Nissan, Renault Want GM Stake

[erod45]

Wow - so the Big 2.5 may dwindle to the Big 2.25 Oh well, GM needs someone to save their butts. Perhaps Nissan/Renault will whip those guys into shape and help GM sell REAL products that consumers "may" think twice about buying. GM has been relying too much on their truck segment, which is good, because trucks sell well here, but to be a company that will survive in this very competitive market, they have to be well rounded in ALL their products. That is where Toyota beats GM hands down, not to mention Nissan also. There may be good out of all of this, but if this deal goes through, the big "true" American company now will soley be Ford.

[The O.C.]

Do yu have any inside information on the Suzuki court case against Conumer Reports.  I love that story.

My suzuki bike was flawless and my friends 110,00 Chevy metro three cylinder suzuki with still tight as a drum when I drove it.  Pretty impressive cars.  My #1 Son in law drives many vehicles for work.  The Suzuki aerio was his choice as most underated and the 350Z as most overated.

My experience is that Suzuki made EXCELLENT products (the japanese ones that is) but suffered from a major lack of sales, marketing, and advertising expertise due to Japanese decision makers in the U.S. that, #1, only have been here a short time, #2, don't understand the U.S. market as a result, and #3, would not listen to the american staff managers, executives, and other employees.

As far as CR is concerned, they "settled" after I had left. However, I don't think Suzuki ever recovered. Suzuki (off-road) enthusiasts I don't think ever cared two bits about the CR debacle, but the negative press kept Suzuki out of the pocketbooks of a good many of the non-enthusiast consumers out there.

I know more about the CR debacle with Buick......when CR "bought" a base Regal LS with wheelcovers and cloth seats....and compared it with higher-end competitive "sport" midsize sedans.

Of course, CR ripped it for the "unattractive cloth interior", the "floppy and floaty suspension", and the "underperforming base engine."

We (Buick) offered to buy back their LS and provide them with a GS that would have been way more competitive.....and a model that was more in demand and more of a seller than the "beer can" LS they bought. They refused.

But....I digress....

[The O.C.]

That said I don't think Nissan's VQ engine is much better than GM's 3.6 used in the CTS.  GM makes about as much power in their CTS with the 3.6 as Nissan does in the G35 sedan with the 3.5, except GM does it with 87 fuel and Nissan needs 93.

You know....the 3.6L is a great engine.

However, I believe Nissan has spec'd the new Altima at 260hp (matching the old body-style SE-R) and the new G35 is spec'd at damn-near 300hp I believe.....

And, I believe (I could be wrong) that both engines will perform fine on 87-octane...but I believe even Caddy RECOMMENDS 91-octane....doesn't it..?

[Northstar]

You know....the 3.6L is a great engine.

However, I believe Nissan has spec'd the new Altima at 260hp (matching the old body-style SE-R) and the new G35 is spec'd at damn-near 300hp I believe.....

And, I believe (I could be wrong) that both engines will perform fine on 87-octane...but I believe even Caddy RECOMMENDS 91-octane....doesn't it..?

I'm pretty sure the 3.6 only needs 87 too, but the Northstar reccommends 91.

[greg_nate]

Why? and by who exactly?

I'd like to know the theory behind this also. The way I see it, York is in the driver's seat.

His job is to push an issue. His talent(Why Kerkorian pays him) lies in finding the right issue to push.

York's original issue, selling Hummer/Saab didn't pan out. GM stood up to him and he lost.

Round two. York comes up with a different issue in which GM cannot easily wriggle out of.

No matter what happens, York comes out on top. He will still get handsomly paid.

Bottom line about York is this: He has a loud bark and that's about it. No real bite. If he truly cared about turning GM's profits around he'd take on the single most important issue confronting GM at this time: Labor costs.

For every cent that goes to labor, a cent is lost to shareholders. The transfer of wealth in the from of Union benefits, to shareholder dividends, is where the businessman should be looking.

The more I think abot this, the more I see it is such a ruse and nothing else.

[ellives]

Labor's time is coming... tick tock, tick tock. Can you hear the clock ticking?

