Accountability breeds innovation

It was the second of September of 2009.  I was at the tail end of, at the time, was a rather lengthy commute of about 10 minutes (assuming all of the lights were green).  After the usual barrage of annoying radio ads, we were at the top of the news hour.  “Today the Obama Administration has approved a loan guarantee to Solyndra for the amount of $535 million dollars”: I was speechless.  Not only because I was driving alone but, at the very notion that a startup company, being as risky of an investment as it is, could acquire such a loan from the United States government.  And that’s ignoring for the moment that the US was deep in the worst recession since The Great Depression.  Granted, if the cylindrical solar panel company were able to successfully offer clean energy to the masses, then just maybe it wouldn’t have been such a call, after all, everyone get’s plenty of sunlight: for free.

Then months went by.  And being not far from the site of the new Solyndra building in Fremont, California, I had the privilege of seeing this monument being erected.  But, even after the building was completed, very little was reported about their progress.  Then in early 2011, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  Obviously the failure was quite unfortunate, but the real travesty was that half a billion was fast-tracked into this highly risky venture with one key ingredient missing: accountability.  Yes, accountability, which sadly is a foreign concept for some and viewed as a proverbial white elephant for others.  With accountability: your neck is on the line — produce, or die.  Without it — well then, as they say “anything goes”.

Let’s turn back the clock about ten years.  The Month is October and K.R Sridhar of Bloom Energy had a meeting with John Doerr from the large venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.  It was this meeting that led to the green startup receiving more than $400 million of startup funding.  For those who are not aware, Bloom Energy is the manufacturer of “Bloom Energy Servers” which process a variety of bio-mass energy sources to generate electricity.  From the surface, this appears like a much more far-fetched idea than cylindrical solar panels, yet eBay has reported that Bloom Servers have saved the company $100,000 in electric bills since mid-2009.  And just recently Apple has announced that they will be using Bloom Boxes for their new North Carolina Data Center.

So, what is it that makes The Bloom Box different from Solyndra, and what does this mean for the Saab bidding process?  Aside from vast differences in the technologies themselves, a key difference: is the source of funding and its oversight.  The funding for Solyndra was fast-tracked to delivery despite the explicit disapproval of a White House Budget Analyst.  Whereas, the Bloom Box was funded by venture capitalists, who invariably have the incentive to ensure that the recipients of the money are held accountable.  This is key, since so many venture capitalists in the Silicon Valley were burned by poor performing startups: accountability is now a requirement.

With Saab’s bankruptcy serving a massive blow to the economy of Trollhättan, and government officials facing newfound scrutiny as a select few are tasked with determining the fate of Saab: were are now down to the wire.  The bankruptcy administrators are now being held personally responsible for their final decision of who gets to purchase Saab.  This level of accountability is not to be taken lightly.  Furthermore, once a Saab purchase has been completed, a group of key Saab staff members will spring into action — armed with all their skills, ingenuity and experiences from the past.  That is something that the future owner of Saab will have to be prepared for, as the company prepares for a restart.  The parallels that I draw between Bloom Energy and the Saab bidding process, isn’t necessarily intended to imply that NEVS is the best choice.

This is a question that continues to be hotly debated.  But, what I ask for us to consider is that NEVS could very well turn out to be the choice that invariably leads to Saab’s comeback.  This takes me to the final aspect of accountability, which leads to innovation.  The instinctive response to accountability is fear.  But, as an engineer, I can say from personal experience, that something magical happens when this accountability becomes transformed into a personal challenge.  A challenge that inspires one to think outside of the box.  Before you know it, fear fades away, and the engineers finds themselves feeling a sense of euphoria, as they overcome technical obstacles.  Consider eXWD, for example.  I can easily envision this working in rather exciting ways.  Perhaps one could have multiple operation modes:  “eco-sport” (where the engine has reduced power or is shut-off completely and power is provided solely by electricity to the back wheels),  “dynamic-sport” (power is dynamically attenuated between front and back axels depending on slippage detection on each of the wheels to improve traction) or even a “speed-sense” mode where the engine is utilized more at speeds where gas mileage is optimal. As you can see adding electricity to the Saab powertrain opens the door to some truly exciting possibilities.

Whomever wins the bid, rest-assured that the ones building Saabs of the future will be the same talent that was behind cars that we know and love.  Whether it be Saab veterans, and/or future apprentices thereof, if there is anyone that I have confidence in, to inject passion and ingenuity in the Saab cars of the future: it would be them.

