NationStates Jolt Archive

live @CNN (I have no link)

lost 27 billions.. just like that.

i think your maths is squiffy.

edit: i stealz yor threadz!! lolz.

live @CNN (I have no link)

lost 27 billions.. just like that.

i think your maths is squiffy.
how so?

Link! (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?NoCache=1&Dato=99999999&Kategori=BUSINESS01&Lopenr=70514010&Ref=AR&template=theme&theme=chrysler052007)

Hopefully this is a good thing for Chrysler, although I'm less than optimistic.

Link! (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?NoCache=1&Dato=99999999&Kategori=BUSINESS01&Lopenr=70514010&Ref=AR&template=theme&theme=chrysler052007)
To the rescue...here I am! (reference anyone?)

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article1786611.ece

thank you.. both.

What a surprise...

To the rescue...here I am! (reference anyone?)


Bob Marley?

This is what we call a bad move. Unless of course they made over 27bn in profit while they owned chrysler.

This is what we call a bad move. Unless of course they made over 27bn in profit while they owned chrysler.CNN says the Chrysler Division was losing 1 Billion a year !!!

From the Washington Post!

Cerberus to Buy Chrysler Group for $7.4B (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051400004.html?hpid=topnews)

CNN says the Chrysler Division was losing 1 Billion a year !!!

Sucks to be their shareholders.

how so?

now i think my brain is squiffy.

From the Washington Post!

Cerberus to Buy Chrysler Group for $7.4B (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051400004.html?hpid=topnews)thanks Corneliu.

Sucks to be their shareholders.since the main Shareholder was Mercedes.. It sucks to be a Mercedes shareholder.

Well, that's what you get for making products nobody wants and relying entirely on a single class of vehicles to carry your entire company...they're just another failure like GM or Ford.

Give them a few more years and Toyota or Honda will end up buying them.

since the main Shareholder was Mercedes.. It sucks to be a Mercedes shareholder.

Not true. Mercedes-Benz and Chrysler are/were two divisions of DaimlerChrysler, so Mercedes was not a shareholder in Chrysler, it was a sister company under the same parent group.

Now the Chrysler Group will split off with Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep etc.

Daimler will keep Mercedes, AMG, Smart, Maybach etc.

Not true. Mercedes-Benz and Chrysler are/were two divisions of DaimlerChrysler, so Mercedes was not a shareholder in Chrysler, it was a sister company under the same parent group.

Now Chrysler will split off with Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep etc.

Daimler will keep Mercedes, AMG, Smart, Maybach etc.We could argue for hours.. about the (US and German) financial technicalities for a merger/sale and what not..

but instead.. let me ask you this simple question.. Who gets hit with the 27 billion loss?

We could argue for hours.. about the (US and German) financial technicalities for a merger/sale and what not..

Well, if we were idiots we could.

I prefer the scenario where we just accept that I know what I'm talking about. Mercedes is not a shareholder in Chrysler. It is a sister company within the same parent group (DaimlerChrysler).

but instead.. let me ask you this simple question.. Who gets hit with the 27 billion loss?

Daimler.



The structure is something like this:

Parent Company: DaimlerChrysler

Divisions (the two companies who merged): Daimler-Benz (who stand to lose $27bn from the sale), Chrysler Group (who are being sold off)

Divisions of Daimler-Benz: Mercedes-Benz, Smart, Maybach, etc.

Divisions of Chrysler Group: Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, etc.

At least now all the Chrysler PDM data crap is no longer polluting Daimler PDM data... ;)

I thought Magna was buying Chrysler?

Nadkor is absolutely right on this one.

And it's about time they sold the sucker. Talk about pouring money down the drain.

Now, since this whole merger thing went so well :rolleyes: - do the managers get to keep their bonuses the fucktastic job they made or do they have to give the money back?

Nadkor is absolutely right on this one.
is he? :rolleyes:
.

Well, if we were idiots we could.

I prefer the scenario where we just accept that I know what I'm talking about.you would like that.. I bet.;)
.


Mercedes is not a shareholder in Chrysler.
etc.Mercedes is Daimler-Benz. and vice versa. since 1926
Here is the logo of DaimlerBenz AG... Logo in use since 1926. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/Zzz-BenzMerceBenz.jpg/190px-Zzz-BenzMerceBenz.jpg



Daimler.the name is Daimler-Benz.
this is their Headquarters:
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2001/10/11/business/Images/DAIMLERC.JPG

.