I'm patiently awaiting for the 2007 labor negotiations. 2007, beyond any time in GM's history will define the company. The perfect storm of new product introductions and the future of the union at GM will define whether the company continues to exist. The world is watching what they decide collectively.

I am not anti-labor. I just want to see GM survive. They need come up with a plan that compensates everyone within the company for success. None of this bull$h! $400m packages for the CEO a la Exxon. (I have never bought gas there since that story came out.) They should be sharing the fruits of the effort without killing the company in the process as was done over the last 20 years.

GM needs a labor ADVANTAGE now in order to compete with the asian manufacturers... not parity... an advantage. The company should accept no less. If they do, they deserve to be put out on the street and I personally will march over to Lexus myself and plunk $50k down on a GS to prove my point if it happens.

I'd like to know the theory behind this also.  The way I see it, York is in the driver's seat.

His job is to push an issue.  His talent(Why Kerkorian pays him) lies in finding the right issue to push.

York's original issue, selling Hummer/Saab didn't pan out.  GM stood up to him and he lost.

Round two.  York comes up with a different issue in which GM cannot easily wriggle out of. 

No matter what happens, York comes out on top.  He will still get handsomly paid.

Bottom line about York is this:  He has a loud bark and that's about it.  No real bite.  If he truly cared about turning GM's profits around he'd take on the single most important issue confronting GM at this time:  Labor costs.

For every cent that goes to labor, a cent is lost to shareholders.  The transfer of wealth in the from of Union benefits, to shareholder dividends, is where the businessman should be looking.

The more I think abot this, the more I see it is such a ruse and nothing else.

[Guest buickman]

In concept I love the 3 companies merged together.

But in practice I see this as nothing more than a game by Kerkorian.

GM's market cap is too weak for a merger of equals at this time. 

GM has to much growth potential in stock value over the next 24 months for the institutional investors or BOD to sell out.

Even an equity stake would not make sense to me looking at it from GMs perspective.  Selling 20% of the company for 3 billion with 14 billion awaiting them if the GMAC deal goes through.

I will be very surprised if anything happens.

GM has everything to loose and nothing to gain in this deal.

Renault and Nissan have nothing to offer at this time and everything to gain if there is any truth to their interest beyond a dinner conversation.

Even access to Japan is not a reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said, excellent points. Selling out now, at this amount of market capitalization, would not be in the best interest of current shareholders. The only ones to benefit would be Mr K in the short term, and of course the ever present investment bankers always in the hunt for another kill.

Buickman

[SimonDavid]

Well said, excellent points. Selling out now, at this amount of market capitalization, would not be in the best interest of current shareholders. The only ones to benefit would be Mr K in the short term, and of course the ever present investment bankers always in the hunt for another kill.

Buickman

Not necessarily.

There is still a significant risk that GM will simply run out of cash before 2007. The GMAC deal hasnt been banked yet - the cash there is phased over 3 years and Im sure there are some get out clauses if the buyer gets cold feet. An August strike is still a live possibility, and the buyouts are going to cost 4 billion.

In fact it could be argued that GM is already in a form of liquidation given the sale of assets like GMAC.

In this circumsatnce a Nissan/Renault offer of cold hard cash + Ghosn for a 20% stake could be a very tempting alternative to chapter 11.

[Xicer]

I see only one solution: Kirk, Wagoner, Ghosn, and York fight to the death. We shoot the winner

[Hey Now]

I see only one solution: Kirk, Wagoner, Ghosn, and York fight to the death.    We shoot the winner

Yes, yes! Thunderdome style!

[Chicagoland]

B-man, if GM sells, the Ghon will kill off most of the overlapping brands. No more Buick, Saturn, Pontiac, and GMC [name].

[Shantanu]

Not necessarily.

There is still a significant risk that GM will simply run out of cash before 2007.  The GMAC deal hasnt been banked yet - the cash there is phased over 3 years and Im sure there are some get out clauses if the buyer gets cold feet.  An August strike is still a live possibility, and the buyouts are going to cost 4 billion.