60 thoughts on “Accountability breeds innovation”

  1. Re; ”That is something that the future owner of Saab will have to be prepared for, as the company prepares for a restart”.

    Surely if NEVs get’s Saab’s factory, then a ‘restart’ as we know it is not in the cards..

  2. Wow, what a dichotomy—-the prospects of Saab restarting as an electric car maker (“We’re GREEN man.”) and the well documented failure that was the taxpayer rathole of Solyndra. I find it absolutely incredible that “the consortium” would be blind enough to elect to use a name that is such a lightning rod for criticism. All they had to do was eliminate the “E” and they would have likely had the support of most of us—-even if their objective was still a future building electric cars. What a gallactic miscalculation—-that really shows how “green” they are in business/public image. “National Vehicles Sweden” or NVS, would have been far better. The business plan? Act as quickly as possible to get the Saab name back on a motorcar in the world marketplace—-whether by again producing the 9-3 with some modificatoins or partnering with another corporation to rebadge a car (after letting Saab engineers have at it for tweeking, ala the 9-2 or 9-7). And work to develop environmentally responsible hybrids and electrics for the FUTURE. I don’t think any of us would have objected to that. But they’ve shown their hand—-and in fact, I’m not sure they even intend to bring a Saab electric car to the marketplace anytime soon, if at all. This seems to be more of an investment group for alternative energies and battery development, maybe to sell technology to other automakers. This is a travesty for people who want new cars with the Saab name available again. Bring it on Youngman, we’re ready for you if Mahindra is truly now sitting this out.

    • You are spot on, they have artificially limited themselves from the beginning and that shows they are wet behind the ears. I think they will just use the SAAB assets for other purposes, if NEVS win SAAB will effectively be dead.

    • I hate to read stories like this but a another dirty little secret is that thousands of over-produced special batteries for these type of cars are languishing away with a limited self-life in warehouses throughout the US!

      Fisker Automotive Could Be Another ‘Green’ Fiasco (from today’s Newsmax).

      Solar panel maker Solyndra made headlines when it declared bankruptcy last year after receiving $535 million in federal loans as part of the Obama administration’s efforts to promote alternative energy.

      Less publicized is the Obama administration’s loan of a nearly identical amount, $529 million, to Fisker Automotive to produce plug-in hybrid vehicles. And it now appears that Fisker could leave taxpayers holding the bag for an investment that won’t produce its promised American jobs.

      California-based Fisker used the first $169 million of the loan to manufacture and market the Karma, a $100,000 luxury hybrid sports sedan that is assembled not in the United States, but in Finland.

      Fisker began delivering the Karma to U.S. customers in July 2011. But sales have been slow. And earlier this year, a Karma stopped working in the middle of a Consumer Reports road test, and the vehicle’s battery was suspected of a defect that raised the risk of fires, according to ABC News.

      Then in May, a Karma went up in flames in the garage of its Texas owner. Fisker claimed neither the car nor its battery was to blame, but an investigation was launched.

      Fisker received federal funds in part to help purchase a shuttered General Motors plant in Wilmington, Del., where it was to produce a new hybrid model, the Atlantic. The company predicted the plant would employ 2,000 workers, and Vice President Joe Biden was on hand when the company announced the purchase.

      But the Department of Energy has frozen Fisker’s green energy loan in response to its poor performance, ABC News reported.

      Now Fisker officials have been signaling that the company could abandon plans to assemble the Atlantic in Delaware if it loses federal support, and instead build the vehicle overseas.

      “If Fisker no longer gets government monies, then obviously we are in a place where other options are open to us and have to be considered from a business perspective,” Fisker spokesman Roger Ormisher told ABC News.

      The BigGovernment.com website reported on the Fisker mess, noting: “Insiders tell Big Government that the Fisker Karma scandal is a ‘green car Solyndra.’”

      • No coincidence where Joe Biden is from and where Fisker’s plans to produce these cars were—-the same state. That’s as clear as day for anyone who is open minded enough to understand it and accept it. I’m sorry—-there’s no reason why U.S. taxpayers were funding Fisker—-not even the prospect of that factory employing 2000—-when we all knew 200 would be closer to the truth. This wreaks of corruption. They were getting millions in U.S. loans—–to produce a $100,000 car in Finland? Frankly, we could do without the Department of Energy anyway. Now they still have their hands out and are saying they can’t continue with the Delaware factory idea unless we cough up more green. Here’s an idea: Stop giving green for nonsensical “green.”

