One Percent Of GM China Worth $85m

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Fresh details on GM’s Asian wranglings are coming in, and it seems that SAIC paid The General a mere $85m for the one percent needed to control the joint venture. GM’s Nick Reilly tells the New York Times:

the 51 percent stake would give S.A.I.C. the right to approve the venture’s budget, future plans and senior management. But the venture has a cooperative spirit in which S.A.I.C. has already been able to do so… S.A.I.C. wanted to have a majority stake to consolidate the venture in its financial reporting

Which is about as credible as the conclusion that the Shanghai and India deals are going to provide GM International with a meaningful amount of cash with which to rescue its European and Korean divisions. As it turns out, the Indian deal isn’t going to translate into free cash for GM. GM and SAIC will set up a joint Hong Kong-based investment company, which GM will give its Indian operations and SAIC will fund with $300-$530m, bringing its overall value to $650m.

Reilly explains the value of the India venture thusly to the WSJ:

SAIC’s participation helps GM “defray or share large investment” required for the India push and help the partners achieve results faster, Mr. Reilly said in a conference call with reporters. It also allows GM to market more products in India that had not been “envisaged in our GM-only plan,” particularly ultracheap micro minivans and buses that GM makes with two Chinese partners.

But here’s the rub, as explained by Reilly:

The long-term goal of the Hong Kong investment company will be to expand into other emerging markets. But the initial management structure will be in India, while any expansion into other emerging markets would be managed from G.M.’s Asian headquarters in Shanghai

Though this partnership will not be without its value, the idea that this sale will actually help GM International’s cash position is suspect at best. The $85m for the one percent of SAIC is clear cash, but it doesn’t begin to scratch $413m recently spent on Daewoo’s share offering, let alone the estimated $5b needed to restructure Opel.

So what is the real payoff for GM? Possibly a larger stake in GM-Wuling, although Reilly says “we don’t have anything to announce on that, but SAIC has been very supportive in discussions around that.” The only thing looking like a real benefit from this deal is only hinted at by Reilly:

GM also has been “able to achieve some funding for other activities [in China] from the Chinese banking sector, which would have been difficult to do on our own,”

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 8 comments
  • Rusted Source Rusted Source on Dec 04, 2009
    Where’s the surprise knowing it’s on a timer? I was thinking more along the lines of a jack-in-the-box kind of thing - only the government knows when that timer goes off, but the rug pulling happens suddenly all the same.
  • PeteMoran PeteMoran on Dec 04, 2009

    Good God, what a mess.

  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
  • FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?
  • Bill Wade I was driving a new Subaru a few weeks ago on I-10 near Tucson and it suddenly decided to slam on the brakes from a tumbleweed blowing across the highway. I just about had a heart attack while it nearly threw my mom through the windshield and dumped our grocery bags all over the place. It seems like a bad idea to me, the tech isn't ready.
  • FreedMike I don't get the business case for these plug-in hybrid Jeep off roaders. They're a LOT more expensive (almost fourteen grand for the four-door Wrangler) and still get lousy MPG. They're certainly quick, but the last thing the Wrangler - one of the most obtuse-handling vehicles you can buy - needs is MOOOAAAARRRR POWER. In my neck of the woods, where off-road vehicles are big, the only 4Xe models I see of the wrangler wear fleet (rental) plates. What's the point? Wrangler sales have taken a massive plunge the last few years - why doesn't Jeep focus on affordability and value versus tech that only a very small part of its' buyer base would appreciate?
  • Bill Wade I think about my dealer who was clueless about uConnect updates and still can't fix station presets disappearing and the manufacturers want me to trust them and their dealers to address any self driving concerns when they can't fix a simple radio?Right.
Next