In fact it could be argued that GM is already in a form of liquidation given the sale of assets like GMAC.

In this circumsatnce a Nissan/Renault offer of cold hard cash + Ghosn for a 20% stake could be a very tempting alternative to chapter 11.

But they're not offerring any cash. Shareholders don't go around giving money to the company, unless every other shareholder agrees to it as well (which typically doesn't happen).

And GM itself has nothing to do with the deal. Nissan/Renault are trying to buy 20% of GM from shareholders out there who collectively own that much of it. That money will not go to GM.

Edited July 3, 2006 by Shantanu

[Guest buickman]

B-man, if GM sells, the Ghon will kill off most of the overlapping brands. No more Buick, Saturn, Pontiac, and GMC [name].

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With all due respect to Mr Ghosn, he is most successful at cutting costs and streamlining operations. This isn't what is needed at GM. We are desparately in need of ways to increase sales. Further surgery is only a continuation of the destructive path we've been on for the past few decades. It's time for growth.

Buickman

Edited July 3, 2006 by buickman

[andretti]

I really doubt that Renault would want to get ahold of the GMT900s. Renault focuses more on cars-specifically small cars-than they do large trucks, so I think that the GMT900s would be safe.

Renault makes more medium and heavy duty trucks than GM! The only thing they don't have is pickups. Maybe they do want the GMT900's

[Spike]

You know....the 3.6L is a great engine.

However, I believe Nissan has spec'd the new Altima at 260hp (matching the old body-style SE-R) and the new G35 is spec'd at damn-near 300hp I believe.....

And, I believe (I could be wrong) that both engines will perform fine on 87-octane...but I believe even Caddy RECOMMENDS 91-octane....doesn't it..?

I drove a 2005 G35x and the engine was not nearly as refined as the 3.6 in my CTS. I would say that the engine felt rough compared to GM's.

Apparently the 280 hp version of the VQ will run on regular, while the 298 hp version requires premium. The 2006 280 hp version is EPA estimated at 19/26.

My owner's manual says the 3.6 should be run on 87. The 2006 CTS 3.6 is EPA rated at 18/27.

Then again, we all know how accurate the EPA estimates are....

I think there is more to an engine than just final output.

[Spike]

http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompa...-Jul-2006+RTRS;

"Discussions will follow if GM supports the proposal for the alliance made by its shareholders, Nissan said in a statement."

[gmcbob]

Renault and Nissan don't want to kill GM brands.

Despite all of GM's problems with so called legacy costs and some of the slower selling, non competitive models (like the current Monte Carlo), the last thing Renault would want to do is spend $3 billion to get a hold of GM and then start killing brands and rebadging Silverados as Nissans or Renaults. GM may be in "trouble", but keep an open mind when reading Forbes.com and Business Week. They want to sell magazines, and in order to do that, they're going to follow trends (analysts aren't happy with GM these days, so they'll pick up and run with that), and they also like to spin things in a dramatic, often exageratted way that makes a lot of people panic. (GM bankruptcy talks from late 2005 into the springtime, remember that???)

There's a lot to be said about brand identity. GM still sells the most cars in trucks in North America. Chevrolet has a HUGE following in North America, WAY more history and identity than Nissan has in North America. Ghosn seems like a smart dude, and I'm pretty sure he realizes this. If anything, Renault and Nissan have quite a bit to gain from this by NOT killing any GM brands. I'm sure they studied the Oldsmobile fiasco and realize they'd have a huge problem on their hands if they completely alienated GM's entire dealer network, or any one significant portion of it. The lawsuits and other financial troubles would be ongoing for years.

Renault wants the benefit of a brand name like Chevrolet or Cadillac under their umbrella. The pickups and SUVs that are sold in America mean HUGE profits. And yes, although the sales are down, they're still cheap to make. And Cadillac - that's definitely a good name. Why in the world would they kill a brand that has soooo much potential? The profits are enormous when an Escalade or an STS go out the door, Renault would be nuts to kill that golden goose. Seriously.