  3. What exactly are the implications of the administrators being “personally responsible”. It makes it sound as if the administrator will be personally liable if a new owner of SAAB ultimately fails. If their decision is based on appropriate due diligence, will they really have any personal liability if things don’t work out?

    • As a lawyer, I find this “personally responsible” idea to be utter nonsense. It certainly would be viewed as such in any US bankruptcy situation. When lawsuits are filed, there is an extraordinary amount of immunity that judges and the lawyers involved have.

      Plus, the law puts certain obligations in the lawyers to represent certain interests. Most lawyers who represent the bankrupt estate represent the interests of the creditors. I am not sure in Sweden how this process works but I would suspect that that administrators have a duty to pay off the creditors as best as they can and if that means the end of Saab, so be it.

      Now if the best interests of the creditors coincide with Saab’s survival, then the administrators are free to pursue that avenue.

      I think Youngman’s new offer, if it really involves a lot of present cash, will have to be considered very strongly by the administrators precisely because it would take care of so many creditors. But none of us have any clue about how this new offer is structured. How much cash is up front? How much will be paid out in the future and how many contingencies are involved and what are they? Who knows?

      But at any rate, I doubt seriously the administrators fear much personal responsibility. If they had much potential for personal responsibility, they would have to have enormous amounts of malpractice insurance and the insurance premiums for that would be astronomical.

      • If you think about it, it’s sort of like making a parole board or a judge personally responsible for the actions of the person they release. Yes, some of us would love to see that accountability—-but it doesn’t usually happen that way. I don’t see how the Receivers can be personally responsible for anything that they don’t have direct control over once a decision is made. Still, I sure hope the money game favors Youngman over NEVS.

  4. This big picture is it does not depend on who makes the electric car or no matter how good the quality is.The Fiskar Karma is made in Finland where my Viggen was masterfully crafted.

    The product has to match demand and right now the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf are not in the game. You can’t legislate what to drive. This is why people in the USA like to drive SUVs, Crossovers and I even chose a 9-5 Combi to drive in comfort with performance and haul my stuff!

  5. Nicely written, ryan, and a really interesting read, although I don`t understand why the administrators should be “personally responsible” – how long for, how much for? I am with 3cyl on this.

    You seem to be arguing the case for NEVS, albeit not strongly. But couldn`t M&M also develop, with great help from those SAAB engineers, eXWD too. They have considerable experience in a wide range of vehicle manufacture and now produce an EV within the group. They would still be my favourite, if they are still in the bidding, which seems not to be the case.

    But this Venture Capital/British Virgin Islands aspect of NEVS still makes me nervous. I agree with Angelo`s last couple of sentences. Youngman would be my second favourite and that could work out, after all Geely seem to have done OK by Volvo.

    • Thanks.

      Indeed, my intent was not to argue whether NEVS would be the ideal situation but instead offer perspective as to what it really means if the administrators were to actually finalize a deal with NEVS. The stakes are high at this point and we are already beginning to see some fallout against Swedish Government officials, so this suggests to me that a bad decision on the part of the administrators will not be taken lightly. And you are correct that M&M could just as easily (and very likely will) pursue eXWD technology in future cars.

  6. I’m not sure that the admins would have run this article if they realized the heavy political subtext.

    I’m Canadian, so not as heavily invested in this, but here’s a primer for our non-American friends:

    Solyndra was one of many “Green Economy” investments made by the US government at the beginning of the current economic meltdown. These investments have done well for the US overall but, as one would expect with any investment portfolio, some investments did not.

    Solyndra was the largest such failure, and so has become a conservative (aka Republican) talking point, meant to symbolize the “fact” that government should never invest in Americans, at any time, for any reason (unless these Americans are finance or oil industry execs). The previous such talking point was the auto bailout, but that backfired when the US auto industry seemingly recovered thanks to government help.

    Europeans will recognize this political conflict in their own national discourse, of course. The right wing claims that the economy can only recover if the government slashes all non-military spending, and the left wing claims that the government must increase spending during times of crisis.

    It’s not something that can be resolved in an automotive blog, and it doesn’t belong here.

