Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by Dan Minick, Oct 29, 2019.
There, fixed it for you.
Jeep was exported owing to the familiarity earned from the Allied war effort during and immediately post WWII.
Also, post WWII saw re-growth for a few years. Interest in a so-called Global product doesn't resonate with post WWII effort - including the companies which managed the Jeep. Several attempts were made to broaden the line for other-than-4x4 . The market for that was thin.
It wasn't until AMC, when they owned/operated Jeep, put advanced 4WD/AWD power-train in an otherwise standard car did the CUV market commence and take off.
The light-weight Jeep nameplates being pushed now are enjoying some success in a couple markets which were not there when the earliest holders of Jeep IP were building Jeep products. The market was open for Jeep-like products, yet they had a natural ceiling. The ceiling for SUV's/CUV's is much, much higher at this time ( for sales numbers - and- margins ).
Willys and Kaiser would likely be in a supremely good position with Jeep if they were in the midst of markets which only exist after the 2008 global recession ended. I'm certain they would NOT have sold Jeep to anyone. But the market we see now didn't exist back then.
Credit goes NOT to Fiat people at all. Credit goes to Willys and Kaiser for fostering Jeep to the point that American Motors Corporation could purchase Jeep ( from Kaiser ) and go on to plant the CUV market by use and means of stout AMC Engineers and former Kaiser Engineers under AMC employment. Credit Lee Iaccoca for recognizing what AMC did and had. Credit Renault for giving-up AMC/Jeep to Iaccoca/Chrysler because they (Renault ) were not going to pursue the Off Road/CUV market space. Renault, of any of the European builders, deserves credit for knowing what they had; and also knowing they were not in a position to commit to and develop products for it.
Credit goes to Renault for not turning AMC/Jeep into a slowly dying, nearly dead single-architecture Lancia-like product .
You don't acknowledge that the situation which Chrysler/Dodge-DodgeRam/Jeep was in around 2008 was considered QUITE negative BECAUSE they were selling Trucks and Jeeps. Think of it. It wasn't Chrysler - it was the market. Sadly, Daimler controlled Chrysler and its holdings.
Daimler did, however, create the Ram brand, make no mistake. Sergio merely signed the papers. The US Government didn't allow Cerberus to do much to save Chrysler; otherwise, we would have seen more Cerberus input into the recovery. The US Government removed Cerberus' and GM's Chief Officers, then they (the US Gov't ) oversaw the Bankruptcies.
They still need to navigate the waters they're now in. They won't do anything in the near term. Let's see how things shake out. We can be assured that eventually there will be some serious shaking.
Interesting but that this happened entirely without SM.
I'm thinking he was the poison holding back such a move before his passing. All those attempts and all that endless talking before he left - nothing came of it. He's gone just over a year and we find a willing participant. Seems his ultimate alleged brilliance was in going the way of all men. Truly Common.
Meanwhile, the North American products still generate the majority of income ... still.
I simply wonder which Plant will close first.
So, you failed to include the choir's constant echo-chamber praising SM. Really? You selectively didn't notice that Dead Horse ?
Marchionne's absenting has enabled this merger, no doubt. It was one he had refused repeatedly. That and the new regulatory 'burdens' imposed in europe: cafe, realworld emissions, electrification. Plus another slowdown in italy, now europe wide.
He was playing for the real endgame: a usa andor global recession or worse....the completion of the 'cycle' that began with bailouts and money printing in the usa in 2008/9....
But it is not either....or. One imagines fca-psa and esp john elkann plus tavares will be ready for that usa proper downturn: imo neither ford nor gm have, unlike fca, overcome the original vulnerability so badly exposed in 2008. Accordingly..... Marchionne may yet for eg get say gm or even family controlled Ford in a 'bear hug' as he had warned when he was preparing for a HOSTILE takeover of gm (elkann said no, though)? The wringing out of 'synergies' possible and necessary in the usa still remains to b done.....a task leftover from 2008.
Who knows? Maybe the ghost of sergio 'confessor of capital junkie' is still gonna b around....at least till that first full scale downturn in the usa/globally.
Why the constant effort to talk us into a recession ?? Everyone who wants to work has a job, the economy is the best in 60 years here in the USA.
Does anyone have any insight as to why Marchionne was so against a merger with PSA?
I guess the stake of DongFeng in PSA and/or the Peugeot family might have played a role about SM's attitude toward PSA?
I also heard then GM CEO Mary Berra said no to Marchionne as well.
Recessions are proven to be cyclical. It has been the opinion of most economists that we were due awhile ago, and has been pointed out, Europe has already started. There have been a lot of policy changes in the us to extend the economic growth, but the bubble always bursts.
My guess is IF there are any "Bear Hugs" anytime soon, it will be a giant German bear called VAG, hugging Ford so hard that Ford ends up suffocating!
I didn't FAIL to include anything, as it wasn't part of the exchange. Not sure how I'm obliged to bring anything up, fairness or otherwise. Now, YOU want to bring it up. That's called DEFLECTION.
Peugeot family wanted company control
PSA is Euro centric company in terms of sales, FCA is much more diversified. PSA already has too big European footprint
Completely different electrification strategy, different set of technologies. Even now it was the biggest obstacle for the merger.
Renault was much better match. But most people here are wrongly looking at Renault and Nissan as a single company.
Of course she did it. And then the idea was hostile takeover. But FCA was in need of Warren Buffett's backing. He didn't give it and that was the end of story.
Sounds like this could become a difficult merger.
To properly assess some thing one must consider all components involved. Paying disproportionate attention to parts of the whole skews the assessment.
Not seeing/hearing what I've * noted as coming from other parties is closer to 'giving short shrift' than it is giving fair weight.
* - Excise the word " I've " as it extends to some other Posters here, too - I just don't have the right to draw others in to this portion of the discussion.
It won't happen as long as the Ford Family has control. VAG is a partnership and not a merger. Ford will go it alone. Look how Ford would not take government money in 2009 because the family would have to give up control.
Carlos Tavares est l'invité exceptionnel de Christophe Jakubyszyn et d'Hedwige Chevrillon (at https://bfmbusiness.bfmtv.com/mediaplayer/video/carlos-tavares-est-l-invite-d-hedwige-chevrillon-0811-1200083.html )
They'll be a committee for November 26 from what I read on that French site translated.
Google Translate (at https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.leblogauto.com%2F2019%2F11%2Ffusion-psa-fca-comite-europeen-26-11.html )
You made a comment about X. I replied regarding beating dead horse X. You brought up beating dead horse Y as if it's supposed moral equivalence to people beating dead horse X was an argument. It's not, just a "Tu quoque" fallacy, the argument to hypocrisy, as it were.
People probably wouldn't keep beating dead horses if other people didn't keep resuscitating those same horses.
PS: This is a joke.
As a customer and an everyday person with no ties, except brand loyalty, I find all this very intriguing. I'd argue that they still, after all this time haven't integrated Fiat and Chrysler yet. So now we add Peugeot to the mix. Fascinating.