The reason these things happen in the business world is money. Plain and simple. Renault would not make any money at all by spending $3 billion to turn and around and kill brands to a company that generated almost $200 billion in revenue during 2005. Once GM gets out from under the goofy ass union troubles and some of the other costs they have, they'll be *extremely* profitable again with the current 7 or 8 brands they already have, and Renault just wants a piece of that pie.

So killing brands...highly doubtful and extremely stupid if that's what Renault wants to do.

So don't worry, if this goes down there will probably be a Camaro - with a good old pushrod all aluminum 6.0L V8, it's just that now Renault will enjoy 20% of the profit that they make off me when I slap my $$$ down. hehehe.

Think about when Mercedes took over Chrysler - did they kill Dodge and Chrysler? If anything, they made them better (300C, Charger R/T, new Challenger). They knew it would be the kiss of death for the company in North America. Same thing here guys with Renault and Nissan.

[Chicagoland]

Now that I think about it, more likely, GM will be the same basic brands. but no more superfulous cars like Monte Carlo or the Terazza/Rainer.

[NASCAR can add Impala stickers to the fake bodies]

[wildcat]

GM is already getting rid of the Terraza and Rainier by themselves. They don't need Nissan or Renault to hold their hands.

Edited July 3, 2006 by wildcat

[sciguy_0504]

NISSAN BOARD STATEMENT REGARDING GM

The Board of Directors of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., met today. The meeting was chaired by Nissan President and CEO Carlos Ghosn and included discussion on the events following the initiative taken by Tracinda Corporation regarding General Motors forming a new alliance with Renault and Nissan. The Board of Directors approved that Nissan should proceed with exploratory discussions concerning a potential alliance with General Motors, if General Motors Corporation supports and endorses the proposal made by its shareholders.

The Board of Directors delegated all the necessary powers to the Chairman of the Board, President and CEO, Carlos Ghosn, to conduct any discussions and negotiations on this matter.

http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/NEWS/2006/...60703-04_e.html

[haypops]

One word of negativity here. When the acquisition/joint venture craze was popular in the 70's-90's (?), three companies that I can think of staid mostly independant. They were Toyota, Honda, and BMW. These also appear to be the healthiest auto manufacturers. Perhaps it isn't coincidene. Comments?

note: of course BMW bought Rover and it was a dissaster. BMW, however, was large enough and rover small enough that they were eventually able to salvage a little (mini), sell some to Ford (Land Rover), and give the majority away. Also Toyota does have its subsidaries and purchased brands (Hino and daihtsu) but again it wa a giant buying a flee.

[SimonDavid]

But they're not offerring any cash.  Shareholders don't go around giving money to the company, unless every other shareholder agrees to it as well (which typically doesn't happen).

And GM itself has nothing to do with the deal.  Nissan/Renault are trying to buy 20% of GM from shareholders out there who collectively own that much of it.  That money will not go to GM.

The report on the front page of the London Financial Times said that Nissan would propose offering cash for NEW SHARES in GM. ie a recapitalization, with the cash going to GM.

If they are just buying existing shares they don't need to talk to the GM board at all - they can just stand in the market.

[ShadowDog]

Question for my own curiousity: How's the Titan fairing these days in both sales and perception?

[jry]

just keep these french fools away from the general. for petes sake, the recovery is happening, kirk, keep your pants on. sure, you got pimped over at daimler and you have a chip on your shoulder for any american car company. but we all know that this is just about getting your stock price to jump. renault and nissan, combined have less global market share and more employees. thats all i need to know. oh, and one more thing, their recovery is starting to wane a bit, hence the reason why they want to latch on to GM. they need to suck the blood out of this so they can survive a little longer. kind of like when daimler sucked the 8 billion dollars of retained earnings out of chrysler. GM should be buying renault/nissan. they are the stronger of the bunch.

