Press Release Just In.

Press-Releases, 13.06.2011

Saab Automobile, Spyker, Pang Da And Youngman Enter Into MOU On Distribution/Manufacturing Partnership For China And Equity Participation
Trollhättan, Sweden: Spyker  Cars N.V. (Spyker) announces today that Spyker, Saab Automobile AB  (Saab Automobile), Pang Da Automobile Trade Co., Ltd (Pang Da) and  Zhejiang Youngman Lotus Automobile Co., Ltd. (Youngman) signed a  non-binding memorandum of understanding (MOU). The MOU includes an  equity participation in the total aggregate amount of about EUR 245  million as well as a strategic alliance consisting of a three partite  distribution joint venture and a tripartite manufacturing joint venture  for Saab-branded and child brand vehicles in China.

Saab Automobile, Spyker, Pang Da And Youngman Enter Into MOU On Distribution/Manufacturing Partnership For China And Equity Participation

Trollhättan, Sweden: Spyker Cars N.V. (Spyker) announces today that Spyker, Saab Automobile AB (Saab Automobile), Pang Da Automobile Trade Co., Ltd (Pang Da) and Zhejiang Youngman Lotus Automobile Co., Ltd. (Youngman) signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding (MOU). The MOU includes an equity participation in the total aggregate amount of about EUR 245 million as well as a strategic alliance consisting of a three partite distribution joint venture and a tripartite manufacturing joint venture for Saab-branded and child brand vehicles in China.

On 16 May 2011 Spyker and Saab Automobile signed a memorandum of understanding (the 16 May MOU) with Pang Da, China’s largest publicly traded automobile distributor with over 1,100 dealerships nationwide. That 16 May MOU included a strategic alliance consisting of a 50/50 distribution joint venture (DJV) and a manufacturing joint venture (MJV) for Saab branded vehicles as well as for an MJV owned brand (the so-called ‘child brand’) in China. It was agreed that Saab Automobile would have up to 50 percent in the MJV, with Pang Da and a to-be-selected manufacturing partner owning the remaining shares. Pang Da and Saab Automobile have now agreed with Youngman to become the manufacturing partner in the MJV (in which Youngman will take 45% of the shares, Saab 45% and Pang Da 10%) and the DJV in which Youngman will take 33% of the shares, Pang Da 34% and Saab Automobile 33%.

Under the May 16 MOU, Pang Da would take an equity stake in Spyker for a total amount of EUR 65 million, representing 24 percent of Spyker on a fully diluted basis. With Youngman entering as a new shareholder in Spyker, the equity stake of Pang Da in Spyker will remain at 24 % raising its investment to EUR 109 million. The share price remains at EUR 4.19 per share and Pang Da will have the right to nominate up to two members of the Supervisory Board of Spyker.

Youngman will take a 29.9 % interest in Spyker on a fully diluted basis investing EUR 136 million at EUR 4.19 per share. Youngman will have the right to nominate up to two members of the Supervisory Board of Spyker.

Spyker, Saab Automobile, Pang Da and Youngman will set up joint ventures with respect to the manufacturing of Saab branded and child branded vehicles and the distribution of Saab branded and child branded vehicles for the China market. Saab Automobile and Youngman will each have a 45% interest in the manufacturing JV and Pang Da will hold the remaining 10%. Saab Automobile and Youngman will each have a 33% interest in the distribution JV and Pang Da will hold 34%.

The MOU is non-binding and the transactions following the MOU are subject to agreement on definitive transaction documents and certain conditions, which include consents from certain governmental agencies and third parties.

Victor Muller, CEO of Spyker and Saab Automobile said: “Having entered the MOU on May 16 with Pang Da, we collectively immediately set out to identify the most suitable (manufacturing) partner to join Saab and our joint ventures. We are convinced that Youngman represents all the qualities required to make Saab and the joint ventures a success. This MOU not only shows the belief of Pang Da and Youngman in our products for the Chinese market, it also is a step that significantly strengthens Saab’s financial position and would secure the mid and long term financing of Saab Automobile. Both Pang Da and Youngman have demonstrated a similar entrepreneurial mindset as we have which we feel will be instrumental to establish Saab’s presence in China. I am very confident that based on their experience, proven skills, their ability to move quickly and their financial strength, we found the partners that are best suited to fully explore Saab’s potential in China.”

