GM Tog Saabs USA-vinst (Union Says GM Cooked Saab's Books)
Dagens Industri has published a letter from Saab’s union bosses which accuses GM of playing silly buggers with the brand’s accounts. As Saabs United says, “The report tends to support the idea that GM are handy at shuffling results around to suit their reporting needs.” [Thanks for the TTAC translation to commentator Naser Rouholamin]
Recently, the future of SAAB has been the subject of many allegations and much debate. Specifically we are thinking about such claims as “using tax money for playing monopoly”, or “SAAB has always made a loss, hence there is no point in saving it now”.
In order to rebuke the latter claim one must realise that not even GM would have kept Saab afloat the last 20 years from pure goodwill.
No, naturally it has kept Saab because of its development, production gains as well as economic benefits. In a large corporations, accounting procedures can be used to choose were to place profits and losses.
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons GM has chosen to place losses on Saab.
But it’s the result on the last row in the corporation’s balance sheet that is of interest. As an example of how this can be done we can look at the 2007 fiscal year, when Saab sold 120000 cars, of which 85000 were in Europe.
The cars sold in Europe generated profits for Saab whilst the rest, predominantly US market cars, did not generate profits. However that is not strange considering that sales revenue for these cars was taken by GM in the USA, meaning that Saab bore the costs but saw no sales revenue in return.
The above example shows how the accounts in a global company are treated. It can be very misleading for those who do not know the background information. Thus the allegations that Saab has never made a profit are not correct.
Regrettably the debate on how taxpayer’s money should be spent and invested is more centred on political rhetoric than reliable industrial policy.
Saab has requested that the government guarantee loans from the European investment bank, not that the government should become an owner or give Saab a grant with taxpayer money. Acting as a guarantor on the loan, together with GM, is a prerequisite for in Saabs business plan. This plan means bringing production and development of new products back to Sweden. Furthermore securing the loan will make Saab more attractive to new owners.
The risk involved with guaranteeing this loan is seems quit reasonable when compared the consequences of Saab failing with its restructuring and at least 15000-20000 people in and around Saab loosing their jobs, people who are also tax payers.
This loss tax revenue and the money which the government would have to spend if Saab, and as a result many of its suppliers, go bankrupt would far exceed the 5 billion Swedish kronor which the government would be guaranteeing. And in the case of a bankruptcy the taxpayers will defiantly have to foot the bill.
More by Robert Farago
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- Daniel J Until we get a significant charging infrastructure and change times get under 10 minutes, yes
- Mike I own 2 gm 6.2 vehicles. They are great. I do buy alot of gas. However, I would not want the same vehicles if they were v6's. Jusy my opinion. I believe that manufacturers need to offer engine options for the customer. The market will speak on what the consumer wants.For example, I dont see the issue with offering a silverado with 4cyl , 6 cyl, 5.3 v8, 6.2 v8, diesel options. The manufacturer will charge accordingly.
- Mike What percentage of people who buy plug in hybrids stop charging them daily after a few months? Also, what portion of the phev sales are due to the fact that the incentives made them a cheaper lease than the gas only model? (Im thinking of the wrangler 4xe). I wish there was a way to dig into the numbers deeper.
- CEastwood If it wasn't for the senior property tax freeze in NJ I might complain about this raising my property taxes since most of that tax goes to the schools . I'm not totally against EVs , but since I don't drive huge miles and like to maintain my own vehicles they are not practical especially since I keep a new vehicle long term and nobody has of yet run into the cost of replacing the battery on an EV .
- Aquaticko Problem with PHEV is that, like EVs, they still require a behavioral change over ICE/HEV cars to be worth their expense and abate emissions (whichever is your goal). Studies in the past have shown that a lot of PHEV drivers don't regularly plug-in, meaning they're just less-efficient HEVs.I'm left to wonder how big a battery a regular HEV could have without needing to be a PHEV.