    • Automotive industries are so large, and effect the economies of so many different countries, and involve so many political decisions, that politics are going to be part of the equation, no matter what. Personally I think political discussions really belong in an automotive blog. You can’t really discuss the automotive industry in a vacuum that does not exist.

      Yeah Solindra was a failure. But as you say, the US bailout of the auto industry has been a huge success. Win some. Loose some. I think far worse than the decision to support Solindra was the bailout of the “too big to fail banks.”

      • Re; ” too big to fail banks.”

        And aren’t we in the West paying a very high price for those political decisions.

      • Exactly.

        One cannot artificially remove politics from the picture. Especially when the we are discussing “accountability”, which is the core theme of this article.

    • Bernard: Ford recovered beautifully without the same bailout that GM got. And European FIAT would have helped Chrysler reinvigorate—-as that plan was already in progress before Chrysler was gifted with the “loans.” Some of us are still of the opinion that Government “help” was uncalled for—picking winners should not be the responsibility of the government, at least not in America. The Solyndra “talking point” is a great one. Half a billion dollars was flushed down the toilet, making a couple people very rich at the expense of U.S. taxpayers like me. They are not the only ones either—-do some research and you’ll find that “green energy” is getting a lot of help from some politicians and repaying them handsomely when it’s campaign time—one hand washing the other. And before I’m accused of being too one sided or political, I will glady acknowledge that this sort of thing happens on both sides of the poltical spectrum—-it’s not one party. I completely agree that the “too big to fail” banks shouldn’t have been “saved” either. So inconsistent that some were allowed to fail and others were propped up, presumably based on who they “support.” As far as oil companies go, they are making billions and they are paying millions in taxes—-“subsidies” makes it sound like they’re being given something and the plain fact is that the government isn’t “giving” them anything. In this case, “subsidizing” means confiscating less in taxes, not giving them taxpayer dollars.

      • Yeah, but auto manufacturers make a useable product (the real economy). Bank’s don’t.

        I agree that the government should not pick winners and losers, but we only had three automakers.

        Ford actually foresaw the crisis and heavily borrowed before the crisis came, so it didn’t need to borrow any more from the government. Much of that borrowing was from the Ford family who loaned it to Ford so they could keep control of enough voting shares to run the company. Most of the other loans Ford got were from too big to fail banks which got bailed out; so you can say Ford was indirectly bailed out when the banks they took loans from just before the crisis were bailed out after the crisis.

        And of course both GM and Chrysler got government bailouts.

        So really an argument can be made that the government was not picking winners and losers in the automotive bailouts since all got bailed out — it was just that Ford’s was indirect.

        As for the solar and electrical loans…. Perhaps this really should be viewed as the government attempting to do research and development on alternative energy. In the past, this kind of research was done in government labs, but now this kind of research is privatized, but government supported. Much of research and development never pans out. Just the way science works.

        • David, some good points, but: Ford was also in the initial group (who flew private jets to Washington, DC) to ask for loans. A few opportunistic lawmakers (narcicissists that they are) capitalized on it by crying outrage that the auto executives flew from Detroit to Washington, DC instead of driving. Of course, on the next visit, I think GM drove cars—–towing the line to try to look responsible. I’m not sure about Chrysler—-if they flew commercial or also drove cars (ridiculous since they already own jets and have pilots on retainer to fly them). I digress. Anyway, Ford bailed out on the bailout at this point, fully realizing that they’d literally be owned by childish politicians. But the point is, they were also initially in for this round of loans, but had the good sense to go their own way when it became apparent what was happening. As for Solyndra—-I understand what you’re saying. I understand—there are government researchers such as the health group at NIH, who explore medicine. And they share the information with private enterprise like the drug companies, who then spend the millions and millions necessary to bring new drugs to market. And maybe it could be that way too with solar power—-government research and partnerships with companies willing to invest in technology to make money later. But I see a huge danger in just “loaning” half a billion dollars to Solyndra (and similar amounts to others) and no oversight at all to go with it. It becomes a sort of slush fund too often—-the Solyndra executives turned out to be big campaign contributors to the current administration, even though funding for them began under the previous. This goes against my normal instinct, but in this case I’d rather see government hiring researchers and later, sharing/selling technology to private groups to take the ball across the goal line—-when millions are needed to build factories and distribute the goods. Sometimes, government gets it right—-like NASA in the 1960s.