Mr. PANG Qinghua, CEO of Pang Da, said: “Since our visit to Saab Automobile in Sweden we are even more convinced of the potential of Saab in the global market and the Chinese market, the number one market in the world, in particular and we intend to fully explore it. Not only are we impressed with the current and future product line up that is very well suited to the needs of the Chinese market but we are particularly impressed by their design, engineering and manufacturing skills.”

Mr PANG Qingnian, CEO of Youngman said: “We have been in contact with Saab Automobile for quite some time and we are very pleased to have reached an agreement with both Pang Da and Saab. We feel that Saab as a premium European brand appeals strongly to the taste and preferences of the Chinese customer who is looking for top quality vehicles with the highest levels of safety, driving pleasure and comfort and an unmistakable design language. Youngman is an automobile industrial group that produces and sells Youngman branded motor cars, MAN brand heavy type trucks and automobile spare parts. Our Manufacturing facilities are state of the art and are exactly tailored to build Saab vehicles at the highest quality standards. We look forward to a long lasting and successful relationship with Saab Automobile and Pang Da both in China as well globally through our investment in Saab.”

77 thoughts on “Press Release Just In.”

  1. My bet is on at least 50% chance of the deal falling through due to Chinese authorities blocking it and the process being repeated with yet another partner until one is found suitable for Chinese authorities. Unless there is a plan for Youngman to be a takeover subject later down the line.

    • Youngman, Pang DA har already started to talk to Chinese authorities and it looks promising otherwise they wouldn’t have signed this MOU. I would say it’s more 70-30 on the positive side.

      • They are pulling through with their original agreement, which was the cause of the NDRC warning not to step on each other’s toes. The agreement has to be somehow terminated to let anybody new in. I wouldn’t take it for granted the authorities will give Youngman a nod, they might just want for the negotiations to be concluded in an orderly manner and then ask for somebody else to fill in not to allow VM to deal all the cards.

        The fact that both CEOs share the family name Pang might have some significance here.

  2. Seems that the orginally planned stakes between Spyker and Pang Da are moving:

    Pang Da and Saab Automobile have now agreed with Youngman to become the manufacturing partner in the MJV (in which Youngman will take 45% of the shares, Saab 45% and Pang Da 10%) and the DJV in which Youngman will take 33% of the shares, Pang Da 34% and Saab Automobile 33%
    With Youngman entering as a new shareholder in Spyker, the equity stake of Pang Da in Spyker will remain at 24 % raising its investment to EUR 109 million. .
    Youngman will take a 29.9 % interest in Spyker on a fully diluted basis investing EUR 136 million at EUR 4.19 per share.

      • Don’t want to take anything away from Mr Antonov, who is definitely a big SAAB affectionado, but according to the numbers that went around, he would be getting the same chunk of Swedish Motors than Pang Da at a fraction of the price. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

  3. Youngman is an interesting partner, because they have very little if any development capabilities of their own. For passenger car production, they rely on Malaysian Protons assembled under a license agreement. Since Proton owns Lotus and Lotus is de facto developing a big chunk of Protons, Youngman prefers to refer to those cars as “Lotus engineered”, hence the Lotus reference in the name.

    Their other businesses include manufacturing buses under the Neoplan license.

    A Proton-Lotus tie-up doesn’t sound like that bad a deal to me, provided Saab is supposed to complement, not replace them. Either way is fine, provided the Chinese have the money.

  4. This is good news indeed! Nulla tenaci invia est via 🙂

    Cheers from Norway
    Still on the longest road home when out there with my SAAB. Always!

  5. There are several reasons why this set-up might be interesting and also possible to be accepted by the Chinese government;
    1. It is interesting because Youngman and Pang Da now will have 29.9 + 24 = 53.9 % of the shares, for which an investment of 245 m€ is needed. Thus, SAAB could be seen as valued at 455 m€ at the moment. This means in reality that the power of running SAAB has moved to China. This can be one argument for the Chinese authorities to approve the deal.
    2. It is interesting because Youngman was the first company to send in (and get approval) for doing negotiations with SAAB. This means that the Chinese authorities already have considered Youngman as a suitable party for SAAB.
    3. The low share of Pang Da in the manufacturing part is preventing the authorities to see Pang Da as a manufacturer. At the same time, with only 45 % share for SAAB in the manufacturing company, the Chinese parties have the majority of shares.
    4. The sentence SAAB branded and Child branded vehicles is interesting. This means that this is not only production of SAAB vehicles in the factory, but also newly developed vehicles within the consortium (and possibly re-branding of the old SAABs, read the 9-3 when it goes out of production).

