Dagens Nyheter on the new proposal from YMPD

Dagens Nyheter has posted a short article on what they think the new proposal from YMPD for GM is. As you can see, they are still trying to reach a 100% ownership of Saab, but now Youngman would be the minority owner.

I’m not sure if this will make GM move from the NO to a YES, but I also don’t think that YMPD has made this proposition without knowing GM’s real reasons for the NO.

We are now in a similar situation as in December 2009, we have a GM not willing to sell, and a new owner with very interesting plans for our beloved brand. I’m only hoping that this time the new owner really has the money needed to make Saab flourish.

New proposal for Saab ownership of GM

Chinese Pang Da and Youngman, according to Dagens Industri submitted a new proposal on how the shares in Saab should look like, in an attempt to appease the former owner GM.

Instead of carmaker Youngman get 60 percent stake in Saab Automobile, which is opposed to GM, the car salesman Pang Da take over the majority of the shares.

– I can not comment on what GM may or may not accept, says Rachel Pang, president of Youngman, the DI.


45 thoughts on “Dagens Nyheter on the new proposal from YMPD”

  1. I´m not sure this is right, actually. The Dagens Nyheter article is a short rewrite made by news agency TT, based on an article today in the paper edition of Dagens Industri. I have read the original article, on which this TT paragraph is based, and I fail to draw the conclusion that a new offer has actually been submitted to GM. I think TT might have misinterpreted the original DI article.
    The headline of the original article is “We cannot understand how the Chinesese are thinking”, and the first sentence in the text reads: “The reluctance of Youngman and Pang Da to compromise with GM has led to real irritation within the Saab management”.
    The article also states there is indeed a “secret deal” in which the solution is that Pang Da takes a majority stake, and Youngman a minority stake. However, as I read it, this proposal has neither in full been accepted by the Chinese, nor sent to GM for approval.

    • Johan,
      for me it is strange that a news agency (TT) bases its news on an article of one of its clients. Normally DI, DN, ttela get their news from TT and not the other way around (but I might be wrong).

      Furthermore we know that YMPD sent a new proposal to GM this week, but we do not know much about the contents of that new proposal, so this might or might not be it.

      At the end of the day, the only important thing is that GM says YES. 😉

      For me the strange thing is that it looks like GM would say yes if Youngman gets a minority stake on Saab Automobile, but the fact that Saab Automobile would be sold completely to Chinese companies doesn’t seem to be that big problem, according to this pieces of news and against all the talking from GM.

      • RedJ, This is indeed the proposal from a week ago. GM will not accept 100%. Youngman now knows this, and is working on an alternate plan. This is the danger of reposting news when it pops up on the news service without knowing the whole story. This is also what happens when the crew doesn’t communicate with one another. Sorry RedJ, my fault for not getting in touch with you. Just sit tight, things will shake out soon enough.

        • Jeff:

          Do you really think things will shake out soon enough? There just seems to be so many problems. Not just at Saab but the whole world. The global financial crisis is worsening every day and access to money is growing tighter.

          Right now I also sense a real chilling between the US and China and unless you really are in the know about what kinds of pressure the US is putting on GM to do or not to do a deal with China, I don’t think you are in a position to tell us to be optimistic.

          Both China and Russia are really pissed off at the US right now and I have read several articles lately about the Russians and the Chinese and even the Indians forming some kind of alliance to take on the US and the west. All three of these countries have just had it with the US’s military (mis)adventures in the middle east and our ramped up missile bases in eastern Europe. Americans by and large are quite opposed to these military (mis)adventures but we can’t seem to stop the government from getting into them.

          So with east/west powers chilling in a big way, I think it bodes even worse for a GM agreement with the Chinese.

          • It’s not our job to dig around for (mis)adventures… we’d rather stay home to be honest. Make sure the blame lands at the feet of the CIC, not the military. 🙂

            • According to the Constitution, Congress is supposed to make that choice. But the Constitution is just an outdated piece of paper. Doesn’t seem to mean much anymore to any of the last 10 or so CIC’s we have had when it comes to using our military.

      • TT rewriting DI, SvD, GP, DN, SVT, P4 or whoever is pretty common. It all boils down to the question: Is this news? And in this particular case TT thought it was, made a rewrite and DN (as a customer) in turn put the paragraph in the paper. All good.

  2. I think the last proposal could be like this: YM 40% PD 40% a third subjet 20%. Third subjet could be a guarantee about licenses and production.

    • A friend of mine is part of IBMs M&A team, they were looking to buy a European software co, and during the due diligence, found out that a Chinese jv partner of that European co had quietly registered all the IP in it’s own name in china.

    • Copying IP is probably not an issue since Buick Lacrosse that shares the NG9-5 platform is already being manufactured in China.
      The fear seems to be that Youngman/Pang Da may sublicense the IP and that might hurt GM sales in China.

  3. Thanks for the info.One can ONLY hope that this proposal is based upon feedback from GM,great in that case.

    If not,it is dead in the water.From GM:

    “No. Let me be clear. Saab and Youngman can do whatever they deem best for the company. But if there is one hundred percent takeover of Saab, they will do it without the vehicles we supply, 9-4X, and without GM’s technology, “”–James Cain

    • Lundin,
      I hate to hear this very same tone from GM as in 2009.

