Find Reviews by Make:
So, you thought your $14,312,130,642 “investment” in New Chrysler bought you some accountability, seeing as it’s your tax money? Here’s your Frankfurt wake-up call from Uncle Sam’s appointed/anointed ChryCo CEO, via the Associated Press:
Marchionne said Wednesday that Chrysler’s new business plan won’t be released until November, and declined to discuss the forthcoming model lineup.
13 Comments on “[First] Quote of the Day: Marchionne: At Chrysler, We Own You...”
Read all comments
Chrysler is a bit of a shambles and I can see points on both sides.
Firstly, the US taxpayer does deeserve to know what’s happening at Chrysler since it is their money which bailed them out.
On the other hand, FIAT want to run Chrysler like a business. And like any other business, you don’t release business plans and line up information until you have to so the competition doesn’t get a head start.
In short, Chrysler (and the US government) screwed themselves over, by taking tax money AND allowing themselves a new owner. Thus, creating a situation where you can’t please everyone.
Peter Schiff was right, they should have been allowed to fail. It would have corrected the market and maybe Ford would be prospering more, plus transplant factories in the US would be picking up extra demand, thus keeping US workers employed.
But what do I know? I’m not head of the taskforce for automobiles, am I….?
He refused to discuss the forthcoming model lineup because there isn’t anything forthcoming any time soon to discuss.
Chrysler’s only hope for survival is a successful alliance with Fiat dependent on surviving long enough for Fiat rebadged products to be available and US market acceptance of same. Certainly not an enviable position on either count.
Chrysler will reveal their business plan and future product line-up in November when they ask for more bailout money.
While taxpayer intervention in large companies – even if it was done to stave off total economic disaster – is not a natural situation, naysaying everything GM and Chrysler do isn’t going to help them off the dole.
We need to get over being angry about the bailout, folks.
Sergio is in an impossible situation regarding product. He either has to do a Lutz-style puff job about all the great new products coming that are nowhere near ready, or he has to stand there and admit “I got nothin’.” I think he is doing the right thing.
I believe that we will see a credible plan in November. This company hs been through a thorough scrubbing and there are some people at the top (Fiat) with turnaround experience (specifically auto turnaround experience.) The plan may not succeed, but there will be a genuine plan. Unlike at GM, it is impossible to be lulled into the belief that the new product lineup will fix everything when there is no new product lineup. Therefore, Chrysler (as part of Fiat) needs to get serious about fixing some big problems. This will be interesting to watch.
We need to get over being angry about the bailout, folks.
Thank you. While rooting for (and seeing) failure might make you feel good and righteous, it is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
ChryCo should have been allowed to fail, it is very small in comparison to GM and the economic impact would have been limited plus the additional sales that would have gone to GM would have been more beneficial than the $15b plowed into ChryCo economically speaking (most of ChryCo customers are A) die hard buy american, those I imagine would have gone to Ford, the remainder are B) people who buy cars based on who will give them cheapest price and financing, those would have gone to GM.) But since the BK was handled by US politically it would have been suicide to bail out GM and not ChryCo (there is a reason that Bush gave them a loan as well), just as it would have been politically impossible for Germany to just let Opel fail (before elections, despite the national mood, when the news starts running stories every night of dying communities and little children with dirty faces and raggy clothes, those feelings change quickly*) *Those things already exist, just aren’t shown
Wow, Marchionne says they aren’t going to be ready to announce product plans for another six to ten weeks and we are supposed to be up in arms about it? That makes no sense. What do you want, a live webcam feed from Chrysler’s executive offices?
While rooting for (and seeing) failure might make you feel good and righteous, it is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Whereas rooting for (and seeing) success unrealistically may make you feel good and righteous, it leads to throwing good money after bad in Bailout 2.0.
Is there anyone that doesn’t believe Chrysler, err Fiat, will be back in DC in a few months asking for more taxpayer money?
It’s not about being angry about what’s been done… it’s about avoiding making the same mistake over and over.
Sorry, but Sergio gets the benefit of the doubt from me. I read somewhere recently that even he was surprised by how little Cerberus actually did with Chrysler. It’s going to be a slog with them and I think Marchionne knows this. His approach thus far is 100X more preferable than GM’s blustering and delusion.
And as for asking for another bailout, I think everyone can rest assured that if another auto bailout is given it will NOT be to Chrysler. Save your future rage for GM’s next handout and Ford’s first.
Geez, here we go again:
rnc:
“ChryCo should have been allowed to fail, it is very small in comparison to GM and the economic impact would have been limited plus the additional sales that would have gone to GM would have been more beneficial than the $15b plowed into ChryCo economically speaking (most of ChryCo customers are A) die hard buy american, those I imagine would have gone to Ford, the remainder are B) people who buy cars based on who will give them cheapest price and financing, those would have gone to GM.)”
No, no, and no. Did I mention no? When Plymouth was shut down the supposed loyal “buy American” customers didn’t even switch over to Dodge or Chrysler. Most of them went to Hyundai. Today most of them would go to Hyundai and Kia. As I have repeated here ad nauseum, killing Chrysler would not have produced significantly more sales for GM or Ford.
“But since the BK was handled by US politically it would have been suicide to bail out GM and not ChryCo (there is a reason that Bush gave them a loan as well), just as it would have been politically impossible for Germany to just let Opel fail (before elections, despite the national mood, when the news starts running stories every night of dying communities and little children with dirty faces and raggy clothes, those feelings change quickly*) *Those things already exist, just aren’t shown”
My opinion is that for the Obama administration at least, Chrysler was the dry run for the GM bankruptcy/bailout. As for Chrysler being small as in having no effect on the national economy, the numbers don’t add up, especially when you factor in all the dealer employees that would have lost their jobs.
One of the arguments against giving Chrysler loan guarantees (not loans) in the early 80’s was that if they went out of business Ford and GM would take up the slack, so no biggie. Lee and company had to educate the Congress that when all those dealers lost their franchises they were not going to get a Ford or GM one. They would end up for the most part as Toyondsan dealerships. GM & Ford were not in a position to take up the slack in manufacturing or dealers.
The below link will explain a lot.
The situation at recently rescued Chrysler Group is even more dire than first thought, the CEO of Italy’s Fiat — which came to the aid of the U.S. automaker — said Wednesday.
Now, where have I heard this before?
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/16/autos/fiat_chrysler/index.htm?postversion=2009091614