It's fair to say that Robert Collin from Aftonbladet is not a fan of the idea of selling Saab to Koenigsegg.
The following is a Googletrans, tidied up as best as I was able, from an article in aftonbladet this weekend. Bits I couldn't easily tidy up are in italics.
I think he's asking similar questions to the ones we've asked here - who are Koenisegg's financiers and what are their intentions? We tend to take it as given that they'll follow the proposed business plan they've signed up to, but I think Collin is much more skeptical about either their intention or ability to do so (probably both).
------
Koenigsegg is the Swedish facade in this proposal. And there is Bård Eker the Norwegian. Neither of them have the money needed to save Saab, but both are nice poster names.
Koenigsegg was needed to charm the Swedes and the Swedish government, Bård Eker to attract the money of Norwegian investors.
The Koenigsegg family is penniless after all the losses of the super sports car adventure. And Bård Eker, according to Reuters data, already lost 80 million (!) as he filled in Koenigsegg's large black holes. And now his money has started running out.
[Eker] Has good contacts
But the adventurer and playboy Bård Eker has good contacts in the Norwegian upper classes, and has tied up four or five of the Norwegian financial families to buy Saab. According to Aftonbladet's sources, one of them is one of Norway's major car dealers.
Spokes has also received with a known American riskkapitalist on the train.
Eker, according to Aftonbladet, had confused the almost four billion that General Motors calls for Saab. And he ensures that the Group has further almost six billion to develop the next 9-3 model.
According to Aftonbladet's sources, none of the financiers are in the automotive industry today.
Provides GM space
Why did General Motors choose this, quite otippade and untested purchasers in large players in the automotive industry or subcontractor?
The buyer gives the General Motors bigger space.
Why dispose of Fiat as quickly? Well, that Fiat would not have any future business with GM.
And why sell GM Opel to Magna and not Fiat?
For the same reason. Magna is one of the world's largest suppliers, which GM wants to have continued business with. Therefore, GM also keep a stake around 30 percent of Opel. In order to control purchases.
The end may come quickly
Same thing in Saab affair. General Motors wants to continue to take a small part, perhaps around 20 percent, and you want an owner who continue to buy expensive technology components from GM.
General Motors has whittled this down to a buyer who is milking the money out. But it is for Saab's best?
Hardly.
On the contrary, it can be devastating for Saab, to Trollhättan and the American automotive industry.
If Koenigsegg and Bård Eker are also thinking starting to use Saab themselves, as they said in various interviews, may be the end for the small car maker in Trollhättan be faster than quick.
Eker has already responded to the 'Swedish media'. Despite the negative stuff going around, I don't believe Eker to be a fool nor about to enter a venture where he risks bankrupting himself and his backers.
Also despite claims that there are bidders with better outcomes for SAAB, I would like to know what anyone of them intended to bring to the table for SAAB.
Merbanco is not a car company. And Rennco is not a car company, either, from a marketing, retail, dealer relations standpoint. Plus even GM may have had a few concerns about Rennco's business practices (wondering if they'd get paid if things went south and Rennco decided to pull the plug, like they have in other situations).
GM sees the same thing we see with Koenigsegg -- the marketing synergies are amazing, and likely to sell some cars. Plus the Swedish government's desire for local ownership has to have made them more likely to approve the EIB loan guarantees.
Mr. Collin's fixation on Fiat is irrelevant. There's no real evidence Fiat was interested in Saab, and certainly no evidence Fiat thought Saab was uniquely valuable or had distinctive appeal. I'm sure Fiat would have been happy to have Saab given to it, but it was plenty clear that Fiat's motive in all of this was to buy up competitors as a means of reducing competition -- that is, consolidating production.
From GM's perspective, the same reasons not to sell Opel to Fiat apply to Saab -- they want to sell parts to the new owners, so they want new owners committed to selling as many cars as possible. It is plain that Fiat intended to go in a different direction.
There have been many conspiracy theories about how GM has handled both the Opel and Saab negotiations. Remember Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. And the simplest explanation here is that GM is in a desperate situation, and looking for quick and easy solutions to generate revenue as they come out of bankruptcy.
