Volkswagen Demands More Of Its Second Chinese Wife

Bertel Schmitt
by Bertel Schmitt

Much to my own surprise I read in China Daily that Volkswagen only holds 40 percent in its partnership with its Chinese joint venture partner FAW. I always thought they had the usual 50:50. Well, it looks like my beliefs will become reality.

“FAW plans to transfer an additional 9 percent stake to Volkswagen’s luxury unit Audi,” writes the government-owned newspaper. The usual insiders with knowledge of the deal “note it has already been approved by the joint venture’s board of directors and has been submitted to government departments for approval.”

The new share structure would be 51:49, giving FAW that extra share so that First Auto Works can reflect the complete revenue of the joint venture on its books.

Moving the shares to Audi doesn’t make a difference as far as Volkswagen is concerned. On Wolfsburg’s books it’s one and the same. In China, it probably looks better if the country’s largest and most revered luxury brand has a bigger slice.

Volkswagen has aggressive plans for China. The company is busy expanding capacities at its both joint ventures. It is understandable that VW wants to put its holdings on more solid footings. Last year, China became Volkswagen’s largest market worldwide on a consolidated basis, and it is bound to grow rapidly. It is understandable that Wolfsburg wants to have a bigger share of the earnings. That, however, is a simplistic view. The byzantine and tax optimized financials of a German-Sino joint venture are impossible to understand for an outsider, and only few insiders know all the secrets.

China Daily is only scratching the surface when it says:

“While most Sino-foreign automobile joint ventures have a 50-50 structure and are theoretically equal partners, foreign automakers usually have a majority ownership or even 100 percent share of the parts companies that provide components needed to make the cars.”

A foreign joint venture partner makes money through licensing fees for brands, cars, platforms, technology. There are parts sales, charges for training programs, sales literature and a myriad of other things. Compared to money you can take off the top, dividends from shares are cumbersome, slow and usually tax-inefficient. What’s more, the profit distribution does not necessarily have to follow the number of shares. The shareholder agreement can specify a different payout. If you want more of the profits, write another contract.

Control also is not the issue. In practical terms, one doesn’t gain more control of such a joint venture by having more shares to vote. Decisions are made by consensus. Both sides have to say yes. If one side says no, it’s a no. Every decision is a deal.

Volkswagen has another trump card in its relationships with China. Like most successful businessmen in China, Volkswagen has a second wife. SAIC was its first. FAW came second. The two are bitter rivals. Long seen as an impediment, this enhances Volkswagen’s bargaining power in the daily dealings. If one JV partner says no, there is always another one. VW has successfully used the power of polygamous persuasion brought by models, platforms, technologies and intra-Chinese rivalries.

Zeng Zhiling, director of JD Power Asia Pacific said: “From both cases (FAW-VW and Shanghai GM), we can see one thing in common – Chinese automakers are still in the weaker position at their joint ventures.”

So why does Volkswagen increase its shares of the FAW-VW joint venture? Probably because they have the money and they think it will bring better returns than sitting in the bank. Why does FAW sell? It puts money on the table, and possibly gains FAW more attention from Wolfsburg.

Bertel Schmitt
Bertel Schmitt

Bertel Schmitt comes back to journalism after taking a 35 year break in advertising and marketing. He ran and owned advertising agencies in Duesseldorf, Germany, and New York City. Volkswagen A.G. was Bertel's most important corporate account. Schmitt's advertising and marketing career touched many corners of the industry with a special focus on automotive products and services. Since 2004, he lives in Japan and China with his wife <a href="http://www.tomokoandbertel.com"> Tomoko </a>. Bertel Schmitt is a founding board member of the <a href="http://www.offshoresuperseries.com"> Offshore Super Series </a>, an American offshore powerboat racing organization. He is co-owner of the racing team Typhoon.

More by Bertel Schmitt

Comments
Join the conversation
 1 comment
  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next