Geely Nixes Volvo Merger, Volvo CEO Explains

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

Despite having already having Volvo Cars as one of its many subsidiaries, China’s Geely signaled roughly a year ago that it wanted to merge with the brand as part of its strategy to expand globally. Plans changed on this week when the company announced that the duo will be retaining their independent corporate structures, though they will continue working on a joint development program for electric vehicles.

This means more backing for the Lynk & Co. brand, a technology-focused joint venture Geely launched with Volvo in 2016. Lynk is hoping to bridge the gap between traditional vehicle sales and subscription-based models, while also pioneering telematics and other connected services that look like an invasion of privacy to some and a technological breakthrough to others. Regardless, the industry as a whole seems convinced this represents the evolution of the automobile and a stable source of revenue for companies capable of monetizing large amounts of data — often with the help of the world’s largest technology firms.

In a recent interview with Automotive News, Volvo CEO Håkan Samuelsson indicated that it wasn’t Volvo’s decision to dissolve the merger. But he did suggest that it was likely for the best, hinting that investors weren’t as keen on the idea as Geely was. At over $8.6 billion (USD), the Swedish brand is valued exceptionally high for its size. Reports from a Citi analysis claimed that important shareholders of the Chinese company expressed concerns that Volvo might be overvalued and could dilute their take. There were also claims that the pair had conflicting corporate cultures. Samuelsson did little to downplay either scenario.

“The valuation only matters on the day that someone is ready to pay,” he explained. “That being said, if you are bringing something in, then you have to determine the valuation and that could lead to endless discussions. But if you keep the companies separate, they can be evaluated separately. I think the capital markets see that as an advantage.”

Ultimately, he believes both companies would be better served by continuing to collaborate on EVs and software development. When asked about the cost benefits of combining efforts on those programs, instead of a going through with a traditional merger, he made it clear the tech stuff mattered most to Volvo — even if it wasn’t obvious to outsider eyes.

“They are so important but they are difficult to measure,” Samuelsson said. “If you are focused on hardware, then you could say, ‘OK, now I buy twice the volume of this shock absorber and I get 8 percent cost saving.’ It is very easy to measure. But if the synergies mean you will get something such as the Auto Pilot to market six months faster than expected and it’s better than if you did it alone, how do you value that? Unfortunately, I cannot quantify that as easily as with something more traditional.”

[Image: Volvo Cars]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 14 comments
  • ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
  • ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
Next