[sausajes]

Now that Saab has been sold... Will we still see Saab technology in GM cars?





I

 

[DavidMorgan]

Now that Saab has been sold... Will we still see Saab technology in GM cars?

I

Yes totaly free ... But. Of course. The new 9-5 and the 9-4 were designed with GM. We won't see a new Saab Saab until 2012/3. And even then Saab may choose to shop outside and who knows they may decide to use some GM gear ..

 

[xhawksaab]

It is my understanding that the original understanding between GM and K-egg included a 5 year technology sharing provision. To me that made sense from SAABs standpoint as it will take a while for them to develop alternatives. Also, given that the NG9-5 shares much with the Opel Insignia, Vauxhall Insignia and upcoming Buick Regal and the upcoming 9-4X shares much with the new Cadillac SRX crossover, it means that a lot of SAAB(?) tech will be shared at least for the life of those vehicles.

 

[Supergilson]

spyker doesn't make engines... and neither does saab anymore. they'll have to get them from somebody!

 

[boon94]

spyker doesn't make engines... and neither does saab anymore. they'll have to get them from somebody!

They could modernize the 2.3L if they wanted to.. They were still making them until very recently.

 

[mike saunders]

Yes totaly free ... But. Of course. The new 9-5 and the 9-4 were designed with GM. We won't see a new Saab Saab until 2012/3. And even then Saab may choose to shop outside and who knows they may decide to use some GM gear ..

Not quite.

1) The sale of Saab to Spyker was a cash and stock deal, meaning that GM still owns a large percentage of Saab Spyker...but not a controlling percentage.
2) Both the 9-5 and 9-4x are on GM platforms, meaning that GM technology will be the main underpinning of both for at least five years, probably more.
3) Unless those GM-derived Saabs sell well, Spyker won't have the resources to develop a "Saab Saab" in 2012/2013.

 

[BRob2]

Not quite.

1) The sale of Saab to Spyker was a cash and stock deal, meaning that GM still owns a large percentage of Saab Spyker...but not a controlling percentage.

My understanding is that stock deal is almost if not entirely preferred stock, and thus they do not exercise voting rights, share in elections to the board of Directors,or have another other influence over management excluding any moral suasion they may share with other debtors. Unless they have a conversion privilege in the near term, they really aren't owners at all any more than bondholders and bankers are.

 

[SaabKen]

My understanding is that stock deal is almost if not entirely preferred stock, and thus they do not exercise voting rights, share in elections to the board of Directors,or have another other influence over management excluding any moral suasion they may share with other debtors. Unless they have a conversion privilege in the near term, they really aren't owners at all any more than bondholders and bankers are.

I read somewhere on SaabsUnited that GM now has like 0.1% voting rights. As in ...... "shut the hell up, GM !"

 

[mike saunders]

My understanding is that stock deal is almost if not entirely preferred stock, and thus they do not exercise voting rights, share in elections to the board of Directors,or have another other influence over management excluding any moral suasion they may share with other debtors. Unless they have a conversion privilege in the near term, they really aren't owners at all any more than bondholders and bankers are.

That's a very fair point, but GM has already exercised massive influence on the board by demanding Antonov's removal. GM was able to remove the biggest minority shareholder (30%) and force Mueller to restructure the company.

And with the influence that GM holds as the major component supplier to the nascent company, controlling the critical parts pipeline that is essential to production, it has a huge amount of privilege that other minority owners don't enjoy.

GM and Saab Spyker are joined at the hip for at least 5-7 years....

 

[tucksayre]

GM and Saab Spyker are joined at the hip for at least 5-7 years....

True...it all depends on how fast they decide to redesign the 9-3 or 9-1 or new models. Until then, GM will dominate the new models, which isn't a bad thing b/c the new 9-5 looks fantastic...

 

[kimvette]

Not quite.

1) The sale of Saab to Spyker was a cash and stock deal, meaning that GM still owns a large percentage of Saab Spyker...but not a controlling percentage.

With the type of stock GM has they cannot have a controlling percentage; they are preferred stock which have no voting rights regardless of how many shares they have. However, GM has leverage over Saab in other ways, such as providing unibodies, engines, and so forth.

Why would GM choose preferred stock over common stock (which has voting rights)? One reason could be political; they probably don't want to be accused of maintaining control over Saab while its being funded by others' money. The more likely reason is that preferred stock gets paid back sooner during bankruptcy proceedings (common stock holders get whatever litter is left after the dust is cleared), and they get paid dividends. They are not traded on the market the same way common stock is traded. Think of preferred stock holders as "silent partners."

2) Both the 9-5 and 9-4x are on GM platforms, meaning that GM technology will be the main underpinning of both for at least five years, probably more.

That's not so bad, providing Saab can be Saab, and the components are up to Saab spec and not Chevrolet Aveo or even Cobalt quality. For example, one of the first things they need to address is interior finish, replacing the coatings GM used with quality coatings that don't chip or peel at 30K miles.

 

[DavidMorgan]

Today is a day of thanksgiving and foregiveness. Let us forgive those ^^^^^ that have been so pessimistic these last few months and hope they ruddy well change and start ing.
Please..

 

[BRob2]

That's a very fair point, but GM has already exercised massive influence on the board by demanding Antonov's removal. GM was able to remove the biggest minority shareholder (30%) and force Mueller to restructure the company.