      This, we only talk with Saab is complete rubbish. They should talk with the Chinese as GM has a problem with the Chinese and not Saab.

      I hate having to say that, but I think we have to bring the I won’t buy a GM product anymore if they kill Saab. Idea back to life.

      • Red J,

        Yes, you are right. Like i said in another thread i cant believe this company is run by exec from the most respected universities around the world and then even allow them to be target for a bashing campaign over and over again.

        Having said that, youngman and pang Da is very new to the Saab-GM connection,as such i think they are being as optimistic as Saab once were. I know one Saab exec years ago told a a antother exec in the mothership: “Use your brain!” concerning the platform/vehicle devlopment proces for Saab. However as time pass by, Saab has more or less learn to live with the decisions made by GM (not matter how bad or good).Saab has been there,done that. Moving their own cars to Germany,no EV,no hybrid, doing BioPwer development in the basement to hide it from offical research etc (which later turned out to be the life saver for the company).

        I am not here to bash GM, of course GM has made Saab a float as well.

        Yeah, we should do an app “makeSense” or “buy a car-move your mind” which randomize funny quotes from the former mothership and compare GM details (engine ECU large and heavy compared to the competitor,speed of diagnostic tools etc) to other car brands….

          • David,

            Not being english native speaker i can missunderstand you point and I respect you opinion but I think you read too much into it. I mean,sure there are “Sovereignty and political interest” in this deal and its parties. But i fail to see any pressure from any side that impacts the sale of Saab.For me,this is strictly business.I can be dead wrong here though.

            One can go bananas if trying to understand what kind of political relationship leads to a forced sale or not. One can assume, Mr Pang is a very respected party member and as such has influence on NDRC. On the other hand, SAIC is state owned and can play a huge role in the decision making.You can be right about the miss-adventures of the countries and its foreign politics but i think that is less of a importance in this deal.

            But you are,of course, dead right about the finanical problems and its impact on the world as we know it.And that also means that Saab will face some really really hard time IF the sales go through to find its way to the customers.

            “Americans by and large are quite opposed to these military (mis)adventures but we can’t seem to stop the government from getting into them.”

            Well,leaving everything open for russia-iran is not such a good idea either.

            • Having said that, i am not so sure it a good idea to talk politics on “forum” like this. And i should also add that i have no hard feeling towards people from Russia nor Iran.No matter from where we are,we are all here because we love Saab and that’s it.

              Keep fighting! (for Saab)

              • I don’t have any hard feelings for the people of Russia or Iran either. I wish we would leave everyone else alone and mind our own business. We don’t take care of our own business, but we seem to be in everybody else’s, and that includes the business of global corporations.

                I have been told, as recently as today, that the US government is still owed lots of money from the GM bailout and GM is still owed lots of money by Saab. So, indirectly, the US government is owed lots of money by Saab.

                For that reason alone, politics is very much part of this equation. Governments stop deals all the time, simply because they don’t like a party to the deal. It doesn’t have to make any sense at all. But they do it all the time.

                Ford may have been able to sell Volvo to Geely because Ford never took a US bailout. But maybe GM couldn’t sell anything to China without the approval of the US government.

                • Actually, I would like to see much more political discussion on this board because we might be able to realize what is possible and what is not if we understood the politics involved.

                  Cars and politics go together, whether we like it or not.

                • I sincerly doubt that politics has anything to do with anything concerning Saab.
                  I they have, that would be the end of anything informed in looking at the situation
                  Politics makes any sensible and well thought out predictions Moot, null and void.
                  As most commenters totally independent of country could probably give several examples of.

                • How can you say that? With GM still owing the US government for its bailout, how can you say politics are not involved? GM may very well need some sort of OK from somebody in the US government. If you know for sure that it doesn’t please enlighten the rest of us.

                • That’s why I wrote “Sincerly doubt”
                  But I dislike all of the conspiracy theories.
                  Most actions are taken by taking the easiest way and following the usual way, highly probably also involving incompetence and prejudice, not by some grand scheme.
                  I understand and accept the GM attitude. That doesn’t mean that I like it, and that I don’t think they could have another attitude if they made a little effort. Just like YMPD could.

                  Allow me to quote Einstein

                  “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

                  What the world and most business lacks are the creative people
                  Bring in the generalists. They are the ones that makes things work when the specialists fail.

        • Lundin, I agree… this is no place for international politics and blame game. Sure, I proudly wear the cloth of the USAF and offer no apology for wearing it. However if someone here was from Iran, Russia, or North Korea, I don’t care. Here on SU a friend of Saab is a friend of mine. We check our politics and military status at the door.

          There may be some politics at play, but lets lets just keep calm and carry on. If i wanna pick a fight over politics there are plenty of worthless forums I can go and spout that crap just the same as others.

