Display:
Holy Hell, the ECB and BoE luvs them some rate cuts.  Countdown to Dollar-Pound parity?

And GTP's gonna subsidize our mortgages.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

[Drew's WHEEEEE™ Technology]

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Thu Dec 4th, 2008 at 12:02:02 PM EST
Back on the market again. Saab is next. Then Opel?
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Dec 4th, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ford's asking U$D6 billion, which they're not going to get. Let's say 3.4 billion U$D does it. That's about $200k per Volve worker. How about an ESOP? Anybody here have contact with the union in Sweden?


paul spencer
by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Thu Dec 4th, 2008 at 01:16:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well Volvo is owned by Ford. Of the Big Three U.S. automakers, Ford has the best chance of surviving, so it makes sense they are trying to shed Volvo. Because at least in the U.S., Volvo cars have terrible fuel efficiency.

But Ford, I think, is asking $6 billion, far too much for the Swedish brand.

Saab and Opel are owned by GM and GM, being the idiot company that it is, isn't interested in selling even though SolarWorld has offered to buy Opel. Personally, I think the U.S. Congress should stipulate GM sells to SolarWorld before any bailout loans are granted.

I suspect Tata Motors of India, if they still have money, or a Chinese automaker is most likely to buy Volvo. The same goes for Saab. Saab's CEO thinks Tata or BMW is a likely buyer, but I doubt BMW would want Saab.

I doubt Sweden would be able to step-in and help Volvo or Saab out. Personally, I think the best plan would be for Saab AB to buy back Saab automotive and Volvo, somehow, come back to Sweden through some EU arrangement. Maybe to make safe, fuel-efficient hybrids.

by Magnifico on Thu Dec 4th, 2008 at 01:25:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Did you see the Michael Moore piece where he argues that the U.S. government could buy GM outright for only $3B, so why not just take it over an run it as a nationalized company? As if that will get any traction in Washington...  :-)

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=242

by asdf on Thu Dec 4th, 2008 at 02:00:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Dan Neil made a similar proposal on Tuesday in the LA Times:
My modest proposal: Nationalize GM.

To be clear, I mean that the federal government should buy GM; forget rathole loans or nonvoting equity shares. The company's stockholder value has been essentially wiped out. The company's enterprise value -- the lock, stock and forklift price -- is about $32 billion; its total debt is $45 billion. Let's make GM an offer.

This would seem to me to be the most sensible solution.  It would avoid needless damage to the supplier chain and preserve US manufacturing capability while providing a means for recouping the investment and giving the government leverage over the direction that product development would take.  That might be an advantage with an Obama Administration.  The problem will be getting from here to Jan 20.  Everything I just cited as advantages could be seen as disadvantages by those of opposing ideologies, who will likely try to inflict maximum damage on their way out the door.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Dec 4th, 2008 at 03:31:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series