    • Solyndra is indeed a hot-button issue in American politics. But, I don’t use it as an example for that reason, but merely by the virtue that so many people are aware of it. And it provides and interesting contrast against Bloom Energy, which has been showing some significant strides with their work.

  7. I am not sure about the rest of you, but from reading between the lines, these last few weeks. If NEVS trully wanted to restart SAAB as a whole, they would have been interested in every piece of SAAB- parts, tools and the whole kit and kaboodle. It’s kind of like if Levi Strauss was in bankruptcy and a bidder for the estate didn’t want the zipper and button factory, how in the world can you make jeans without zippers and buttons? NEVS has never produced a car or for the matter, they haven’t made anything slightly automotive related. NEVS is barely even a year old company?

    I only see NEVS as a startup, they have no true interest in SAAB as a whole, nor as anything we all know and have loved. My opinion is that if NEVS wins the bidding process, that will be the end of SAAB. Accountability or not the winning bidder should be the one who trully wants SAAB to be SAAB and wants all of it!

  8. The real reason for Solyndra’s fall is not lack-of-accountability but the fact that solar tech itself is crap!! It is massively energy-inefficient, cost-intensive and not-compact taking up huge real-estate!!.

    NEVS is an electric-focussed startup. Nothing to do with solar power! And Ryan to be more honest NEVS (assuming they get Saab) will have access to
    – Saab’s engineering capabilities
    – Saab’s design competencies (incl. the people that designed the aero-x)
    – Saab’s manufacturing plants
    – Lithium supply chain thru the consortium
    – Battery tech thru the consortium
    – Saab’s biopower tech thru the 9-3 biopower, Aero-X E100 tech

    I think the administrators know this and that’s why NEVS is being viewed positively by the swedish authorities.

    • Yet they don’t want tooling, that makes no sense if they intend on producing cars, after all its not like they are M&M and bringing their own capabilities to the table.

      I would be amazed if NEVS had any intention on producing cars themselves. They may well want to supply battery or chassis technology but I doubt very much they ever intend on making a single car.

      • We all know that Youngman/Mahindra will have difficulty getting GM approval if they wish to build the previous models of 9-3, 9-5 etc as GM is present in both the chinese and indian markets.Thats why saab tooling has taken a back seat.

        Also, no one knows what new models youngman/mahindra may build. So why would you know what models NEVS will build?

        • I see NEVS as pie in the sky—-I don’t imagine they will build ANY cars, at least not mass production. Perhaps a couple concept vehicles? Youngman and Mahindra are in the business.

        • I don’t know and did not claim to.

          I look at NEVS and what they say, they are a recently formed off shore consortium without any previous significant experience in car production. In their own words they are interested in some of the SAAB assets, there is no indication they will continue the SAAB brand or become a manufacturer of SAAB cars. I simply do not think they are interested in becoming a primary car manufacturer.

          Do you really think NEVS will be producing SAAB cars in the future?

          I think it is much more likely they will look to become a component/platform design/technology player for electric vehicles. Licensing out their technology.

    • I never made the claim that there was a technological connection between Solyndra and NEVS. I’m not sure how that could have been inferred.

      I merely used Solyndra as an example of a failed green-energy promoting startup that was due largely as a result of insufficient oversight. But yes, I agree that this is not the *only* reason why they have failed, but It is a big one.

  9. I suppose one part of accountability is having access to what you need. Let’s say for some reason Youngman gets the bid and will not get a GM license (highly probable). And they also want to build right away and Phoenix is too far off.

    Is there any other European platform that Youngman could immediately get its hands on (get a license to build) which Saab could quickly tweak and produce? Maybe that is what Youngman is thinking.

    • Wouldn’t there be a Peugeot or Renault product that might work? Of course, recently, GM stuck their big nose in France too—and since they want Saab buried with no chance of a resurrection, to the best of their ability, they’d try to block any Peugeot deal with Youngman-Saab too. But hopefully the French government might thumb their nose at GM if any such nonsense occurred. I think Peugeot would welcome the chance to make some money on a venture like this—and their cars have been fundamentally pretty good—and if Saab engineers had a crack at improving all aspects, undoubtedly they would.

