Chrysler's 3rd largest shareholder

(01/30/2005) United Arab Emerites became 3rd largest shareholder of US automaker, Daimler Chrysler AG --- $1bn

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LOL, that would be all well and good except that Daimler is not and has never been a US auto maker and now neither is Chrysler since Daimler took it over.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"studio" < snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which except for the fact that DC maintains several assembly plants and Chrysler headquarters in Michigan, making the Chrysler division a disctinctly American operation, Tbone would actually be correct.
You are aware (are you not?) that the new Chairman of DC was hand picked because of his success in the Chrysler division of DC?
It is also worth mention that none of the listed major shareholders of DCX as of 12/31/05 was UAE or any company from there. However, since two months have elapsed, and Deutsch Bank has long been interested in divesting itself of DCX stock, its possible UAE was a buyer. But then, it would have hit at least one financial service site on the web right?
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

took
Sorry Max, but I am correct. Where a company builds its product has no effect on who owns it and since Chrysler is now owned by a German manufacturer, it is a German manufacturer, regardless of where some of its plants are located.

And this means what, oh yea, not a damn thing.

months
itself
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
> > over.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except that little detail of having its operational headquarters in Michigan, you might actually be correct. See, since it was a "merger of equals", and the Chrysler side is bigger by far, AND a Court of Law has upheld that "merger of equals" thing, AND Chrysler not only had better profits, but better QUALITY than its German half, the only conclusion is that Chrysler, despite being a division of a holding company known as DCX, is in fact a North American operation, and is denoted as such by its parent company.

Its demonstration of the autonomous nature of the Chrysler division, yet another bit of evidence that proves you incorrect in calling Chrysler a German operation.

I see you had nothing to say to this point, which was in fact the issue at hand.
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

its
Once again, it doesn't matter. Especially when Chrysler is only a division of the main GERMAN company.

parent
Merger of equals, LOL! It was a takeover, simple as that. It was called a merger of equals to calm the American stock holders to get the deal to go through much easier and this was admitted by both sides. Funny how most of the leadership of Chrysler are no longer working for it so even if by some remote chance that were true (and it really isn't), just about all of the corporate officers are either from Daimler or were selected by Daimler. Also funny how the US courts have little jurisdiction on German companies. I realise that you have this love affair with Chrysler and Dodge but face it Maxi, the corporate leadership once again sold out for the big bucks, after all it is the new American way.

picked
No, it demonstraited the ability of the person that they picked. If he could keep the Chrysler division profitable while GM and Ford took a dump, he was the man for the job, nothing more.

LOL, sorry Maxi, but just because you say it doesn't make it fact and as usual, you jump into a thread with no actual valid information, just to flame as usual.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL, perhaps you should learn how to read between the lines.

the
Oh yea, that would never happen. Funny how the stock is controlled by a German company and ALL stock holders meetings are held in Germany. Like I said, you need to read between the lines.

Not at all but since Mercedes didn't run into any real trouble until 03 and the merger (takeover) happened in 98, unless they all have magical crystal balls, how would they know. Funny how you didn't mention the 20% layoff in Chrysler in 99 and the "shutdown" of 4 production facilities at that time. It looks more like Mercedes was supporting Chrysler when the takeover took place.

Read above and even with your lawsuit crap, what you failed to mention that DCX settled in a $300,000,000 lawsuit with other Chrysler investors a few months earlier. Now why would a company pay out that much money if it didn't do anything wrong?

to
no
No Max, it is just pointless to try when I don't have the time because you just rattle on aimlessly, just like in the power outlet thread.

IOW, you don't want to be shown in error once again.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except that little detail of having its operational headquarters in Michigan, you might actually be correct. See, since it was a "merger of equals", and the Chrysler side is bigger by far, AND a Court of Law has upheld that "merger of equals" thing, AND Chrysler not only had better profits, but better QUALITY than its German half, the only conclusion is that Chrysler, despite being a division of a holding company known as DCX, is in fact a North American operation, and is denoted as such by its parent company.

Its demonstration of the autonomous nature of the Chrysler division, yet another bit of evidence that proves you incorrect in calling Chrysler a German operation.

I see you had nothing to say to this point, which was in fact the issue at hand.
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What you say is very true Tom, but the wording of his statement can be taken several ways and is very misleading. Perhaps "US auto maker" means an auto maker that produces cars in the US, or a maker that produces cars for the US market. Either of those would make DC a "US auto maker" even though it's not a US owned company.
--
Ken



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
While what you said is true, if that is what he meant what would be the purpose of the post? Under that definition, Honda, Toyota, BMW and many others would all be considered "US auto makers" and who would give a shit if the third largest shareholder of any of them were the United Arab Emerites. I think that this was a lame attempt at a cheep shot against the US, possibly based on that port control screw-up.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

"Nosey" < snipped-for-privacy@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

I think he was trying to stir up an arguement, but it didn't work yet.
--
Ken



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It was too lame to really fire anyone up.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"Nosey" < snipped-for-privacy@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Interestingly enough, I agree with you that the post was a lame attempt to stir up something based on the UAE port company. However, given the nature of UAE's involvement, its more likely they wish to make money, rather than mess with the ports. Beyond all the pro and con of this corporate action, the fact remains that security is taken care of (or not taken care of, depending on the amount of funding allotted) by U.S. government agencies, not capitalist enterprise.
We could of course, debate how the capitalist enterprise handles the fed paperwork etc, and just how well the security in place works, but the point is that security is not for sale on the open market. Beyond that, its a guess.
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
studio wrote:

That's why my truck gets such crappy mileage!
--
.boB
On Order: 2006 FXDI, Red.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.