    In addition to this, it is stated in the media that Hemfosa, a major Swedish Facility company is ready to invest in the SAAB properties. Hemfosa is owned to large extent by Pension Funds and Insurance Companies. No amount is mentioned, but it has earlier been stated that the properties could be worth up to 100 m€. The 30 m€ mentioned was only the money that V Antonov had put into his Swedish bank as a first payment. Note that there are costs allocated to this as well, with an interest rate of e.g. 7 % and some other margins, the costs for SAAB will be at least 10 m€ per year. On top of this comes the operational costs which has been reported to be about 15 m€ per year. Promising is that it is stated that this can “go fast”.

    Overall, it seems that in addition to the 45 m€ that SAAB already got from Pang Da (which is not really a loan, it has to be paid back but possibly with a 20 % “profit” for SAAB, almost 350 m€ can be on its way in. Remember that 30 m€ shall be paid to Gemini and 4 m€ to GEM funds. In addition, GM wants to be released from its 243 m€ convertible loan. It has been reported that GM could settle with about 100 m€.

    Thus, to summarize; The deal has large potential to come in, if also the property deal would come in this will give SAAB up to 350 m€. Releasing the loans to Gemini, GEM and GM would take about 150 m€ of the resources leaving 200 m€ left. This is possibly sufficient to clear the way until the end of 2012 when the new SAAB 9-3 would be released, but I would foresee a second capital injection about this time. Ideally would be if V Antonov would step in and agree to take over the EIB loans and also do a cash injection of possibly 100 m€. In order to keep the majority in the company, this would “force” the Chinese parties to do another cash injection and in the end possibly resource to promote and manufacture not only the 9-3 but also the smaller SAAB would be in place. All if’s and when’s must fall in…

    • Good points. Overall, it is very difficult to judge about all aspects, also with additional information as well as approvals missing. 1) Approvals are by no means for sure. If it should not happen, the whole exercise would be futile, probably with no plan B left. 2) If taken at face value, the majority ownership changes to the two Chinese companies. Not necessarily bad, if the samall printed clarifies critical issues such as decisionmaking, how to act in case of strategic differences, financing and so on. 3) The role of VA seems diminished. Snoras bank will not buy Saab properties, as intended before. Still lots of open questions. 4) In terms of money, this is sufficient, if approved and implemented, to restart production, and for some months to come, but does it represent valuable long-term financing? The answer is probably no. Not enough money to address key weaknesses: Lack of appropriate Diesel engines for 9-5 and 9-4x, other development work to be done to get Saab competitive in all aspects, marketing campaigns to revive the brand in established markets. Will it be sufficient for potential Saab buyers to come back to the brand. Without more information on financing and future plans, probably no. On the plus side, It opens Saab up for China the biggest and fastest growing car market. Stategically it might be a good move, but not yet sufficient. I hope that the new potential owners will know, that there is plenty of more investment needed to get the whole thing to succeed.

  6. This is excellent news. I just hope that the powers that be let it happen and happen quickly.

    In the short term, this could be very useful in building up confidence with those remaining suppliers when it comes to the current negotiations regarding those outstanding parts.

    • I’m not an expert, but from what I’ve learned here from people that know much more than me about that, “on a fully diluted bases” means that Spyker will have to Issue more shares for Pang Da and Youngman, thus diluting the current ownership.
      So 29.9% on a fully diluted basis are far less shares than 29.9% of the current amount of Issued shares.

      (Hope somebody has a better answer) 🙂

      • Having the Chinese on board is good and necessary. Putting them at the helm is a very different matter, and I don’t think I like that idea very much. I’m therefore hoping that “on a fully diluted basis” means that their shares will have reduced voting rights or something, so they don’t get an actual majority after all. But I don’t really believe it, I’m just clutching at straws…

      • Suppose that Victor owns 50 shares in Spyker and the total number of shares is 100. Then Victor owns 50% of the company (50/100).

        Later Youngman buys 100 new shares in Spyker which means that the total number of shares is 200 and that Victor’s shares has been diluted, as 50 shares now only represent 25% of ownership (50/200). Youngman’s stake of Spyker is then 50% on a (fully) diluted basis (100/200).

