Sales process snippets

TTela today features an interview with Anna Petre.

Two years ago, GM were skeptical towards Chinese ownership. Now there is going to be a negotiation that can go either way. I believe GM has good intentions for us, says Anna Petre.

Most urgent are guarantees for how the technology in the 9-3, 9-5 and 9-4x will be treated. GM owns the rights to those three models.

Anna Petre thinks the American automobile giant are concerned with how Saab’s technology will be used in China, since they have a bad track record with copying western technology.

But China’s attitude towards IP rights could be changing.

Copying others’ technology is now frowned upon in China, trademarks are respected, she says.


Saab chief Victor Muller reflects on sale of car maker

BBC a few days ago published a small interview with Victor.

“I’m proud that I managed to bring Saab into a safe port,” he says. “I am proud that I have helped save an iconic carmaker.”

Thanks Toby k


Youngman stands the most to gain

E24 brings us an an interview with Carl Fey, a researcher and head master at the Stockholm School of Economics.

Saab is without doubt a quality brand, and as such the price Youngman is paying for the company is not very high

He discusses the challenges facing Saab as a Chinese-owned brand and points out that only one in every four mergers between Western and Chinese companies can be considered successful. Building up a strong brand name for Youngman will be important if they want to stand out from the crowd of other Chinese brands eyeballing exports to the rest of the world. Owning Saab can help strengthen their brand name.

Thanks TurboLover

18 thoughts on “Sales process snippets”

  1. If some cars are supposed to be built in China, people there must have access to all model of information. How can one be sure that IP rights will be secured ? What can GM get from this business ? Any ideas ? I don’t believe in companies doing charity, just business.

    • Assumably, only Phoenix based cars will be built there? Difficult, it isstill is, as there must be a reason why of all interested parties, GM selected the most unlikely, and smallest entitiey, ie Koenigsegg and Spyker

    • Every sold Saab means money on the bank for GM. That is what GM gets, and that is why you could say that GM “have good intentions”
      GM gets even more if they sell for example a Cadillac on the Chinese market, instead of a Saab. But is there such a competition? What strategy is most successfull for GM?

      • TurboLover, just for the record since you asked, the profit that GM gets for Chinese built Saabs is what is in question. The licensing fees and trade restrictions on them is a whole different ballgame and harder to recoup. Also, SAIC is none to pleased at this deal, and they control the GM operation in China. No one has asked how they feel about this deal.

    • As I have said before;

      The 9-3 only have roughly 18 months left to live. There is no point in moving the production to China because of that car. I can’t see that GM would allow Saab to move the production to China after 18 months.

      The 9-4X is a GM product where GM is making the most profit.

      The 9-5 is a rather new product and I guess that Saab would like to built that car in China as well. The question is if GM will allow that.

      The Phoenix is a Saab property so I guess we will see production in Trollhättan and China.

      So I guess that GM would like to keep all GM property in Sweden and I guess that Saab would like to built the 9-5 in China.

      • …unless they pull a “BAIC” and move the 9-3 tools to China once they start gearing up for the Phoenix in Sweden.

        The Phoenix is a Saab property

        But how much of the Phoenix is built using GM parts?

        I suspect GM will have quite a lot to say for many years to come.

  2. I think GM has always had basically good intentions toward Saab, but as the proverb says, the road to hell is paved with them….

    • Very good question. Maybe those ugly GM Vectra latches that replaced Saab’s own oval door handles? :> Sorry, just being sarcastic. But frankly myself cannot recall any major technology amendment over the previous 9-3, other than the very desirable outlooks and dashboard improvements. Those are technology after all.

    • My understanding is that it was the tooling of the old(er) 9-3 that was sold to BAIC, not the technology The technology, btw, is just grabbing in some kind of a parts bin. Saab grabbed from the GM bin, BAIC is probably grabbing from a Chinese bin.

      • Bingo. Which is why most of these theories of GM getting a cut of future Saab profits falls apart a few years down the road. Geely is already transitioning away completely from Ford, the same would happen with Saab.

  3. Given that GM is still a supplier to Saab (their biggest in fact) – I would not be surprised to see GM allow the deal to happen (with restrictions) Current 9-3 is old technology, so no issue producing in sweden for couple of years. 9-4x would remain GM produced car – just leaves the 9-5 as a potential issue. Chinese may adopt 2 yrs with saab sweden factory then migrate back to the east is my best guess. GM will be looking to earn from the rescue of Saab – it costs them plenty in the past !!!! Lets hope the chinese govt feel positive for this deal….

    • I’m pretty sure that GM will allow the deal in the end, with some restrictions, after some money changed hands and NDRC has had a serious talk with them. The amount of technology transfer will not be any major factor, the amount of money and much GM dare go up against chinese .authorities may. I assume GM would like to continue sell the 9-4x, and restriction the current 9-3 and 9-5 to Trollhättan won’t be any real issue. As the old 9-3 don’t have much time left, and the 9-5, as top of the line, probably is a very bad idea to move out of Sweden anyway in the short term.

      Sure, there may be twists and turns on the road, but I find it highly unlikely that GM will turn down the chinese money in the end.

        • It seems like the new deal was designed with a fair bit of NDRC assistance, and they also in general assist chinese company deals to protect chinese money. I.e. NDRC will effectively be in on the deal.

          • I sitll do not see what leverage they hold. We do not know what SAIC has to say, nor what they might tell NDRC. I think that for China, the SAIC/GM deal is much more important than the Saab deal.

            GM played hardball with European governments two years ago. I somehow doubt they’d allow themselves to be bullied in any way by ChiGov. Au contraire, they might push back. NDRC could find themselves in a squeeze between SAIC and GM, both refusing to let Youngman/Pang Da start production of Saabs in China.

            Nothing seem certain to me about this deal. I still think we continue to live in interesting times.

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.