So postulating some grand scheme where GM is mad at Fiat, or playing favorites with Magna, is building theoretical castles on sand. GM does not have the luxury of playing those games. It needs cash, as soon as it can get it. And if Opel and Saab keep selling as many cars as they can in the next 12-24 months, GM will get some cash. So GM picked buyers who were most likely to actually build and sell cars.
As to whether Eker/K-segg will follow JAJ's Saab business plan? it seems to me that everyone in the auto industry today is going to be changing their business plans over the next two years, some more than others.
There really does seem to be a Swedish disdain for the much richer Norwegians, based on all this negativity from Swedish media.
Occam's razor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Occams razor)
Jump to: navigation, search
Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor,[1] is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It is apocryphally attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity."[2]
When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. To quote Isaac Newton: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."[3]
To straightforwardly summarize the principle as it is most commonly understood, “Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable.”
It means "I have a banana in my ear" but everything sounds great in Latin.
I like the theory and like some, I'm still a little wary of Eker's plans. But I like the man.
Strangely, Mr Collin doesn’t seem to have any problem with Sergio Macchione’s megalomania, or that a cash-strapped FIAT was not even among “the 27” who showed interest for SAAB. And if I am not completely mistaken, Macchione even admitted that any interest would have been for the SAAB-badge and not the Trollhattan-facility. According to Collin FIAT would have been the perfect fit based on platform collaboration some 15+ years ago and the TTID-engine?! Go figure.
@ Karen: Believe me when I say that there is no real Swedish disdain for the “richer” Norwegians – just the tabloid with their so called motor journalists who likes to stir up a fuss.
as to my theory about Swedish discomfort with Norway, that is based on reading how so many young Swedes have been moving to Norway to take the low level jobs that Norwegians don't want, at almost twice the pay per hour they could get in Sweden. isn't per capita GDP 53,000 (in USD) vs 38,000 in Sweden?
Seemed so odd that Eker wanted to make sure Swedes know his mother is Swedish. And, the Swedish press has been the most disdainful of Eker. (ok, have not bothered to translate the Hungarian and Italian news reports) Collin calls Eker an adventurer and playboy. everyone else calls him a workaholic and new father.
I need a serious art fix.
Good call Karen.
I can read about a test drive, or a car comparison from mr Collin but his views on what makes business sense I can be without.
Via the financiers, the name Koenigsegg and the "backing up to become the true Saab again" spirit of Bård Eker,(the same as Saab management and staff wants but GM put a lid on) Saab has got a real chance of making it.. Big time.
And don´t for one second doubt that the finaciers behind the Koenigsegg bid wants anything but success.
Tom
F-B.no just reported "Bård Ekere:-I am not saying anything about SAAB issue now"
Eker's daughter was just born lastTuesday!
and everyone involved is staying silent. photographers lurking in the bushes.
The unorthodox industrial entrepeneur... takes hold of established products. Thinking entirely new and different and come up with models that turns heads both in design and performance.
The same has he done with Hydro Lift and Koenigsegg. Top performance and technique.
The same source says Bård Ekere leadership is dynamic and ubyråkratisk, based on improvisation and the ability for rapid responses.
He is a master at cutting away unnecessary bottlenecks in the production and development.
Back of the medal is that the organization of systematic Ekere companies may seem a bit "wild" for those who have learned the industry read and adopted ABC.
Definitely not a place for dry bureaucrats to add long-term plan every detail, "said the sources.
My goodness - Eker is the anti-GM!
I'm not sleeping for the wrong reasons, but this sure is fun.
This is why Saabs have innovations that other cars often lack. E.g. one guy commented the other day about how the Saab mirrors are all angled at the end so they cover two different areas with one piece of glass. I thought that was standard issue, but apparently not. Pretty alien if you ask me.
Obviously such technology cannot be shared with the Italians. Fiat got miffed at Saab when they designed the common platform together that eventually became the 9000 and some forgettable Fiat model. They thought Saab would let them have a little piece of the alien technology.
I have no idea why Opel is allowed access to this tech, but maybe they don't and Fiat only believed they had, so GM double-bluffed everyone and kept Opel out of their path.