[SimonDavid]

just keep these french fools away from the general. for petes sake, the recovery is happening, kirk, keep your pants on. sure, you got pimped over at daimler and you have a chip on your shoulder for any american car company. but we all know that this is just about getting your stock price to jump. renault and nissan, combined have less global market share and more employees. thats all i need to know. oh, and one more thing, their recovery is starting to wane a bit, hence the reason why they want to latch on to GM. they need to suck the blood out of this so they can survive a little longer. kind of like when daimler sucked the 8 billion dollars of retained earnings out of chrysler. GM should be buying renault/nissan. they are the stronger of the bunch.

GM's market cap is $ 15 billion, Nissan's is 60

[Chicagoland]

GM will never be more than 25% market share again. The 'recovery' is to be profitable at 20-22%, or less.

[ShadowDog]

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/...0703&ID=5840201

Well, feedback is starting...

A three-way alliance could also mean the departure of GM's chief executive, G. Richard Wagoner Jr., and leave Ghosn overseeing the three companies.

Please don't break your chair as you jump in your seat BM; however, given the way this wish of yours will occur, it's definitely not the best way to have it happen...even you would have to agree.

Edited July 3, 2006 by ShadowDog

[Ghost Dog]

A while ago Hogan Mentioned the possibility that the GMAC proceeds (14 Billion?) could be used for a special one time dividend.( I think Hogan did'nt like the idea?) I think this is what Tracinda is pushing for, a payoff of some kind. Tracinda's share would have been 10% of the 14 billion.

Going public with the Nissan/Renault thing, is just another push for a Cash Infusion to be used as a special dividend. The Nissan/Renault thing would really have no Benefit to General Motors business or product. Or to Long Term Stockholders. The only benefit would be to those who want to take the money and run. (Via a 1 time special dividend)

[Guest buickman]

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/...0703&ID=5840201

Well, feedback is starting...

Please don't break your chair as you jump in your seat BM; however, given the way this wish of yours will occur, it's definitely not the best way to have it happen...even you would have to agree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are correct, Ghosn is best known as a cost cutter and we certainly have seen enough of that. I'd much sooner see the return of Ross Perot, a natural born salesman capable of inspirational leadership.

Buickman

[CreativeVision]

Just saw a news ticker this morning stating that the GM board will be meeting about this on July 7th to discuss.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Sounds like GM is about to be whored out like Chrysler was...

Now if we could just oust that PESKY Ford family over in Dearborn (Which they tried, by trying to run the company into bankruptcy) we could whore ALL of the big three out and rid ourselves of another "rustbelt"/crappy burdening industry.

YAY!!! Happy fourth of July America!!!!! Your independence is fading faster than the morale itself.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

As confused as I may be as you claim...one thing I am certain on is I am sick of reading your bull&#036;h&#33; day in and day out like some are sick of reading Dollingers.

LMFAO

[evok]

If they are just buying existing shares they don't need to talk to the GM board at all - they can just stand in the market.

That is unless GM has some sort of poison bill!

[jry]

GM's market cap is $ 15 billion, Nissan's is 60

so what. gm has more global penetration and less employees. eventially, that will trickle down to market cap. market cap doesn't help you post profits on car sales. its stock trading mumbo jumbo.

[jry]

You are correct, Ghosn is best known as a cost cutter and we certainly have seen enough of that. I'd much sooner see the return of Ross Perot, a natural born salesman capable of inspirational leadership.

Buickman

wow! BM, i agree with you on this. except H Ross is too friggin old.

[evok]

LMFAO

You found that funny also. I was on the floor with that one also. But when I step back and think:

No education.

No experience.

No credibility.

In the end it really is just sad.

[drew770]

The deal makes sense because there really isn't that much overlap.  Nissan sells the bulk of their cars in Japan, Gm in the USA, and Renault in Europe.  Yes, Nissan sells many cars in the USA, but their market share is only a few percent.  If they can collaborate on technology and platform sharing, it should theoretically reduce costs for all parties and make them more competitive.  But I didn't really understand this deal to be a merger of sorts, more of a strategic alliance.  A merger would be far messier and probably less beneficial to GM.  An alliance on the other hand would allow GM to keep their structure and identity, but lower costs and R&D.

