to why the merger was the only river to set sail on. Ten years later results were more than appalling.

[Intrepidation]

Call it CAB or call it decision making honchos heading Chrysler the effect is the same. Just because you name a committee which works with the decision of future of the company and has a fascinating name does not take away the strategic decisions it makes and justifications it provides about those decisions.

CAB might not have existed then, but someone did make the decision of merging with Diamler and justifications were given then to as to why the merger was the only river to set sail on. Ten years later results were more than appalling.

I'm just letting you know what it's called. Actually the Customer Advisory Board isn't a bunch of head honchos but Chrysler owners who get to discuss and chat with execs, designers and engineers. Of course I keep missing most of these sessions. I missed the chat with Steven Landry, EVP...

They also give Chrysler feedback on various questions the company posts on the board.

There's a difference between this alliance and Daimler's takeover. This isn't being coined as a "merger" (which ended up being a takeover), it's a partnership that according to the details laid out gives Fiat access to things like underutilized plants and dealers, and Chrysler acess to small car platforms and powertrains (both of which it desperately needs).

Of course it could all go to hell. Wouldn't be the first time.

[CMG]

Right here.

http://www.egmcartech.com/2009/03/19/chrys...general-motors/

"Chrysler sees itself better off than General Motors"

A Chrysler executive said today that the company is better equipped to survive the current economic recession than its rival General Motors. While comments like these are expected from Chrysler’s Jim Press, this one comes straight from the man responsible for the company’s financials - CFO Ron Kolka.

Kolka said that Chrysler is a safer bet for U.S. tax payers who are helping keeping the company afloat. He said that Chrysler can become profitable and repay its federal loans at a lower level of sales than General Motors.

“If you look at it on a pure-business basis, we are clearly more viable,” Kolka said in an interview with Bloomberg.

What did GM have to say about this? While spokeswoman Renee Rashid-Merem had no comment about Kolka’s statement she said that GM is on a “clearly defined path to long-term viability.”

[end quote]

Kolka: The Nightstalker

And what else would you POSSIBLY expect Chrysler personnel to say?

Can you imagine GM going to the media and saying they are much worse of as far as viability when compared to Ford? LOL It ain't gonna happen.