        • Ah, an explanation I can actually understand. Thank you! 😛

          But in this scenario, wouldn’t Muller’s shares lose half their value? Assuming the company’s total value stays the same, his shares would now only be worth 1/4 of that amount instead of 1/2. Surely he would have to be compensated for that? I can’t imagine that it would be legal to rob shareholders of their assets like that.

          • It must be new common stock?
            If the number of stock increases but the price stays the same, the equity of the single investor also remains the same. Percentage of the pool doesn’t matter.
            Or like today stock price rise sharply on good news. Any fear of possible future dillution would be the last thing on my mind at a time like this. Not robbery, just the opposite if this resolves Saabs liquidity troubles.

          • In the above scenario Youngman buys newly issued shares which means that they are investing money into Spyker and that the total value of the company increases.
            The price per share is negotiated and approved by the board who is representing Spyker’s shareholders. There is also laws that protect shareholders from being robbed.

    • From
      “Definition Fully Diluted Basis

      Fully diluted basis – Fully diluted basis is a methodology for calculating any per share ratios whereby the denominator is the total number of shares issued by the company on the assumption that all warrants, options and preferred stocks are exercised.”

      Can’t say that I really get it anyway but maybe you do.

      • I’m not sure I get it either. 🙂

        But I interpret it to mean that they’re getting 29.9 % of the whole caboodle, after all new issues and such have been done. In other words, pretty much the opposite of what I was hoping for…

        • Look: a company has outstanding stocks but also has options (=the right to buy a shares for a set price in a set time frame). So these options might be used in the future to buy additional stocks. The percentage Pang Da is buying is on a fully diluted basis, which means it is not a percentage of just the outstanding shares but a percentage of the total amount of all shares if all options were to be exercised.

          I hope it makes more sense for you now

  7. As usual, SvD’s Jonas Fröberg has the best summary of this MoU and what it means.

    The most important thing is that Saab will get EUR 245 million in new equity capital – if the deal goes through. The signal value is important in both the short and long term. In the short term, Saab is currently negotiating with suppliers about getting the plant restarted. This entails renegotiating old debts and determining how long the payment periods should be. By all accounts, Saab currently doesn’t have enough money to start production, and Saab absolutely must get it started as soon as possible. Then this statement of intent, which, if it materializes, would put over SEK 2 billion into Saab, may help to get suppliers to agree to better terms for Saab. The deal would simply secure Saab’s funding for a year or so ahead.

    Fröberg also, like pretty much everyone else these last few days, takes a jab in passing at the tardiness of the EIB. 🙂

  8. Youngman-Lotus seem to be heading for some disagreements with thier “Uncle” Lotus Cars!

    Lotus belongs to the Malaysian Proton Group. As I understand it Proton have shares in Youngman and Youngman and Lotus engineering have shares in Youngman-Lotus.

    Interesting also the current dispute in Formula 1 about the use of the Lotus name!

    Interactions and crossholdings have always been part of the Automotive industry, but looking at the Proton, Youngman and Lotus websites there seems to be a hell of a complex web being woven at the moment. This in addition to all we have already read about “old Pang” and his wheeling and dealing!

    It’s going to be interesting to see how all this pans out over the next couple of years.

  9. Pending deal appears sound, China Inc does not appear willing to wait to develop technology so the other options are 1] to buy it 2] gain it through industrial espionage, in the medium to long term the Chinese automotive industry will see widespread consolidation ….

  10. Spyker stock is reacting very nicely to the news today – not that that helps the company other than showing investors believe this is a positive move.

    • Oh no, hear we go again.

      First we get the good news and we are ecstatic, then as time passes we get more and more of what appears to be the truth and the mood begins to change.

      From the statement regarding only 20 of the 800 subcontractors. Assuming it is true, I think it is fair to deduce that cash flow is super critical, and probably will be up until the launch of the new 9-3 (assuming that we get that far and it gets critical acclaim from the press).

      I get the feeling more and more that this is a re-run of the Phoenix Rover group (MG producing cars again at Longbridge –though). Selling the company piece by piece to the Chinese until there is nothing left to sell. I do hope I’m wrong.

    • I find it very interesting that what BoeBoe cited above is supposedly a direct quote from Gunilla Gustavs. Now either have botched the editing so it only seems that way, but the quote comes instead from their unnamed informant. (This is perfectly plausible, given that are possibly the worst of all the bad Swedish papers.) Or else, Gustavs is actually publicly criticising Victor Muller for his overoptimistic announcements.