For those that suggested that GM and Ford team up rather than this, there could be anti-trust issues considering how anti-detroit this administration is.  And do you really want GM to have ANYTHING to do with Ford's management structure???  They are by far the worst in the industry IMO.

The problem with that is even though Nissan has only a small percent of market share in America it is the most profitable market. Nissan would not want to give technology to GM so that the Malibu could directly compete with the Altima and Nissan is on a push to broaden its brand with more trucks, suvs and other segments to BETTER COMPETE WITH CHEVY AND TOYOTA!

So will Nissan simply give up the HD Titan for Chevy's sake? Will it slow the redesign of the Maxima in order to let Chevy debut the RWD Impala?

I highly doubt that Nissan would slow, cut or modify any production plans for GM in this newly formed Alliance.

If this was Renault only then we can say there will be no product overlap and the possiblity to swap technology would be great but Nissan wants to become a full brand like Toyota, Ford and Chevy and this deal just puts a crimp in their plans.

This alliance is DOA. Honda and GM yes because Honda has no desire to be an everything brand for all!

[Sixty8panther]

This alliance is DOA.  Honda and GM yes because Honda has no desire to be an everything brand for all!

HOw do you figure?

They build half-a$$ed exotic cars with V6s, trucks with Front-Biased-AWD

V6s & POS micro-cars better suited for Russia, their Acura re-badges

suck as they try to compete with V8 RWD cars with FWD V6 ones and yet

they keep settting their B.S. code of ethics down and then breaking their

own rules.

Attention World: Since we're trying to save the world we WILL NOT BUILD

pickup trucks or full size SUVs... Then they re-badge the Isuzu Trooper &

make the Ridgeline & Pilot off a minivan platform and try to say they're

capable SUVs. Honda sucks plain & simple. I'd rather see Nissan-Renault

steal the LS7 & Sigma chassis from GM then to see Honda kill the Zeta

program and have GM start building FWD, V6 powered Cadillac DTSs.

Edited July 6, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[Ghost Dog]

Would alliance aid GM?

Many auto analysts very much doubt it

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060709/1035550.asp

It's a case of "armchair chairmen, people with just a dangerous little knowledge of the car industry," according to industry analyst Jim Hall.

The outspoken Hall, vice president for AutoPacific Inc., has little tolerance for those who advance a takeover of GM as the cure for what ails it.

"It's easy to identify a company's ills, but not as easy to make the fixes. Is an alliance the answer for GM? Not even close. If shareholders who think they can run the company from the 50-yard line don't see this [alliance] as a bad idea and it destroys their stock, then good for them."

[fuel_sipping]

Originally Posted by BBC

The board of US car firm General Motors has voted to embark on exploratory talks with Renault and Nissan on a possible three-way alliance.

GM's management can now "weigh the potential of such an alliance in order to assist the board in its decision making", said the board.

GM shares rose 1.8% up after the news but closed only 0.69% higher.

Last week a major GM shareholder urged the tie-up with French Renault and its Japanese partner Nissan.

'Open mind'

Billionaire Kirk Kerkorian - who holds 10% of GM shares - wrote to the ailing US car firm encouraging it to go ahead with the move.

The suggested deal would see the two firms take a 20% share of GM.

GM's board stated on Friday that the firm's executive Rick Wagoner would assess the potential tie-up with Nissan and Renault.

"General Motors has a lot of experience with different types of alliances and some have provided significant benefits to GM's competitive position and financial strength," said Mr Wagoner said in a statement.

"We will enter into discussions with the managements of Renault and Nissan with an open mind."

But he added: "Given the complexity of any potential relationship, it has to be carefully considered on its merits before coming to any conclusion."

After Friday's news, Mr Kerkorian's investment firm Tracinda issued a statement welcoming the development.

'Economies of scale'

GM's challenges in North America, on the revenue and the cost side, remain numerous, and an alliance is unlikely to have a significant effect on either in the short term

Rating agency Fitch

GM has embarked on wide-ranging cost-cutting initiatives after the firm saw losses of $10.6bn (£5.7bn; 8.2bn euros) last year.

