Report: Renault Considering Separate EV Business, IPO for Assets
Renault SA is reportedly mulling over the possibility of undergoing extensive restructuring, followed by an initial public offering for its electric vehicle assets. While the company had hinted that splitting itself into separate EV and combustion brands was a possibility in February, it wasn’t taken all that seriously. At the time, numerous automakers had suggested dividing themselves along similar lines.
But Ford Motor Co. announced it would actually be going ahead with the plan in March and Renault appears to be similarly warming to the idea, based on a meeting held last week between upper-level management and analysts. This included CEO Luca de Meo and CFO Thierry Pieton, both of whom allegedly acknowledged the real possibility of a split at the French automaker and the subsequent IPO.
“The management team continues to conduct exploratory works in view to split the company into possibly two entities,” Stifel analysts including Pierre Quemener wrote in a note shared by Bloomberg.
One of those businesses was said to be the EV-focused “New Mobility” utilizing assets from Renault’s Mobilize Share car-rental service, which will be separated from its legacy assets.
“The CEO [Luca de Meo] added that the latter could be combined with the ones of a potential partner,” the note continued. “An IPO of New Mobility assets could be contemplated for 2023.”
Renault Group’s previously suggested Mobilize could serve as the foundation for a new vehicle division dedicated to “shared mobility and the mobility of the future.” The abstract revolves around the premise of small EVs utilizing “shared ownership experiences” that would reduce downtime. While Renault presented this as a way to minimize CO2 emissions and help meet Europe’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2040, it quickly got into the weeds when it started making assertions about how this might also help maximize residual value somehow. Releases likewise mention concepts like circular economies and abandoning ownership in favor of advancing the goods-as-a-service trend — something any consumer advocate should probably be vehemently against.
The company even introduced the EZ-1 prototype microcar to help advance the premise, comparing it to the Twizy quadricycle as if that was going to whet everyone’s apatite an envisioned future of never owning your own vehicle. The EV-1 is effectively a permanent rental where customers are required to sync with their smartphones. The vehicle is perpetually connected to the internet, allowing Renault to charge based on mileage and time spent inside the cabin. It’s a concept we’ve seen floated dozens of times before and it never gets any easier to swallow, especially now that some of the largest car-sharing firms have been consistently retreating from numerous markets after a few years of explosive growth.
Renault’s being tight-lipped about this new, prospective plan, so it’s not clear how (or if) Mobilize is going to change. The language being used by the analysis makes it sound as though Mobilize Share is being dismantled to make way for an entirely new EV division. But the automaker’s decision to stick with mobility monikers makes me wonder if it will simply be another attempt to push ride-sharing onto the public. The industry cannot help but keep talking about this stuff, presumably because manufacturers believe they make a fortune turning vehicle owners into permanent renters.
Of course, this is assuming there’s even a concrete plan for EVs in place at this juncture. The French automaker does have other, much bigger problems to contend with and they may be taking precedence — starting with AvtoVAZ.
From Bloomberg:
The possibility of a deep overhaul of Renault is emerging just as the company faces a crisis surrounding its longstanding business in Russia. Renault last month signaled a retreat from its second-largest market by halting operations at its Moscow plant and saying it’s assessing available options for its AvtoVaz venture that makes the country’s top selling Lada brand.
A move to split the company would serve not only to deflect from a costly pullout from Russia, but also to raise funds for development of EVs and technology. Renault cut its forecasts for group operating margin and automotive operating free cash flow, citing the suspension of its business in Russia.
Renault shares fell as much as 0.9 [percent] at the start of trading Tuesday, taking losses since Russia invaded Ukraine to around 24 [percent].
But the company had been discussing the possibility of reorganization ahead of any formal invasions that took place. During a February 18th earnings announcement, the automaker suggested splitting the business so it had a division wholly dedicated to electric vehicles and introducing an array of services.
