svul.org

DaimlerChrysler AG’s annual general meetings have always been a stormy event in recent years with stockholders hammering out at the transatlantic car giant’s management over the group’s declining share price plus the failure of its ambitious global expansion to produce positive results.

And now after nine years of spending money into the troubled Chrysler operations, what the company’s shareholders and investors would like to know from DaimlerChrysler’s Chief Dieter Zetsche are his plans for the next stage of rolling back the group’s international empire specifically the disposal of the loss-making US arm—Chrysler AG.

Discarding Chrysler AG would take DaimlerChrysler back to the year 1998 when its former chief Juergen Schrempp introduce his vision to covert the Stuttgart-based company and maker of Mercedes-Benz luxury cars and auto components such as Mercedes steering rack—-into a Welt AG or World Inc.

It was also Schrempp that spearheaded the union between Germany’s Daimler and US-based Chrysler which the former chief hailed as a “marriage made in heaven’”. But just like any marriage that doesn’t “work” the union of Daimler and Chrysler has to end. Since staying married to each other would only cause both parties more damage than good.

It should be noted that starting last February the company’s share price has recovered after DaimlerChrysler Chief Zetsche has announced that all options were on the table for its US-based arm. According to Unio Investment funds manager Ingo Speich in an interview with the German business daily Handelsblatt, “Splitting off Chrysler appears to us as appropriate.” This statement made by Speich reflects the views of other fund management groups attending Wednesday’s AGM.

Last February Zetsche also unveiled another plan to revamp Chrysler including cutting 13,000 jobs after fierce competition in the US resulted in the American carmaker to obtain an astounding 1.92 million euros (2.6 billion USD) loss last 2006. There are already couples of equity firms and carmakers that are looking at the possibility of taking over Chrysler and one of which is General Motors Corp which have been sizing up Daimler’s loss-making US arm. The news of a possible buyout from GM has helped increase the shares of DaimlerChrysler to more than 30 percent obtaining 1.3 million for the DCX stockholders.

In fairness to DaimlerChrysler it has exert all efforts as well as resources in trying to turnaround Chrysler to the extent that it has unintentionally neglected the company’s flagship Mercedes Benz cars which were suddenly bombarded with complaints about deteriorating quality and mounting losses.

It would have been easier for Mercedes Benz to address such problems if only its arch rival BMW has not emerged as the world’s premium car brand. The disposal of Chrysler would once and for all help ease the pressure on DaimlerChrysler. Chrysler on its part is continuing to struggle to deal with its loss-making Smart minicars which unfortunately form part of the Mercedes Benz Group.

Actually the first time that Daimler pulled an alliance with Chrysler, analysts were forecasting a bleak future which they based on the previously failed partnership between Daimler and Mitsubishi Motors Corp especially when the German automaker refused to help its debt-ridden Japanese auto group.

The tie-up with Mitsubishi formed a key pillar of Schrempp’s vision to build a global empire with operations across Daimler’s home base in Europe expanding to the world’s biggest car market in the US up to Asia’s fast-paced economy.

The countdown for the disposal of the Chrysler AG has increased the stock of DaimlerChrysler’s by 1.4 percent to 62.26 euros in a trading conducted last Monday following media reports that the carmaker has been able to acquire bids totaling to 9.0 billion dollars.

Last month US investment house Morgan Stanley has increase its price estimate for DaimlerChrysler shares by more than 20 percent to 75 euros on the grounds that basis that the group manages to split off Chrysler. According to the report written by Adam Jonas, an analyst from Morgan Stanley to clients, “We are prepared to value it under the assumption that it extricates itself from Chrysler.”

Similarly most analysts also share the same opinion that DaimlerChrysler would not sustained rebound in its share price if it will not dump Chrysler. There are three private equity firms that are lining up to take Chrysler off Daimler’s hands and these are the Cerberus Capital Management LP, Centerbridge Partners LP, and the Blackstone Group.

Cerberus has already asked the help of former Chrysler chief operating officer Wolfgang Bernhard, who after leaving Volkswagen AG in January resurfaced shortly after as an adviser to Cerberus.

Undoubtedly, one of the most interesting looking cars on the road is the Mini. How did this trendy and attractive car get its start? Why was it created to begin with? You find those answers and more as we follow the history of the Mini – from its inception to now.

