Mon
Oct 20 2008

GM-Chrysler before Christmas?

Hilton Holloway

Merger rumours are never far below the surface in the globalised car industry, but the latest one seems to be gaining traction.

General Motors may be ailing but, according to blue-chip news agencies, talks are well advanced on GM taking over the Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep combine.  

Chrysler is owned by Cerberus Capital Managment, a private equity group that would, so the reports claim, like to get out of the car-making business just as fast as it got into it.

The attraction to GM is said to be Chrysler’s cash pile of nearly $12bn. GM is burning through $1bn per month and its financial state means it cannot borrow money from the credit-crunched money markets.

But the consequences of GM swallowing Chrysler would be a job-loss blood bath. Many of Chrysler’s factories would be shut and a fair chunk of its 33,000 employees thrown out of work. And then there are the hundreds of Chrysler’s 3500 dealers that will also be closed.

GM bosses would then have to decide how to fold what remains of Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep into its global manufacturing system. If there’s life left in these brands - and Chrysler’s design and marketing teams can come up with convincing products - they could be built on GM platforms, filling up factory capacity around the world.

The downside is that this new product merger would take years and cost money. There is, though, an outside chance that Renault-Nissan will step in and buy the Jeep brand, using it for a new range of large, versatile, family-oriented vehicles to replace the Vel Satis and Espace.

However it shakes out, it’s increasingly looking like the end of the line for one of America’s ‘Big Three’ car makers, and for tens of thousands of jobs.

Sign-in or register to add your comments

About Hilton Holloway

Has two product design degrees and used to design mountain bikes. Realised that cars were a lot more interesting in 1990, and has been writing about them ever since.

Comments

horseandcart October 20, 2008 5:20 PM

Hilton, where's your figure of 33,000 employees from? Surely it's the thick end of 100,000 or so still? According to Wickedpedia it was 132,000 in 2006.

Basically who gives a rat's ass about Chrysler or GM taking it over. It'll hardly affect Europe and may provide additonal sales to euro-makers in US. The Yanks have found trillions of dollars to keep hundreds of Wall Street billionaires afloat I'm sure they can find a couple of million to fund food stamps for tossed out auto workers in the rust belt. Could get real ugly in the United Socialist States of America.

How about General Grisler for the new company's name?

TegTypeR October 20, 2008 5:37 PM

If GM do go ahead with this, it is going to end up as horrendous mess for them.  If the figures you have given are correct, I fail to see where GM are going to profit from this, even in the long term.

Greed is good?  Certainly not in this case.

HiltonH October 20, 2008 8:25 PM

Mr Cart...

The missing qualifier was 'hourly paid'. To quote one of the sources for this piece...

'Even after a recent buyouts, GM has 64,000 hourly workers in the United States, almost all represented by the United Auto Workers union. Chrysler has 33,000.'

If Chrysler is folded into GM, it's the production line people who will take the brunt of the trouble.

Design, engineering and marketing will not be so badly hit if GM keeps two or all three of the brands in the showrooms.

horseandcart October 20, 2008 9:20 PM

Thanks Mr Holloway. I concur having looked it up. Reports say 33,000 blue collar/track workers.

Maybe Bernanke cutting rates down to 0%? will kick-start GM's share price and all will turn out rosy - then again.

evanstim October 21, 2008 11:03 PM

I think there is more to this deal than we are being told, and certainly more than in this rather shallow report. US Business media suggest what is driving this deal (pardon the unintentioned pun) is Cerberus Capital Managment's interest in the 49% of GMAC it does not own.

My question is this (and please pardon my very basic understanding of how credit markets work): assuming this is true, and assuming other media reports that GMAC has been burnt by investing poisonous junk bonds (read: they bought some so-called sub-prime mortgages as bonds) why does Cerberus Capital Managment want GMAC?

It does not make sense to me, one bit. I know GMAC used to make the bulk of the profits for GM until quite recently but apparently the losses by GMAC in recent months have been huge. Presumably GMAC couldn't even give away the bonds it's got, so it would be lumbered with the losses for a while to come.  

So, what's the REAL story here? It cannot simply be GM's desire to remain the #1 car maker.

All about Autocar

Newsfeeds

Subscribe to our news with our RSS feeds

Advertise

To advertise with Autocar contact us

Buy our magazines

Discover our titles at themagazineshop.com

Autocar latest issue - cover 17-3

NEW ISSUE OUT NOW

FAST, EASY & SECURE
SUBSCRIBE NOW>>