          • That is not the point. The point is that we can’t live in a Saab bubble and act like all of the world’s political problems do not exist. Politics are especially important in Saab’s case because you have three governments involved that have input into Saab’s existence. With GM still owing the US government plenty of bailout cash, the US government may have a say so (veto?) in who Saab gets sold to. Frankly, I am beginning to think the US government may be stopping a GM deal more than GM is stopping it.

            I just got through reading an article on a conservative website where the title was “Obama starts a cold war with China.” Maybe this guy is a crackpot, I don’t know. But lately I have been reading similar things from various places.

            I just ask that we be mindful of our Saab bubble. It seems like many on this board are deeply in the bubble and act like nothing else is going on in the world or any discussion of it is off limits.

            • I just googled — China, US and cold war — and the hits are endless. Articles from all over the world and from both the right and left. Most are very recent indicate the “cold war” really cranked up with President Obama’s visit to Australia where he pledged a new US base.

            • David,

              Actually, I think a Saab-user/driver is very well aware of the current state of affairs concerning US foreign politics and its danger.I just dont think that “small” Saab is of importance and make any difference to the talks you are into. You are right that GM probably needs to communicate their decisions to US gov (from someone still responsible for the “car czar work”) but if GM want to “sell” i think that is ok from the gov as well.

              Funny you mentioned Ford. As you know Volvo HQ is not that far from Trollhättan and many people from here was involved. Same scenario all over again. Turns out to be a money question. However Ford was smart enough to make this sale a goodwill in their press-releases. Highlight the importance of that Volvo now was secured with good owners. Kept some co-development and probably has earned some real money on Volvo’s recent success. I hope GM can do the same, at least come up with an alternative to make a sale possible.

              If us gov want the cash from the bailout they better sell Saab and get whatever money they can,no ? Why stop the deal?

              If you are right,red light from US gov, GM better start communicate that internally to Saab/the chinese to not get even higher tension in-between the NDRC/SAIC/Youngman saga.But what we see know is ongoing discussion and seems very strange if GM has a red alert from the gov.

          • Jim, btw did you ever managed to get a hold of someone at/inside Saab about the book we where talking about long long time ago? Oh, i remember, that was my “mission” (you know back then it was a crazy situation…and …still is). Maybe we can do yet another try when we restart again! I just read that you and your family had invested in yet another Saab 9-3,good job!

            Ok, great to see that you somehow managed to recover and still is employed from the recent layoff in the USAF.

    • Technically, GM could convert all or part of their shares into voting shares with a veto right on IP-issues related to China. Needs a respective shareholder agreement with advance agreement for the years to come. Probably by 2016 the shares would be repaid by the other shareholders anyway.
      Would imply that the other shareholders (PDYM) finance the operation and do not have full freedom on existing and new models from 2014-2016. By 2016 Saab would have to have developed their successor models, either with license fees paying to GM or other producers.

    • Allan,

      No one, expect the management knows the answer to all of our innovative ideas! We can only hope such questions as been forward to GM as it is being more innovative than doing yet another 100% proposal over and over again (note, if its not based on GM push backs/feedback that is).

    • Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely ? No. GM already has problems in Europe, and it’s reduced brand strategy, on the whole, is working. They are not gonna revisit prior to 2009 again.

  4. Yes, at this stage in the game I also would hope that such a proposal might be getting an airing. And thanks michaelb for the initial answer to the question.

  5. I believe that were GM to include a requirement that SAAB use a specific amount of GM content over a finite period of time as well as a specific number of 9-4x’s over a specified time period would alleviate some of their concerns since this would satisfy some IP iinvestment relative to ROI.

    • Now that is a completely new idea!! Could it actually be that GM does not oppose the purchase because they fear a technology drain to China, but because the Chinese might decide to get more parts from other sources as fast as possible? Interesting. Haven’t thought about that.

      • Hmmm…I doubt that this is GM’s motivation to say no. The product volumes for and cash flow from Saab as a customer may sound big to most of us but are not much more than a drop, well, maybe a pailful in the ocean for a giant such as GM in comparison to their totals.


    • Re 9000: GM wasn’t involved in the design and development of this model, Fiat, Alfa Romeo and Lancia were. But many parts of your 9000 are sourced from GM. Your gearbox, to name just one.


      • Wasn’t the ZF automatic gearbox coming from Friedichshafen, Germany ?

        But what I really mean is; there are absolutely no cheap GM switches, button or radios in the 9000; its all typical solid Saab-stuff of that era. Compare the rock-solid light switch for example with the feeble stuff they’ve put into the more recent model-years of the 9-3 and the OG 9-5…

        • I totally agree with you re. the build quality, the interior, the materials used etc. As to gearboxes: mine, a manual, has a type code that starts with GM 🙁 . It’s also the only serious component I had to replace -at 290.000 km- during the 3+ years I have owned my 9000.

          What I agree with even more strongly is how pleasant it is to be able to drive a fast and spacious car that simply breathes quality and luxury, this in addition to being pretty sure that you get from A to B without any problems at all, no matter what the distance between A and B is and what the weather and road conditions are 🙂 . The A-to-B aspect should, of course be common to all cars but all too often isn’t.


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.