      Here’s a slightly longer version of the quote from the article:

      Regarding the sale of the factory building, discussions are ongoing.
      – We hope to be able to release more information shortly.
      What shortly means, Gunilla Gustavs cannot say.
      – There is no specific time frame, she says to TT.
      – There is simply no material available for building cars. When Muller said that this situation would not arise again, there were only deals with 20 of 800 subcontractors. Yet they started production then, but were forced to quickly stop again.

      • Isn’t it so that suppliers actually are delivering, or willing to deliver, and that their respective supply chains are not in all cases, up and running by now?
        Looking back on last week, it might have been wiser to restart production at a lower capacity rate, and thus have a longer stretch of time to fill……..

        I now only hope that the streams of money that are now running towards Saab, will reach Saab on time.

    • It is rather sad to read the comments below that piece. Are workers in Sweden so short-sighted that they would rather have no job than the current situation? They have continued to be paid throughout this situation. Without VM et al there would have been no Saab jobs at all.

      I do hope, for the sake of both Saab and of Sweden in general, that the opinions expressed are those of the minority. Can any Swedes shed any light on this?

      • In Denmark we have an indisputable right to 3 weeks vacation in one stretch.
        I think the Swedes have a longer period.
        Our total vacation period is given by law. 5 weeks. + 1 that we can sell.
        And I trust most workers and unions to dislike changes to that.
        They did not bring the situation about.
        They did their work where the rest of the organization failed.

      • Only two weeks holiday, and having to work Saturdays all through the summer to make up for time lost through no fault of their own. Under the circumstances, I’d probably do it, but I’d certainly grumble a bit about it!

        The time off they’ve already had isn’t much of a holiday, as they rarely seem to have been told more than a day or two in advance if they were going to work or not. No chance to have a proper holiday under such conditions.

    • Surly, the biggest suppliers were in the 20 first ones. IAC, they had to start the production line as it was part of the deal with Pang Da.

      • Oh, easy! They sell some of the equity in their own company to a Chinese company.

        (Sorry I missed the 😉 off the first post.)

        • I mean: How do the suppliers their personel and own suppliers (with your “plan”).

          And Saab has a nice sounding non-binding MOU at the moment, but the money will not arrive in at least 3 months time.

          And suppliers want their money NOW. They also have bills (and personel) to pay…

          • I do believe Saab has the money to pay for the current supplies. The problem is to convince suppliers to start delivering and still wait for the old debts to be settled. All in all this might be a better deal than see Saab go bankrupt and never a penny back again.

            This is all about confidence, which is hardly quantifiable. But I do believe it is worth it to believe in Saab and in the end we shall see it get back on track.

            I do also hope Mr. Pang will demand a profound shakeup in Saab’s Sales and Marketing. I hope has ha met Swade already and knows who should be the head of Customer Care and Customer Relationships @ Saab 🙂

  11. I will just repeat what I said on 9th of June:

    “I’ve said it before I am saying it now: The only realistic option for SAAB now is to be acquired by some Chinese company, as it happened to Volvo. Sorry but the time of enthusiastic entrepreneurship by VM/VA is over. We can now discuss who is guilty EIB, Swedish government, but that will not save SAAB. SAAB needs a big money tap behind them, in order to regain trust from the suppliers, and which is most important, buyers.
    There might be a Chinese company interested in buying, but they want total control and I guess that VM and VA still don’t want to sell. But I feel that the time is running out now.”

    The time has run out faster then I thought. Which is good for SAAB I guess. I also hope that the money tap is big enough to pay back the EIB loans and GM and move forward as a really independent strong middle size car company.

    • I think what you are seeing is enthusiastic entrepreneurship in action. Youngman and Pang Da are not Geely, they are “enthusiastic entrepreneurs” as well. They might have a few millions to spare, but they’re not an automotive empire – they need Saab just as Saab needs them.

  12. So Pang Da and Youngman becomes huge owners in Saab, and what are they’re intentions? Ok. The ownership are being transferred to more solid ground, but how are they planning to run Saab? All this is going to fast. The need to evaluate your potential business partners before you enter agreements are crucial. This has to be done thoroughly and that take weeks, months. On another note, the two swedish automakers ownership has been transferred from USA to China. It’s a china world now 🙂

    • I do believe that their intentions are clear. I also believe Youngman put Pang Da into the deal and it was actually a well-executed manouver by all sides. Their intentions are clear – Pang Da needs a stable supply of cars to make money on, and they want to go both into the premium segment to get a foothold when it’s still growing and the lower-end to build up volume for their dealer network.