    • This is an interesting question: Are there any other platforms available that Youngman could immediately build upon. It will most probably take a coalition to build the next SAAB automobile. It was done with the 9000 and most recently an engine was sourced from BMW. In any event, I am looking forward to SAAB cars being produced again.

    • Yes, that is a good question. Just how good or bad is the youngman-lotus lineup, especially their SUV concept? I am sure the electronic architecture is on sub par when compared to current ones in other European or us brands as well as many other areas. But still there must be tooling for a lot of Body in White. Saab must have some as well from the OG 9-3 pre-03 (i.e even hatch), no ?

      Of course that could only sell in some markets, but still.

      Bring some face-lifted hatches with modern ECUs =) I would buy it (but then i am in love with that styling)!

  10. Thanks for the info on the valley startups, i didnt know that.Then there has to be a lot of brave souls out there if you look at all the startups and their ideas 😉

    OT but I was on a meeting where they presented humans ability to grasp future events. According to them we are capable of grasp and really feel situation awareness of approx 2 hours into the future….haha..then all the talk about future eco pollution and disasters are very hard to really (other than conceptually) understand what it means for your biz.

      • Ryan,

        Ok thanks, didnt know that neither. But i hear that they start to think of automotive as the next hot thing in silicon valley. I guess the “big data” and “cloud” goes well with cars in the future when embedded devices increases and they gets connected.Would love to do nodejs on a embedded device for heavy I/O stuff =)

        I also think thinks like TI DMD (MEMS technology) can have a great future for LED/Lasers and projection applications in the cars.

        Having said that, Sweden is also a great place for IT innovations!

  11. NEVS. Yada yada. NEVS. Yada yada. Yada yada yada yada.

    The volume of commentary based on no actual knowledge here. Yikes.

    • Yup. The “change is bad” crowd are out in force with their torches and pitchforks. Electric doesn’t necessarily spell “green” but it’s easy to politicise this thing if you jump on that agenda. Maybe – just maybe – there are people out there who think we should try and improve on the technology of today, whilst keeping an eye on the past.

      We will have to wait and see.

  12. Interesting times: for the administrators – flock the dead horse for as much cash as possible for concurrent creditors, even if that means something as NEVS. So what about all the previous suitors during the hey day of the GM saga: Merbanco anyone? Benny Ecclestone and his group etc etc? So how does a 60-year plus company get flocked to the highest bidder whose key competencies and core business is not auto manufacturing? Just to get your hands on the money to pay creditors? Since when was the Swedish Gov interested in altering the automotive landscape to know favor this moribund start-up?

    • The amount NEVs is offering, will NOT give the unsecured creditors more than a few pence in the £, if that [allowing for conversion ie; euro.krona].

  13. Another case of someone spouting off about Solyndra without understanding the real reason it failed… government distortion of the silicon market, (and not the US government). Rising silicon prices were driving up the cost of traditional solar panels & one of the benefits of Solyndra’s is they are based on a different materials. But the Chinese government didn’t like the high prices of silicon as it was having adverse affects on its own domestic solar panel industry & worked to drive down the prices by increasing the supply, and hence drove down the price of silicon dramatically. And by the way, there were plenty of private money invested in Solyndra. Now, I’m not defending the loans or the process, or ask if anyone should have invested regardless the source, or if anyone should have asked if it was reasonable to assume silicon prices would remain high, etc… just trying to point out the real reason for the failure. And lets be honest, if silicon prices hadn’t fallen or not so dramatically, those loans would be praised instead of vilified.

    • It’s a tough and competitive world. If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. If you’re a U.S. company accepting half a billion dollars from taxpayers, understand the business climate and adjust. If you’re saying that China is going to use their economic might to sqaush green energy start-ups in the U.S.—-here’s and idea: Let’s drill for oil, natural gas, oil/shale and become the world leaders in nuclear power and let’s forget the wind and solar charade. We’ll let China have at it—-solar is one of the most inefficient ways of generating the energy we need anyway—-and if it’s the dead end for America that you say it is, we’ll let them corner the market, then we’ll reverse engineer their great discoveries/inventions, as they have been doing to Japan and the West.

    • Yes, biritter. But, the point of this article is not to give a detailed analysis of all the various reasons why Solyndra went bust, as that would be missing the point.

      The point was to use them as a basis for illustrating the importance of accountability. I’ll doubt there ever was a company that went bankrupt for only *one* reason.

