GM Buying Into Chinese Venture… But With What?

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Dig through the dire news about GM floating around this morning’s autoblogosphere, and you just might notice a story that doesn’t quite jive with all the doom and gloom. Bloomberg reports that GM is “in talks with a local partners” to increase its 34 percent stake in GM-SAIC-Wuling, a Chinese light-truck and van maker. As our man in Beijing reports, China is aggressively stimulating its car market (which has bottomed out, by Chinese standards, at 11 percent growth) and GM wants in on the action. Of course there are just a few issues with the move– beyond the fact that GM has no cash with which to make such a deal. SAIC currently owns 50.1 percent of the consortium, and its Chairman Hu Maoyuan tells Bloomberg that it won’t be giving up its majority. “GM and our partner in Guangxi (Wuling) are still discussing how to settle the share transfer,” says Hu. So GM wants to spend cash it doesn’t have to increase a non-majority stake in an overseas joint venture. Non-starter, right? Not according to Ricon Xia, an analyst with Daiwa Associate Holdings…

Xia figures that GM’s “government first, market second” approach actually has a shot at succeeding in China. “Given the lobbying power of both SAIC and GM, the American carmaker will sooner or later get more shares. This venture is a vital part of GM’s China operation.” And why would China’s government lift a finger to help GM out, regardless of GM’s lobbying prowess? “The current financial situation may actually help GM push forward the deal,” according to Xia. “Especially given the Chinese government’s willingness to help the U.S. fend off the financial crisis that has also hit GM heavily.” As touching as it is to hear that the Chinese want do their part for our flagging economy, GM’s lack of cash seems like the real issue here. Besides, why would American politicians continue to push for a domestic bailout when GM is slashing all things American to up its investments in China? Go figure.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 15 comments
  • MMH MMH on Nov 10, 2008

    @ autonut: A 0% IRR is better for GM than either a negative IRR (investments in US enterprises) or having a Ch11 court simply yank the money. I'm certainly not a bankruptcy expert, but would the Russian and Chinese ventures act as capital shields in the event of Ch11?

  • Bertel Schmitt Bertel Schmitt on Nov 10, 2008

    Iran Contra? Now there's an idea. According to publicly available info, the US-Israel-Iran dealings were a red herring, distracting from the REAL money flow. Planes flew to Nicaragua with arms, came back with drugs. Someone else spin the rest of the story ....

  • Buickman I was called crazy after predicting the sale of GMAC.#canthurtme
  • 3-On-The-Tree Another observation during my time as a firefighter EMT was that seatbelts and helmets do save lives and reduce injury. And its always the other person getting hurt.
  • 3-On-The-Tree Jeff, Matt Posky, When my bike came out in 1999 it was the fastest production motorcycle in the world, 150 HP 197 top speed, 9.57 quarter mile Hayabusa peregrine falcon etc. This led to controversy and calls for high-speed motorcycles to be banned in order to avoid increasingly fast bikes from driving on public roads. This led to a mutual decision nicknamed the “ gentleman’s agreement” to limit bikes to 186mph, ending the production bike speed contest for all bikes 2000 and upward. Honestly once your over a buck 20 it’s all a blur. Most super cars can do over or close to 200mpg, I know at least on paper my 09 C6 corvette LS3 tops out at 190mph.
  • 3-On-The-Tree In my life before the military I was a firefighter EMT and for the majority of the car accidents that we responded to ALCOHOL and drugs was the main factor. All the suggested limitations from everyone above don’t matter if there is a drunken/high fool behind the wheel. Again personal responsibility.
  • Wjtinfwb NONE. Vehicle tech is not the issue. What is the issue is we give a drivers license to any moron who can fog a mirror. Then don't even enforce that requirement or the requirement to have auto insurance is you have a car. The only tech I could get behind is to override the lighting controls so that headlights and taillights automatically come on at dusk and in sync with wipers. I see way too many cars after dark without headlights, likely due to the automatic control being overridden and turned to "Off". The current trend of digital or electro-luminescent dashboards exacerbates this as the dash is illuminated, fooling a driver into thinking the headlights are on.
Next