Daimler-Benz (who stand to lose $27bn from the sale).exactly.

since the main Shareholder was Mercedes.. It sucks to be a Mercedes shareholder.
Indeed it did. That CEO (Schrempp, not the current one) belongs in jail, really. The man destroyed billions in shareholder value, first with that Mitsubishi thing, then with Chrysler. And while he was CEO, Mercedes' quality lagged behind as well and Smart was making losses.

But now they got rid of it, and can return to doing what they do well. Zetsche is a good man...he made a mistake in concentrating Chrysler on big cars and SUVs, but that was a miscalculation of the market trend (which did change fairly suddenly you'd have to say) rather than a lack of skill.

As for what happens to Chrysler, I don't know. Nor do I care.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,869559,00.jpg
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,869563,00.jpg
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,869565,00.jpg

The graphs are in German, but you'll understand. "Mrd" stands for billion. "Umsatz" is sales, "Gewinn" is profit, "Verlust" is loss. And "Beschäftigte" is employees.

the name is Daimler-Benz.
Not anymore. They are now called the "Daimler AG".

And that old building isn't their HQ anymore either, I don't think.

Indeed it did. That CEO (Schrempp, not the current one) belongs in jail, really. The man destroyed billions in shareholder value, first with that Mitsubishi thing, then with Chrysler. And while he was CEO, Mercedes' quality lagged behind as well and Smart was making losses.I sympathize with you guys..
Mercedes is an icon of Perfection.

I hope Schrempp gets what he deserves.

And that old building isn't their HQ anymore either, I don't think.That is the one with the Mercedes Logo on top.. helping me to make my point.
I am sure they still at Stuttgart.

Not anymore. They are now called the "Daimler AG".Is that the after-sale name?

Mercedes has always been a bit insular. It wasn't until the late 80s to early 90s that they even took customer opinions into account, their previous philosophy being 'We don't ask them what they want, we tell them what they want."

That they wouldn't mix brands with Chrysler then doesn't seem surprising. Nor does it seem surprising that the vehicles that did come from mixing brands, such as the Crossfire and the 300, where successes for Chrysler. I imagine that was a one way street. I haven't looked that much into it but I don't necissarily see any positive influence on the Mercedes brand from Chrysler.

I wonder if that means an end to the Dodge Sprinter, which is really just a re-badged Mercedes van...

I would disagree that the drop in large car/SUV sales was quick and unpredictable. Japanese companies predicted it pretty well. Even Ferdinand Piech did, but no one listened to him because he was also going on about botique cars like the Veyron and VW W16. I really want Peich to be in charge of some small but well resourced company so I can see the badass things he gets to create without the risk of turfing a company. I digress.

Chrysler had a good plan with Plymouth, where the Cruiser was supposed to go with the Neon and a series of "PT" cars where all under $20,000 and economical. The flagship would have been the Prowler (which obviously would not be under $20,000) but would have been first on the line with cars that where not only economical but actually kind of cool. (they had a little roadster that would have beat the Solstice and the SKY to market by 5 years, and been cheaper.)

I lost track of what I was talking about, I have a lot of bitching stored up about Chrysler and Mercedes...

is he? :rolleyes:
.
you would like that.. I bet.;)
.
Mercedes is Daimler-Benz. and vice versa. since 1926
Here is the logo of DaimlerBenz AG... Logo in use since 1926. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/Zzz-BenzMerceBenz.jpg/190px-Zzz-BenzMerceBenz.jpg
the name is Daimler-Benz.
this is their Headquarters:
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2001/10/11/business/Images/DAIMLERC.JPG
.
exactly.
Mercedes-Benz is only one brand that Daimler has. And that's the truth.

is he? :rolleyes:

She. And yes.
.


you would like that.. I bet.;)
.

Of course, but only because it would be the end of this inane discussion.


Mercedes is Daimler-Benz. and vice versa. since 1926

No. Mercedes was a Daimler (original Daimler) model line. After the '26 merger, Mercedes-Benz was the top brand of the Daimler-Benz company.

Therefore, Mercedes is not the same as Daimler-Benz. Mercedes is a division of Daimler-Benz

Saying that Mercedes is Daimler is just like saying that Chevrolet is General Motors. It's the same deal.

Here is the logo of DaimlerBenz AG... Logo in use since 1926. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/Zzz-BenzMerceBenz.jpg/190px-Zzz-BenzMerceBenz.jpg

No...that's the logo of Mercedes-Benz. Hence it saying "Mercedes-Benz" on it.

It even says that in the caption for it on your Wiki link; "First logo of Mercedes-Benz from 1926 merger of the companies founded separately by Karl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler, becoming Daimler-Benz AG"

The logo, like the brand, was created out of the merger of the companies, and was the symbol of the new brand, not the new company.


the name is Daimler-Benz.
this is their Headquarters:
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2001/10/11/business/Images/DAIMLERC.JPG

Good for them.

exactly.