  14. Saab as it is now, is à perfect investment opportunity as of following reasons;
    – A reborn Saab has no debt!
    – No over staffed operations.
    – No costly or hidden obligations to past, workers, customers or suppliers.
    – It has technology that cab sold on the world market
    – It is well situated in a worldclass automotive hub for r&d.
    – It has access to manufactor transportation products from just a few hundred to 200 000 pieces.

    Maybe the auto industry is shifting it’s foundation, maybe batterymakers and worldclass suppliers of automobile technology is shaping how cars are created.
    Saab can be both of those.

    As current Saab owners I would argue that it’s better that Saab ‘parts’ be independent and in solid gov ownership, trying to expand it business and first-class-service than being connected to a new Saab car co. that might try the untested path.

    In both NEVS and YM business plan we see a new 9-3 ready in 2 years time. Let’s be excited what it will be filled with….

    If I bought Saab with my own piggy bank, I would be tempted to redesign the exterior shell to set my mark on the product.
    Question is who is going to design the next Saab….
    Jason Castriota all though a great guy… did not connect that well with his Phoenix so I wonder if his new 9-3 will be thrown out, in the same way his predecessors design was thrown out in the Start of the Spyker era.

    Padian (new gen 9-5) and Hareide (second gen 900)is a team that could continue the Saab legacy.
    Not to forget Bjorn Enwall (1st gen 900) still alive.

    • Battery makers may eventually all have to go to China, because all modern batteries have rare earth elements and China now has a monopoly on rare earths. This is another reason why batteries are not such a good idea if you are not a Chinese company.

      But I do think Saab’s forte is being a “skunkworks (name given to aerospace company — Lockheed or Mc Donald [can’t remember which one] — that produced really unusual aerospace solutions).” I have come to think of Saab as GM’s skunkworks. So even as a supplier it could continue to make its mark in the auto industry. I hope it doesn’t just become a supplier however.

  15. The new 9-3 must be iconic enough to carry a whole brand by itself.
    The only other brand I know of that does it is minicooper, and mini started from zero when it was brought back to life.

    An iconic electric hybrid saab 9-3 in 3 versions that’s what we have to look forward to;
    – hatch
    – convertible
    – suv

    • If “new” Saab think conventional engine and design just for a minute it won’t work…. This is the silver bullet, where it is do or die, if it comes down to awesome Saab innovations all wrapped up in quirky shapes, with ‘less is more’ interiors inspired by the best of scandinavian design…. This will work!

    • Indeed, not quite what I was expecting 🙂

      I think folks are getting distracted by my use of Solyndra as an example. But, some interesting points are being made. I just wish that folks weren’t so conclusive about NEVS. The fact is, there is a lot that we don’t know about them.

  16. Governments make strategic investments in industries that are important to them; with very mixed results. I’m not sure why this is a shock.

    This is historically true (in the US) with most, if not all major industries: mining (very cheap mining claim grants), oil/gas (huge tax subsidies), farming (huge tax subsidies/price guarantees) autos (auto bailout), railroads (land grants), aerospace (NASA grants, FAA supports, infrastructure subsidies, government purchases) and the internet (created by gov’t and provided free access to entrepreneurs). In perhaps every one of those cases, private business have gone bankrupt/folded even with significant government support (pets.com anyone??).

    I live by a solar manufacturer that is barely scraping by and is the lead plaintiff in WTO trade dispute with China. What has been reported (links provided below), it that China apparently decided that it would not allow the US’s one-time investment to gain a lead in solar production to overcome China’s very large investment in solar, so China engaged in illegal trade practices to crowd out new entrants. Those facts have not fit the political story pushed in the US, so they have been largely absent for the story.

    If there is any applicability to Solyndra to NEVS; its that NEVS will need governmental support in a way that Sweden failed to provide to SAAB and NEVS will be more sensitive as a business venture as an infant technology to predatory practices by China and other countries.

    Otherwise, Solyndra is a veiled statement of one’s political leanings that really doesn’t belong in a SAAB blog.

    http://news.opb.org/article/solarworld-workers-get-federal-aid-layoff-blamed-chinese-competition/
    http://news.opb.org/article/commerce-department-rules-against-chinese-solar-panel-makers/

    • As I have mentioned above: one cannot not artificially sanitize a discussion, so that all traces of politics are removed, especially if the article theme is “accountability”.

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.

Close