Opel Workers: Can We Do This Deal Already?

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

GM’s sale of Opel to Magna/Sberbank is being held up by the European Union, which is looking into whether the German government unfairly favored Magna’s bid. But while the interregnum plays out (the EU will decide by November 27th), GM has plenty of time to develop a case of seller’s remorse. After all, GM’s VP for Global Engineering Mark Reuss recently told Autoline After Hours that Opel is completely integrated into GM’s global product development, and that the relationship “won’t change.” Does that, as Business Week’s David Welch asked, mean GM will keep all of Opel’s development capacity while reducing loss exposure to 35 percent? Reuss had to change the subject, but it’s obviously not the case. With Daewoo under fire, GM would clearly prefer to keep Opel’s development capacity integrated, and keep its intellectual property out of the hands of Russian automakers. And with German newspapers reporting that GM’s board is considering a “plan B” to keep Opel within the GM fold, Opel’s workers are threatening to strike.

Ultimately though, it seems that the Magna deal will ultimately go through. The EU is not likely to block the deal for the simple reason that they won’t take over the German government’s interim financing or Magna deal-dependent $6.7b loan. Without this money, Opel would enter bankruptcy, leading to deep cuts in employment across Europe. Meanwhile, Magna has concluded a deal with Opel’s Spanish workers, continuing Magna’s back-away from the deep employment cuts that might have scuppered the deal.

Meanwhile, GM Europe’s Carl-Peter Forster tells Reuters that opposition to the Magna deal on GM’s board is “clearly below 50 percent.” And if you look at the collected arguments for keeping Opel, they are based in regret over giving up development capacity more than anything resembling a strong financial argument for keeping the troubled European division. But when all of the compromising is over, will there a strong financial argument for a Magna-owned Opel? IHS Global Insight’s Tim Urqhart thinks not:

We need to see some serious structural changes at Opel-Vauxhall. Every time Magna talks to the representatives at a plant it comes back with a huge compromise on job losses. At the start of the year there was a general consensus that four out of the 10 plants should go. Now that’s down to probably none, although the Antwerp, Belgium, plant is still under pressure

If Magna can’t restructure Opel to profitability, and if it can’t monetize the Opel intellectual property that GM is fighting to keep out of the Russian industry’s hands, it will be stuck with a losing proposition. It’s looking like it will be a good month before we really understand what Opel IP GM will be able to keep exclusive, and whether Magna-Opel will be a viable proposition. And until a deal is reached, the possibility of an Opel bankruptcy can not be ignored.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Join the conversation
2 of 3 comments
  • Steven02 Steven02 on Oct 30, 2009

    Jobs are going to be lost here. It will happen. Germany has been playing a bit a bully ignoring some other bids. I believe GM can still write a letter that would bust the Magna deal if they wanted to, but I don't think the EU has to step in. Germany could get its loan money back immediately and send Opel in to bankruptcy, or it could continue to support Opel and help find another buyer. One of Germany's problem was the loss of jobs that was going to occur under GM's plans to restructure. That is likely going to happen no matter how this shakes out.

  • Bunter1 Bunter1 on Oct 30, 2009

    Jobs in the auto industry have been primed for big losses for a long time. The overcapacity will go down somewhere and it looks like the european and US gov'ts are scrambling to keep it from happening on their turf while not freaking out the World Trade folks. I think the market forces will snuff GMNA and GMyurp no matter what they try, it's to vulnerable and something will have to give. Too big (and dumb) to survive? Bunter

  • Varezhka The biggest underlying issue of Mitsubishi Motors was that for most of its history the commercial vehicles division was where all the profit was being made, subsidizing the passenger vehicle division losses. Just like Isuzu.And because it was a runt of a giant conglomerate who mainly operated B2G and B2B, it never got the attention it needed to really succeed. So when Daimler came in early 2000s and took away the money making Mitsubishi-Fuso commercial division, it was screwed.Right now it's living off of its legacy user base in SE Asia, while its new parent Nissan is sucking away at its remaining engineering expertise in EV and kei cars. I'd love to see the upcoming US market Delica, so crossing fingers they will last that long.
  • ToolGuy A deep-dive of the TTAC Podcast Archives gleans some valuable insight here.
  • Tassos I heard the same clueless, bigoted BULLSHEET about the Chinese brands, 40 years ago about the Japanese Brands, and more recently about the Koreans.If the Japanese and the Koreans have succeeded in the US market, at the expense of losers such as Fiat, Alfa, Peugeot, and the Domestics,there is ZERO DOUBT in my mind, that if the Chinese want to succeed here, THEY WILL. No matter what one or two bigots do about it.PS try to distinguish between the hard working CHINESE PEOPLE and their GOVERNMENT once in your miserable lives.
  • 28-Cars-Later I guess Santa showed up with bales of cash for Mitsu this past Christmas.
  • Lou_BC I was looking at an extended warranty for my truck. The F&I guy was trying to sell me on the idea by telling me how his wife's Cadillac had 2 infotainment failures costing $4,600 dollars each and how it was very common in all of their products. These idiots can't build a reliable vehicle and they want me to trust them with the vehicle "taking over" for me.