It might seem unrelated, but in 1956 Egypt tried to nationalize the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal was a particularly important passageway for the transportation of oil. Because of the political and social troubles caused by the conflict in Egypt, the Suez Crisis occurred in 1956, and there was a shortage of oil. Because of that shortage of oil, the UK, along with many other countries, started rationing oil.

This is significant because pre-1956 cars were larger, with larger engines. Car manufacturers started making smaller cars, notably Germany, who introduced the “Bubble Car.” These small cars were very popular in Europe because of the oil crisis, and the British Motor Corporation knew they had to create a competitor. BMC head Leonard Lord hated the German “bubble cars” and set out to design a better miniature car.

After a lot of changes, time, and research, BMC introduced a production version of the Mini in April of 1959, and the car was ready to sell by August of that same year. There were two models available for purchase – the Austin 850 and the Morris 850 – named after two of the brand names of the BMC. The cars kept those names until 1962, but in 1961 BMC rolled out the Austin Mini, despite Sharps Commercials Car Company’s competitor car the Minicar.

As the Mini evolved, it became more popular. In 1969 the film The Italian Job came out, and it featured prominently a Mark II Mini. The next few decades would see many different incarnations of the Mini, even through The Rover Group’s purchase of part of BMC, and then BMW’s subsequent takeover of The Rover Group. BMW didn’t keep most of The Rover Group’s companies, selling Land Rover to Ford Motor Company, and MG and Rover to Phoenix. But BMW kept the Mini.

By 2000 there were four models of the Mini on the market – the Mini Classic Seven, the Mini Knightsbridge (for European markets), the Mini Classic Cooper Sport, and the Mini Classic Cooper. The last “real” mini was produced in October of 2000, and presented in December of 2000 to the British Motor Industry Heritage Trust.

Today the Mini brand is still owned by the BMW Group and possesses four different models – the Countryman, the Clubman, the Classic Hardtop, and the Classic Convertible. The future of the brand is also exciting – with the development and refinement of the hybrid and electric Minis and Mini’s return to rallying.

Even with some of the criticism that exists for the Mini – some users say that the convertible offers poor rear visibility, the position of the rear club door is problematic for right-hand drive market drivers, and there are some timing chain tensioners problems – Mini continues to refine and perfect their product, and people still buy them up. Minis are a fun car, a pretty car, one that you keep covered until you want to take it out on a pretty day. Not too bad of a legacy, after all, is it?

General Motors has taken a huge hit in the last few months, and people are wondering if it can restore itself to its former glory. With the tremendous assets it has and its skilled workforce, not to mention the smarts of the folks that are running the ship, it seems that it is possible. There is debate, however, of how exactly this feat can take place.

Some folks say that GM must rebuild its tarnished image. For years and years GM has been seen as this huge giant, with all sorts of vehicle lines and dealerships, that has always been on the automotive front line. Then problems loomed large, and were compounded by the biggest problem of all, the recent huge economic downturn. Customers began losing confidence in the GM product line and sales plummeted.

It appears that GM simply makes far too many vehicle models and brands. They have tried to impress the public with the vast choices available to them, but instead, they have overwhelmed them. Perhaps they can make money producing all these lines, and maybe they can’t. The bottom line is that the cars they do offer must be what the consumer wants.

At first it seemed that fuel efficiency was paramount, but lately fuel prices have stabilized and consequently truck and SUV sales have begun to rise again. It really is quite the problem deciding what to keep, what to give up, and what new types of vehicles to concentrate on. GM has discontinued Pontiac altogether, and is trying to divest itself of the Saturn, Saab, and Hummer. This has got to be the biggest question that GM has to confront in order to recover.

In its efforts to restructure, GM is working on closing up to fourteen manufacturing plants. Thousands of workers have been let go as well. If more closings and terminations need to take place to further streamline their business, GM has to stay on the good side of the giant union United Autoworkers (UAW). Concessions could cost them dearly.

While rebuilding its empire, GM will rely heavily on the huge network of companies that supply car parts to them. These companies are suffering themselves in the face of the automotive crunch. Many have closed, or begun new contracts with other car companies. It will require some sweet talking to hammer out new agreements, and restore trust to ensure that the necessary parts come rolling back to the new GM.

GM has to become quicker on its feet than in days of old. This will involve being able to make quicker decisions and not ponder things endlessly. Upper management has to function under a new corporate ideal, so that when cuts are necessary, and new vehicles have to be decided upon, they will be able to respond quickly. There are good heads at the top, but some will have to be let go in the reworking process.