“Renault is studying the opportunity to bring together its 100 [percent] electric activities and technologies within a dedicated entity in France to accelerate their growth,” read the statement. “At the same time, Renault Group is also studying the opportunity to bring together its activities and technologies of [internal combustion] and hybrid engines and transmissions based outside of France within a dedicated entity.”
This seems highly similar to Ford Motor Co’s decision to create the Model E unit it plans to have focused on all-electric models. While Blue Oval has been somewhat hesitant to overtly push the concept of shared ownership, the unit has been tasked with developing new software and connected-vehicle technologies and services. Meanwhile, other brands have been pretty open about how the transition to EVs would mean changing what future vehicle ownership actually entails. However, as lucrative as that business model might be, it’s a big risk for any company to have wrapped up in their legacy business — perhaps explaining the desire to separate the two.
[Images: Bondart Photography/Shutterstock; Renault]
Consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulations. 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, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, he has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed about the automotive sector by national broadcasts, participated in a few amateur rallying events, and driven more rental cars than anyone ever should. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and learned to drive by twelve. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer and motorcycles.
More by Matt Posky
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- 28-Cars-Later “1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries....It would be better to dump the whole stinking system and take the consequences”― Theodore J. Kaczynski, Ph.D., Industrial Society and Its Future, 1995.
- FreedMike "Automotive connectivity has clearly been a net negative for the end user..."Really? Here's a list of all the net negatives for me:1) Instead of lugging around a road atlas or smaller maps that do nothing but distract me from driving, and don't tell me where to go once I've reached Point B, I can now just ask my car's navigation system to navigate me there. It'll even tell me how long it will take given current traffic conditions. 2) Instead of lugging around a box of a dozen or so cassette tapes that do nothing but distract me from driving, I can now just punch up a virtually endless library of music, podcasts, or audiobooks on the screen, push a button, and play them. 3) I can tell my car, "call (insert name here)" and the call is made without taking my hands off the wheel.4) I can tell my car, "text (insert name here)" and the system takes my dictation, sends me the text, and reads off any replies. 5) I can order up food on my screen, show up at the restaurant, and they'll have it waiting for me. 6) I can pull up a weather map that allows me to see things like hailstorms in my path. 7) If I'm in trouble, I can push a "SOS" button and help will be sent. 8) Using my phone, I can locate my car on a map and navigate to it on foot, and tell it to turn on the heat, A/C, or defrosters.None of these are benefits? Sorry, not sorry...I like them all. Why wouldn't I? Consumers clearly also like this stuff, and if they didn't, none of it would be included in cars. Now, maybe Matt doesn't find these to be beneficial. Fair enough! But he should not declare these things as a "net negative" for the rest of us. That's presumption. So...given all that, what's the answer here? Matt seems to think the answer is to "unplug" and go back to paper maps, boxes of music, and all that. Again, if that's Matt's bag, then fair enough. I mean, I've been there, and honestly, I don't want to go back, but if that's his bag, then go with God, I guess. But this isn't the solution for everyone, and saying otherwise is presumption. Here's a solution that DOES work for everyone: instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, clean the bathwater. You do that very, very simply: require clear, easy-to-understand disclosure of data sharing that happens as the result of all these connected services, and an equally clear, easy-to-understand method for opting out of said data sharing. That works better than turning the clock back to those thrilling days of 1990 when you had to refer to handwritten notes to get you to your date's house, or ripping SIM cards out of your car.
- Funky D What is the over-under for number of recalls in the first 5 years of ownership?
- Normie Dayyum! Great White Woman!The car, I mean. I could feel kinda safe in it.
- Slavuta "The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. " --- 1984
Comments
Join the conversation
"manufacturers believe they make a fortune turning vehicle owners into permanent renters" Maybe in the country of Europe, but in the US car ownership is a Constitutional right. Renault seems to have no plan, and announcing it that way is embarrassing. How can anyone have confidence in Renault's leadership as they wring their hands?
"... As I was sayeeeng, at ze end of ze day, we steel own ahl ze cahrs. Eeet is, how you say, like ze landownairs and ze sharecroppairs?"