Wait...are you sure you haven't just confused yourself?

I said that Mercedes aren't shareholders in DaimlerChrysler. You said they were, and that they would foot the bill. You then asked me who would, if Mercedes weren't. I said Daimler would.

You agreed.

So, which is it, who is the "shareholder", and who stands to make a loss; Mercedes or Daimler?

Mercedes-Benz is only one brand that Daimler has. And that's the truth.
Well, they've got Mercedes Passenger cars, Maybach, Mercedes Commerical, the trucking business and Smart, of course.

Well, they've got Mercedes Passenger cars, Maybach, Mercedes Commerical, the trucking business and Smart, of course.

Well, he did say only one, implying that it was one of several :p

Well, he did say only one, implying that it was one of several :p
I know, I know. I just thought I'd throw it in.

their previous philosophy being 'We don't ask them what they want, we tell them what they want."

How refreshingly SubGenius of them. After all, was it not Bob Dobbs himself who once said that "they’ll pay to know what they really think"? And Bob would know, what with being the Sultan of Sales as well as the living avatar of Slack...

Mercedes has always been a bit insular. It wasn't until the late 80s to early 90s that they even took customer opinions into account, their previous philosophy being 'We don't ask them what they want, we tell them what they want."

To be fair to them, that worked a lot.

If they gave customers what they wanted, we wouldn't have half the innovations Merc came up with. They had to tell the customers that, yes, they really did want this new thing they'd thought of.

Well, that's what you get for making products nobody wants and relying entirely on a single class of vehicles to carry your entire company...they're just another failure like GM or Ford.

Give them a few more years and Toyota or Honda will end up buying them.

Eh, makes more sense to break down Chrysler and sell it for bits and bobs. Chrysler is mostly made of fail.

I know, I know. I just thought I'd throw it in.

Ah, fair enough

To be fair to them, that worked a lot.

If they gave customers what they wanted, we wouldn't have half the innovations Merc came up with. They had to tell the customers that, yes, they really did want this new thing they'd thought of.

That worked when Mercedes didn't really have any competitors (Cadillac never counted beyond our (the US) shores I believe. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing I'm not). As that started to change in the late 80s and early 90s they had to look at customer desires.

I have this respect/hate thing going for Benz, mostly stemming from the CLK-GTR during that brief flare up of relevance of FIA-GT. While it could be argued that "Porsche started it," still...

But the 300SL Gullwing still remains one of the most beautiful cars ever made.

Not that racing per se has as much to do with this. (though Daimler's purchase of Chrysler I think paved the way for the still surreal NASCAR Camry...)

The worst part is that Chrysler in the last 10 years was the only American car company to produce interesting cars. I don't know that a holding company will have the same kind of influence...

I found an article today that seems to think that Cerberus may be able to use it's considerable capital to turn Chrysler around. Is this wishful thinking from people desperate for good news or could they actually do it?

http://www.mlive.com/news/statewide/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1179178802224960.xml&coll=1

I'm not surprised, businesses often make long-run losses after mergers. I blame manager hubris.

I have a twenty in my wallet.... sure, it's not enough to buy Chrysler NOW, but...

I have a twenty in my wallet.... sure, it's not enough to buy Chrysler NOW, but...OK.. together we have $40 :D (your $20 + my $20).

Well, they've got Mercedes Passenger cars, Maybach, Mercedes Commerical, the trucking business and Smart, of course.
Well, he did say only one, implying that it was one of several :p
Uhm - yeah!
I know, I know. I just thought I'd throw it in.
Ah, fair enough
;)
I have a twenty in my wallet.... sure, it's not enough to buy Chrysler NOW, but...
OK.. together we have $40 :D (your $20 + my $20).
Okay. So I'll pay you two guys $50 and sell the company for $10 to some other guy after I've made -$100 each year I've owned it. :rolleyes:

I found an article today that seems to think that Cerberus may be able to use it's considerable capital to turn Chrysler around. Is this wishful thinking from people desperate for good news or could they actually do it?

http://www.mlive.com/news/statewide/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1179178802224960.xml&coll=1

That was the theory for Mercedes as well. The theory I heard today was that it was after the more lucrative financing arm (in addition to GMAC, which they already have). It's interesting that they already own a major car rental company as well (Avis?). I suspect that the bits will be sold off after they get the financing arm. Chrysler has a lot of new vehicles coming out and they're doing better than the other three right now, I believe. I don't know that it will be the end for Chrysler, but I think there will be some piecing off.

I am in no way an expert in these matters, though.