And with the influence that GM holds as the major component supplier to the nascent company, controlling the critical parts pipeline that is essential to production, it has a huge amount of privilege that other minority owners don't enjoy.

GM and Saab Spyker are joined at the hip for at least 5-7 years....

The removal of of Antonov was done before the sale as condition of the sale, eg when GM still owned the company. Now that the sale is done, they cannot remove any shareholder, director, or janitor. They do have whatever influence any other debtholder would have, such as a bank, and any other significant supplier would have, though autoparts suppliers are in a weak position these days. GM outsources most of their own parts production anyway.

 

[mike saunders]

Why would GM choose preferred stock over common stock (which has voting rights)? One reason could be political; they probably don't want to be accused of maintaining control over Saab while its being funded by others' money. The more likely reason is that preferred stock gets paid back sooner during bankruptcy proceedings (common stock holders get whatever litter is left after the dust is cleared), and they get paid dividends. They are not traded on the market the same way common stock is traded. Think of preferred stock holders as "silent partners."

I'm with you on this. GM likely knew that the chances of Saab Spyker succeeding are slim, so the preferred stock gives a slight measure of fiscal comfort if the new venture tanks.

That's not so bad, providing Saab can be Saab, and the components are up to Saab spec and not Chevrolet Aveo or even Cobalt quality. For example, one of the first things they need to address is interior finish, replacing the coatings GM used with quality coatings that don't chip or peel at 30K miles.

Meh. I'd love a FWD or AWD car with Cobalt handling and a Quaife LSD. "Saab spec" is vastly over-rated.

 

[mike saunders]

The removal of of Antonov was done before the sale as condition of the sale, eg when GM still owned the company. Now that the sale is done, they cannot remove any shareholder, director, or janitor. They do have whatever influence any other debtholder would have, such as a bank, and any other significant supplier would have, though autoparts suppliers are in a weak position these days. GM outsources most of their own parts production anyway.

BRob, I'm afraid there's a major difference between a generic supplier and the sole source of chassis, suspension, engines, sheet metal, interior components for a company's entire car line.

That's the link between GM and Saab Spyker....at least for the next 5 years or so.

 

[BRob2]

BRob, I'm afraid there's a major difference between a generic supplier and the sole source of chassis, suspension, engines, sheet metal, interior components for a company's entire car line.

you're right. And don't forget that bloody GM dash.

 

[DavidMorgan]

^^^ you have raised two subjects:
1. There are whispers that in 12 months Anatov will buy out Spyker. VM will have some cash and be full time Saab. Makes sense. He is a man who sees big and the bigger the challenge the better.

2. Have you read yesterdays http://www.thelocal.se/25182/20100224/.
The completion of the purchase of Saab by Dutch firm Spyker has led to several subcontractors withdrawing notices of redundancy.

IAC, which employs around 1,000 staff, still plans to make 38 people redundant, mostly office staff.

IAC, which manufactures instrument panels and inside doors to Saab, is meanwhile all set to resume deliveries.

"As soon as Saab is prepared we will meet their needs," Marcus Nyman confirmed.

He revealed that he had been forwarded information which indicated that production can start gradually during the week beginning March 22nd and be at full capacity by April 5th.

"But if it happens quicker, then we can adjust."


I think the above is just an example of the "Renaissance" we are going to see with VM's Saab Saabs.

Just wanted to say that many of the suppliers are local. Sweden is self sufficiant for sheet steel, but I don't know to what extent Saab is tied to GM as a priviliged supplier for certain parts.
When I buy replacement parts for my '03 9-3 form PFS or other .. I often have the choice of OEM or "identical" Swedish made replacements at half the price.
The suppliers are there and looking for work. Of course engines are another matter but often they'll come from Italy or be joint ventures.
I can only see positive and really wish we could all look foreward and be less pessimistic.
Cheers, I'm off to pick up my car from the paint shop .. she will be beautiful again

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDIT: I just had a quick read of SWade's blog and came up with this titbit that he reports:

" I was talking with a local in Trollhattan. He didn't work for Saab, but like just about everyone in Trollhattan, he has a family member who did work for Saab.
The interesting snippet from that conversation was that when Saab were making their own engines (the 2.3 built in Sodertalje) the engines had an accounting value of 14,000 crowns. More recently, they've been using the 2.0 engine supplied by GM as a four cylinder engine, with an accounting value of 44,000 crowns.
You do the math.
I haven't made any attempts to verify this, but even if it's only true in the 'ballpark' sense, then it's quite extraordinary."
http://www.saabsunited.com/2010/02/notes-from-amsterdam.html

 

[kimvette]

One of the keys to regaining confidence is an aggressive advertising campaign, something which GM has never done for Saab.

 

[mike saunders]

One of the keys to regaining confidence is an aggressive advertising campaign, something which GM has never done for Saab.

The "Born from Jets" campaign got a major ride in North America, both on TV and in print. For three years, Saab was the main US television sponsor of the Tour de France.

The "Find Your Own Road" campaign also got major play in North America back in the mid-90s, although mostly in print.

There was very little between those pushes, though.

 

[MacNoob]

They could modernize the 2.3L if they wanted to.. They were still making them until very recently.

Didn't the 2.3 tooling go to BAIC along with the old 9-5?