      Youngman has no development capabilities whatsoever, the Proton cars are not quite competitive, and their relationship with Lotus is souring, while it was the only chance to build some brand equity in the increasingly competitive compact car market (“Europestar” doesn’t sound quite like “Ford”, “Toyota” or “Citroen”). Saying the cars are actually “kinda Saabs” is a much better bet, especially if Saab is launched with a big marketing blitz, and this is perfectly feasible in the Chinese market (the Chinese are still susceptible to simple, aspirational marketing and basically like everything that comes from Europe over stuff from China which they view, very much like the Westerners, as inferior).

      Youngman needs Saab to continue as a development and engineering centre, as it is pretty unfeasible to create one in China even at a cost comparable to acquiring Saab. It took SAIC a decade of work and investment with GM to create PATAC, and add Ricardo 2010 in UK to it, to have a semi-decent own vehicle development competency.

      And to maintain the premium status of the Saab brand, they need for it to remain European. I absolutely believe they understand the need to keep the European production in T-hattan.

      Interestingly, there will be a lot of Saab-based vehicles being sold in China by both BAIC and the new consortium, which will surely boost Saab’s profile.

    • Youngman is not a total newcomer to Saab:

      Mr PANG Qingnian, CEO of Youngman said: “We have been in contact with Saab Automobile for quite some time and we are very pleased to have reached an agreement with both Pang Da and Saab.
      So you think this is going too fast? No, Saab doesn’t have time. These deals are extremely important RIGHT NOW in order to regain confidence from the suppliers and the customers.

    • The non-binding part worries me too. Why not get all consent needed first and present a binding MOU afterwards?
      I know that, at this stage, time is the most valuable commodity for Saab. And with the ‘news’ of today, someone’s trying to buy some time for Saab. Which should be appreciated.

      But on th other hand: what is the true value of a non-binding MOU? The cost of the ink, and the paper used to print it on, I would guess.

        • MOU’s are usually binding, barring outside influence that make it impossible to live up to whatever is in the MOU. That’s why it is preferred over a contract, which is totally binding even if something terrible happens and you still have to fulfill your obligations.
          This particular “non-binding MOU” sounds more like a LOI (Letter of Intent).

          I’m confused about the percentage of shares. Do I understand correctly that Swedish Automobile is now going to be owned for more than 50% by PangDa/Youngman? If so, aren’t there any regulations at the Amsterdam Stock Exchange that throw a wrench in this transaction? I think they refer to this as a takeover and needs to be handled differently than a mere stock exchange.

          • I’m not familiar with the rules of the Dutch stock market (nor the Swedish one, for that matter). But although they would probably both follow any orders given by the Chinese govt, Pang Da and Youngman are at least nominally completely separate entities, as I understand it. Thus, none of the three partners are getting a controlling interest. Victor Muller was careful to point this out in his talks with the media today.

          • Just to clarify.
            1. 30 % is the limit to be forced to make a bid. 2
            2. Tenaci Capital will convert a loan of 42 m€, which will give the balance;
            – Tenaci Capital 29.9%
            – Youngman 29.9%
            – Pang Da 24 %
            – Others 16.2 %
            3. Pang Da has stated that they plan to go from 24 to 10 in the future, probably selling the 14 % to a (Chinese) Investment Company. The reason to put Chinese in parenthesis is that the general concern by Chinese analysts is the split of the > 50 % share of SAAB between two Chinese companies. The “rule” is that the ownership shall be owned to > 50 % by an Chinese company. What happens when / if Pang Da sells of 14 %?
            4. Since Youngman was first in line, the opinion is that Youngman has been in contact with NDRC before this was official to find the best way to get the deal approved. This indicates that NDRC will approve the deal.

    • On the SAIC / Rover deal, remember much of the back-ground facts that must be considered. BMW purchased Rover / Mini in order to grow on the mid-size market. Rover had at that time almost 15 % of the UK market and they had low productivity in their factories.
      BMW did a lot of work to increase productivity, which they succeeded with, but they fail to cope with two factors;
      1. The program at Rover was very old and no new development was planned. BMW helped Rover design the Rover 75 and also started to design the Mini (which continued in a separate company). Although this work was undertaken, the market share in UK decreased to under 5 % in the coming years.
      2. The ratio pound / D-Mark and later Euro was very negative. The ratio became almost 50 % worse, meaning that it became extremelly expensive to manufacture cars in UK and sell in other European countries. Thus, Rover was bleeding heavily.
      BMW failed, before they purchased Rover, to make such (basic) analyses / risk scenarios. What is the status of the car program and what are the financial risks with currencies? Overall BMW lost (officially) more than 3 billion € on this adventure and probably more in reality, even though they could earn back some by their successful Mini business.