The news about the solar-panel driven fan in the Prius worries me. It indicates that the Japanese have gained access to such technology too. Or maybe they simply visited the Saab museum? The curator would do well to double check that their EV-1 has not been tampered with.
All of this is actually blindingly obvious once you think about it.
I am not quite sure where Robert Collin enters the picture though. Maybe he is some straw man for an extraterrestrial government hell-bent on recouping their technologies? Only time will tell.
And now the 9-4X and SRX will be produced in Mexico.. Production in NEW Mexico would have been to obvious. (The X´s in both models ofcourse refer to the X-files):-D
Tom
I wonder what are those 'billions' he writes about. It HAS to be SEK, as USD 6 billion to develop a new 9-3 is completely crazy. GM spent 3 or 4 billion developing all of the Lambda SUVs.
As for the critic against Robert Collin, he has been a motor journalist for more than 20 years and has a well earned respect for his knowledge. Among the many things he has done is showing the really bad handling of the original Mercedes A class car. He showed that doing a fast evasive manouver at high speed would cause the car to end up on its roof. Mercedes had to stop production and redesign the car, and rebuild several thousend already produced cars. Cost Merc well over 1 BIL USD, they are still really, really pissed at him.
As for Robert Collins critic:
A lot of us here were very pleased when we heared that KSegg would by SAAB, then we realised that KSegg did not have the necessary money.
No, the money would be provided by some Norwegian ... called Bård Eker.
Now we are hearing that Eker does not have the necessary money but some other investors will provide the money.
So Eker will provide less than 5% of the money.
Some one else have to provide the other 95% to 98% of the money.
So, I'd say it is only fair to ask the
BILLION DOLLAR QUESTION
who is this investor that is going to provide 95% to 98% of the money because He/She/They will have a _lot_ to say when it comes to SAABs future.
I think we're all curious to know who's got the money behind Eker, but is it right and fair to call the transaction a joke before you know the answer to that question.
I respect Collin's work. I met him in Detroit and like him. But I think he's jumped the gun on this occasion and given his widespread readership, I think he might have helped Saab by being a bit more circumspect. Of course, his job isn't to help Saab, but is it to hurt Saab?
Niether do I think it is right and fair to say KSegg/Eker is bying SAAB, when someone else is providing more than 90% of the money.
Personally I think the best for SAAB would be if some investor group bought SAAB with the intention to let SAAB be SAAB and get it back on its wheels and then sell it in (5)-7-8 years time to a new long term owner which should be some industrialist. Actually, I have started to believe that the people behind Eker intend to do just that.
Swade, thank You for an excellent site. I love reading it, and all the comments.
Saab's management team OTOH (and GM) have seen most (if not all) the cards. They surely know who is involved. And they have some idea of what will be a viable strategy or not.
Talking about Fiat is just irrelevant. They never bothered to get in touch as I understand things.
Or is this a case of "better the evil you know..."? I.e. we knew Renco were a bunch of evil no-gooders, so we could rely on them as investors since all their secrets were out in the open? But this Eker guy fronting someone we don't know is suspicious and must be dealt with?
Swade - I wish everyone here would tolerate honest skepticism a bit better here. We slam people who disagree as not knowing the car business or simply being negative.
After being sold the K-Segg romance for more than a month, we have little information on Ekers group, plans, or whether the deal he made with GM was good at all for Saab. With the prospect of buying a "national brand" and of taking a TON of public money never having done something this large, Eker is fair game for questions and doubt, hopes and praise. I hope Saab can be Saab and blindly following the unknown is no better or worse than questioning it.
I guess it comes down to the fact that this is a Saab enthusiast site and we want to believe that this is a good outcome. It should have been scrutinised by better minds than mine and it should be above board and well financed. The fact that we don't know (yet) who's financing doesn't mean that we can't be happy about it, while still attempting to shine the light of scrutiny on it to try and make sure that our favourite car company remains our favourite car company.
There are a number of unknowns here, but a number of positives, too.
And the one thing to remember is that it's not a done deal yet. Like Magna, it's some distance away at this point.
I agree with you. Those other investors will most likely want to recover their investmen in a few years in what will likely be typical Private Equity entry-exit deals.