Did you know that Champagne, as we know it, wasn’t invented by the French? It was invented by the British. Christopher Merret documented the addition of sugar and molasses to a finished wine to create the bubbles in Champagne. This was six years before Dom Perignon (the supposed creator of Champagne) went to the Abbey of Hautvillers. And 40 years before Benedictine supposedly created Champagne. Merret presented his paper to the Royal Society which detailed the process now known as méthode Champenoise in 1662. Did that surprise you? Now check this out…
Fiat wants to increase their stake in Chrysler. They got the first 20 percent for free, but that was just a free sample. If they want any more, they’ll have to pay for it. But Fiat is a bit lean on cash at the moment, so how will they fund this venture? Well, Autoguide reports that Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera thinks that Fiat will raise the cash by selling parts of Ferrari. When this story hit the news, Fiat denied the reports to try and quickly squash this rumor. “There are no plans for any Ferrari listing,” said a Fiat spokesperson. But Il Corriere della Sera says that they have sources inside Fiat and they’re hinting that it is the truth and that Fiat will look to increase their stake in Chrysler to 51 percent. In 2009, Ferrari generated an operating profit of $334m. Chrysler’s 2009 was, well, bad. If this rumor turns out to be true, then the Champagne revelation won’t seem half as surprising, in comparison.
Is Dollar Tree worth as much as Saks?
I don’t see the problem here– unload the boutique maker on those that can afford it to enable the majority the financial means to live comfortably? Are you implying that we should continue pretending that Ferrari is meaningful? I’m not at all in-the-know about either car, but don’t $35k Challengers give Ferraris from the not-too-distant past a pretty hardcore spanking?
Hell, Camrys give older Ferraris a fright. InsideLine tested a 2009 Toyota appliance against Thomas Magnum’s 308GTSi. It wasn’t pretty for the Italian.
As long as Ferrari remains in the black and isn’t tempted to make a Cayenne of its own all will be well, no matter who owns the stock. I bet, back when Enzo was forced to sell that 90-percent, lots of people were frightened for the future of Ferrari. Seems like things have worked out OK.
As far as I can tell, owning a specialty automaker is like owning a very old car. You can’t really be in it to make money, just to have fun and look good. If Fiat were to do this it would seem they’re indicating very strongly that they believe Chrysler has a future. It’s a little like being the guy who sells his collector car to help with the down payment on the house.
No, that date isn’t even close to the first for sparkling wines: Limoux was documented as “blanquette” in 1531 at St-Hilaire.
That’s shouldn’t have said “sparkling wine” should have been “Champagne”.
Changed and thanks.
Those with longer memories will recall that a well-run Chrysler was VERY profitable in the 90s before Daimler barged into the kitchen and ruined the soup. It looks to me as though Marchionne has been running Chrysler very effectively since he took control. With a pretty decent looking pipeline and a slowly improving economy, I kind of like Chrysler’s chances. And in the 90s, Chrysler really had no foreign presence. The Fiat-Chrysler hookup appears to make a lot more sense than most auto company combinations.
As for Ferrari, I have no idea how much money it takes to play the game in that price/performance range. Ferrari may be better off as a smaller niche company than as part of the big company. Nobody seems very happy with how Saab Volvo Jaguar Range Rover and lots of others were treated under big company ownership.
I miss the no-holds-barred insider news from the now defunct car-truck.com … their detailed reporting of the Daimler takeover and the subsequent sacking of the Chrysler coffers was epic.
Chrysler will allow much bigger growth, Cavalino Rampante is very much constantly going red line year after year, is not going to double or triple the gain in a short while. One way is to cash out some of her and use the money to bet on something with a greater gain.
Chrysler is like 1:20 odds while Ferrari is like 1:2 odds.
Strategically make sense, even Daimler has sold a good chunk to the Middle East Oel men.
Perhaps Prancing Horse had found someone from Middle Kingdom, who money no object.
Seems like a questionable decision to me. Ferrari makes money, maybe not a lot, but some. Chrysler has been losing money for 10 years and three owners.
Actually, after losing money in 2000 or 2001, Chrysler returned profits until 2006 or 7. Of course from 94-99, they were printing money, which is why Daimler wanted to be their BFF. Chrysler has been more profitable in the last 10 years than a lot of makes the B&B get a rise on: Volvo, Saab, Jaguar, Land Rover – and GM.
So what!
Fiat owns 85% of Ferrari and will sell enough shares to raise cash in order to purchase more of Chrysler but still have control of Ferrari.
Fiat is constantly getting critisized for not “putting in any money” into Chrysler, yet it is sharing billions of dollars in platforms and advanced engine technology.
Fiat now decides to put money into Chrysler and it gets critisized yet again for what?? PUTTING MONEY INTO CHRYSLER!!
jpcavanaugh is correct. I remember in 1998 the employees profit sharing checks at Chrysler averagedd around $12K and that wasn’t its best year.
+1
I highly doubt they would lose control of Ferrari, and even so the house metaphor and 20 to 1 odds are great one liners as to why this makes perfect sense.
I’ve sold working, non repair bill inducing things in order to raise some cash. Hell, anyone ever heard of a 1031 exchange? You’ve got to put your money where you believe the strongest return will me.
Dom Perignon invented the cork to keep the bubbles in.
If true, Fiat would still maintain control of Ferrari and would mearly be using Ferrari’s famous name to gather up some cash from outside investors. Not a bad plan.
Fiat realizes that it must bulk up in order to continue competing in the decades ahead. Building a serious position in the US market is one way to help accomplish that goal. Assuming Fiat has what it takes to run the course and does what needs to be done, then the Chrysler deal will work out very well. This is about a long run strategic play, not just short term tactics.
I’m confused (happens all the time).
I thought Fiat was in a pretty good financial place.
Weren’t they were gifted a couple of billion dollars over the failed marriage with GM?
Have they burned through that already?
Were they given Chrysler or did they use some of their GM booty to purchase their share?
“Champagne” is merely a defined <i>terroir</i>.
“Methode Champenoise” is sparkling wine produced the same way in, say CA.
If you have worked in any restaurant that has it’s head out of it’s ass you would know how it all works.
Yes the Brits invented it. If you don’t know that, you really don’t deserve to have gotten outta highschool.