      Considering the status of SAAB I would say that there are several points showing that the SAIC / Rover similarities does not need to be considered;
      1. SAAB has a good model program and is well ahead with the new 9-3 platform.
      2. SAAB has an efficient production program.
      3. The SEK is now quite strong against the EUR and USD and not weak as the GBP was at the time of the BMW purchase.
      4. SAAB is well ahead in a number of areas which can be beneficial for Chinese car industry, e.g. the eAAM design and Electrical car concept.

  13. I just can’t help thinking couldn’t SWAN (Spyker) sell preferred stock (to VA) to help immediate liquidity?
    It has nothing to do with the EIB collateral and the company can still make independent financing decisions without a nod from 50 government and institutional officials on three continents, right?

    These preferred could be bought or transfered to just about anything ones the storm has passed and ownership questions have been cleared.

  14. Saab in F1?

    If I’m not mistaken, Youngman Lotus is somehow related to the Proton Lotus F1 team. I am referring to the green and yellow Lotus team, not the black and gold Lotus/Renault team. Renault and Proton Lotus seem to be in endless litigation regarding who owns the correct trademark version of Lotus to race as Lotus F1.

    Perhaps Youngman will just give up and switch its green and yellow Lotus Proton F1 team to Saab F1 now that they have controlling interest in Saab.

    Or did I just get this massively incorrect? lol

    • Quijote. If you are referring to my post, I forgot to mention the new products are for Lotus street cars.
      As for the two F1 teems using Lotus, a judgement has been rendered and they both can use the name in their own way… what makes it even more confusing, both teems use Renault engines and gearboxes.

    • You are wrong 😉

      The green/yellow F1 Team (Team Lotus, 1Malaysia) has nothing to do with Lotus Cars, Group or Proton.

      The black/gold F1 team is owned by Genii Capital (who borrowed money for this from Snoras) and they are sponsored by Lotus Cars/Proton.

      • Its sooo confusing. I was at the F1 race this past weekend in Montreal and frankly both the Lotus/Renault and Lotus/Proton cars have the best sound of all vehicles. They both have the exact same note, very deep and scratchy. Nice!

        • That’s because the Renault engine forces exhaust gases out the exhaust even under deceleration because the «inverted» exhaust runs towards the rear diffuser to help aerodynamic efficiency. The system will be banned shortly because of a complaint received by the FIA, probably by struggling Williams, stuck with the inferior Cosworth.

  15. The BBC has says on it’s site,


    And frankly, it might just be best for the company. All the different stories coming out (whether true or not) are doing more damage than ever.

    I am still amazed at why Saab do not have any money (if this is true) they had Investment of 50m + Pang Da’s up front payment, where is all this going or gone…..

    This situation cannot go on, & it can be seen on this site, how even true Saab followers (purists) are getting fed up with the up’s & down’s of all this…….

  16. My question is when Vladimir is allowed to enter, if he invests what he has said he’d like to, will that dilute the Chinese ownership share? Is that part of the long term strategy going on here?

    • Looking @ the % and numbers above, there does not seem much room for him (beyond maybe a building freeholder) assuming the chinese allow a dilution of their proposed stakes.

      It also looks like the % above are becoming cheaper as the weeks go by.

  17. The only facts at the moment is the press releases of the MOU.
    We do not know how much money saab has available at the moment, and if the realty leaseback will generate the needed money for a restart short term.
    We also do not know how much of the current stop is caused by suppliers not willing to deliver until they have a better guarantee, and how much is actually caused by suppliers not being able to deliver.

    At the moment most is speculations, and most of them useless.
    We can talk about possible outcomes, financial statuses, and give all sorts of analysis.
    The main problem with that is that most if not all have been proven wrong again and again.

    So take it easy and wait with the panic until the doors close.

  18. Lets just hope this situation is sorted out quickly and the Chinese produce the money as fast as they did a couple of weeks ago

Comments are closed.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.