High labour costs, intense competition from Asian car firms, and a move away from gas-guzzling vehicles have all dented GM's profits.

Rating agency Fitch however highlighted that GM's near term problems would remain unchanged even if an alliance went ahead.

"GM's challenges in North America, on the revenue and the cost side, remain numerous, and an alliance is unlikely to have a significant effect on either in the short term," Fitch said.

Nonetheless the potential for longer-term cost benefits remains.

"The new group could achieve unprecedented economies of scale and buying leverage in addition to being the largest automaker," said research firm JD Power, which examines the automotive industry.

Analysts have questioned the degree to which a tie-up would benefit Renault and Nissan.

"Renault runs the risk of having its management distracted by this possible alliance at a time when it needs to concentrate its resources on its declining market share and its new strategic plan," said Fitch.

Renault has a 44.4% share in Nissan which has a 15% stake in Renault. Both firms are headed by Carlos Ghosn.

Just a lil' something.

[thegriffon]

I believe Autoextremist has it right:

"Wagoner and Co. will take their sweet time and cherry-pick any obvious synergies available to them at Nissan and Renault. But that's as far as it will go."

[evok]

The dance is all about the plants

Ghosn wants more capacity in North America -- and Wagoner's got it

David Sedgwick | | Automotive News / July 17, 2006 - 6:00 am

Like a canny investor, Carlos Ghosn has spotted an undervalued asset: General Motors' North American assembly plants.

Those plants are efficient but underused; Ghosn wants to borrow a couple.

What a joke - Does Carlos realize that he will also inherent the UAW and GM's $1500 premium.

Don't believe what you read.

[haypops]

No doubt that your right, but still how does Toyota do so well with the $1500 surcharge in it's California "borrowed" plant?

[Drew Dowdell]

The dance is all about the plants

Ghosn wants more capacity in North America -- and Wagoner's got it

David Sedgwick  |  |  Automotive News / July 17, 2006 - 6:00 am

 

Like a canny investor, Carlos Ghosn has spotted an undervalued asset: General Motors' North American assembly plants.

Those plants are efficient but underused; Ghosn wants to borrow a couple.

What a joke - Does Carlos realize that he will also inherent the UAW and GM's $1500 premium.

Don't believe what you read.

167817[/snapback]

Why would Nissan inherit GM's legacy costs? Nissan wouldn't be using GM workers, they'd hire their own.

[evok]

No doubt that your right, but still how does Toyota do so well with the $1500 surcharge in it's California "borrowed" plant?

167824[/snapback]

Not a GM contract. Not a GM or a Toyota plant. It is a NUMMI plant.

[evok]

Why would Nissan inherit GM's legacy costs? Nissan wouldn't be using GM workers, they'd hire their own.

167825[/snapback]

GM in their factories would manufacture vehicles as Nissans. Much the same as DCX builds Raiders for Mitsubishi.

Do you honestly think Nissan would want to take over a brownfield location such as OK City or Doreville GA or even possibly Morain?

Do you honestly believe Nissan would give up the huge local tax breaks in a right to work state?

Do you honestly think Nissan wants to deal with a super fund site?

I can go on.

And if the current brownfield locations are used, and ownership is still controlled by GM in any capacity or percentage particulary because of site clean up responsiblity - the UAW will be there.

And some of GM's legacy cost would follow with that percentage.

[ehaase]

Why does Nissan need more plants? Except for the Altima, the vehicles produced in the Canton, MS plant aren't selling well.

[evok]

Exactly - when the veil of the Ghosen BS is slowly pulled away the rhetoric is built on quick sand.

If anything comes of this - GM/R-N will set up a joint venture to manufacture fuel filters!

Edited July 17, 2006 by evok

[Croc]

Exactly - when the veil of the Ghosen BS is slowly pulled away the rhetoric is built on quick sand.

Is anything comes of this - GM/R-N will set up a joint venture to manufacture fuel filters!

167837[/snapback]

[evok]

Let the back peddle begin:

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybri...omktNews&rpc=44