Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?

Wall Street Journal - May 26, 2007

..From the standpoint of financial outcomes, there are two kinds of auto makers: momentum companies and hit-driven companies. A momentum auto maker enjoys strong consumer confidence, produces sound but usually unflashy vehicles, and is very good at the blocking-and- tackling aspects of the business, both technical and managerial. Toyota and Honda are momentum auto makers; so are BMW and PSA, Volvo and Subaru too, on a smaller scale. GM used to be one and so was Nissan, but both committed a cascade of managerial and product gaffes that erased their momentum and dropped them into auto-maker purgatory...

Chrysler has been the epitome of a hit-driven company for more than 50 years. At its ultimate perigee in the late 1970s, buffeted by an extensive new-product losing streak and the unusual expenses of meeting new fuel economy and safety standards, it was headed for bankruptcy. A modest federal loan guarantee and some artificial respiration from the UAW gave newly arrived CEO Lee Iacocca time for some inspired improvisational first aid -- and ultimately the introduction of a real home run product, the first front-wheel-drive, garageable, car-based minivan.

Then the new product pipeline dried up, the numbers headed south and Chrysler seemed perigee-bound again. Somehow Mr. Iacocca's team not only managed a reprise of its earlier rabbit-from-the-hat trick but did it with a trifecta of hit products: the muscular Ram pick-up, the civilized Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV and the so-called "cab-forward" sleek Dodge Intrepid midsize sedan. Chrysler became suddenly the most profitable auto maker on the planet. Unfortunately the gush of profits began to flow only after the Chrysler board, mistakenly convinced that Mr. Iacocca had lost his fastball, handed him the proverbial gold watch and replaced him with Robert Eaton, freshly imported from General Motors.

Mr. Eaton encountered a paradox: Buyers were flooding the dealerships for the spiffy new vehicles developed under Mr. Iacocca's leadership, yet by any objective evaluation -- fit and finish, product durability and reliability, or plant productivity -- Chrysler was a basket case. He assumed that fixing these problems was of higher priority than new hits. This was a big mistake but Mr. Eaton turned out to be the luckiest man in Motown. At the 1998 Detroit Motor Show, Daimler-Benz chairman Jurgen Schrempp button-holed him, apparently out of the blue, to propose the great transnational auto maker that would be created by exchanging Daimler shares for Chrysler shares.

Herr Schrempp's penance for undertaking the least diligent due diligence in recent corporate history was spending $36 billion on an acquisition which almost instantly plummeted deeply into the red. It was making better quality vehicles more efficiently, thanks to Bob Eaton's efforts, but hardly anyone wanted them. The magic had vanished and despite heroic efforts by Dieter Zetsche, parachuted in from Stuttgart in 2000 to turn things around, it has not returned.

Even mini-hits like the Chrysler 300

formatting link
- the big gangsta-car with the narrow windows and powerful hemi engine, is proving to have no legs in the market. Worst of all, Chrysler's most recent new offerings have been panned by Consumer Reports, the great auto market influencer, as both mechanically and cosmetically deficient. Mr. Zetsche, rewarded in January 2006 with the top job at then DaimlerChrysler, had already cleaned things up at Chrysler the way a financially oriented new owner like Cerberus might do it. Perhaps Mr. Feinberg and his colleagues can push even further, persuading the union to accept give-ups, but it will have to overcome a natural suspicion at Solidarity House, UAW headquarters, of financial hotshots with a Park Avenue business address. To the UAW, Cerberus has deep pockets, a situation much different from 1979-80, when Chrysler was a stand-alone entity and could not survive without union help.

Cerberus may find some imaginative way of slashing Chrysler's inflated dealer body, along with the market ineffectiveness and internal cost burden it imposes on the company. But this is likely to be both expensive and time-consuming. GM says it paid out $2 billion to close down its Oldsmobile network. That may have been its out-of- pocket cost, but if staff time for negotiating dealer payoffs were factored in the real cost was undoubtedly much higher. And Chrysler dealers are legitimately wary, no matter who owns the company. Late last year they had considerable numbers of unordered and unwanted vehicles thrust down their throats to get them off Chrysler's own books.

Yet cutting costs doesn't make an auto maker successful or profitable. Chrysler demonstrated in its two recoveries under Mr. Iacocca that costs can be high and quality modest, but attractive products can make these into virtual non-issues.

There's the rub: What even Dieter Zetsche could not accomplish was the mysterious feat of generating hit products. And hitmakers are hard to find. Cerberus has brought aboard a well-known auto industry ronin, Wolfgang Bernhard, as an advisor, but Mr. Bernhard, Chrysler COO from

2000 to 2004, was on the bridge with Mr. Zetsche not when the company was generating hits, but rather when it wasn't.

Cerberus, too, is taking on serious downside risk. Chrysler's physical assets are essentially worthless because no one else will want them, and its marketplace equity is modest at best. The Dodge and Chrysler brands have only slight cachet although Jeep remains relatively iconic. How long it will remain iconic is questionable. The company has been endeavoring to exploit the brand, flooding its product line with dubious and slow-selling new variants.

Unloading 80% of Chrysler is almost certainly a good deal for Daimler. Smart and resourceful as the Cerberus principals may be, this time they could be significantly over their heads.

Reply to
George Orwell
Loading thread data ...

Interesting article but the history does not seem exactly accurate. Indeed the new cars introduced in 93/94 had fit and finish problems, but they were great looking and I see tons of them still around so owners certainly got their money's worth. Just saw someone driving a 94 LHS identical to the one I sold in 99. Too bad Chrysler didn't improve them and keep the basic looks. But in 98/99 they introduced much higher quality cars. Unfortunately except for the 300M, they were all pretty ugly. However before the merger they were showing some great looking follow-up models. Too bad Mercedes killed them and put Chyrsler products years behind schedule.

Reply to
Art

Wall Street Journal - May 26, 2007

..From the standpoint of financial outcomes, there are two kinds of auto makers: momentum companies and hit-driven companies. A momentum auto maker enjoys strong consumer confidence, produces sound but usually unflashy vehicles, and is very good at the blocking-and- tackling aspects of the business, both technical and managerial. Toyota and Honda are momentum auto makers; so are BMW and PSA, Volvo and Subaru too, on a smaller scale. GM used to be one and so was Nissan, but both committed a cascade of managerial and product gaffes that erased their momentum and dropped them into auto-maker purgatory...

Chrysler has been the epitome of a hit-driven company for more than 50 years. At its ultimate perigee in the late 1970s, buffeted by an extensive new-product losing streak and the unusual expenses of meeting new fuel economy and safety standards, it was headed for bankruptcy. A modest federal loan guarantee and some artificial respiration from the UAW gave newly arrived CEO Lee Iacocca time for some inspired improvisational first aid -- and ultimately the introduction of a real home run product, the first front-wheel-drive, garageable, car-based minivan.

Then the new product pipeline dried up, the numbers headed south and Chrysler seemed perigee-bound again. Somehow Mr. Iacocca's team not only managed a reprise of its earlier rabbit-from-the-hat trick but did it with a trifecta of hit products: the muscular Ram pick-up, the civilized Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV and the so-called "cab-forward" sleek Dodge Intrepid midsize sedan. Chrysler became suddenly the most profitable auto maker on the planet. Unfortunately the gush of profits began to flow only after the Chrysler board, mistakenly convinced that Mr. Iacocca had lost his fastball, handed him the proverbial gold watch and replaced him with Robert Eaton, freshly imported from General Motors.

Mr. Eaton encountered a paradox: Buyers were flooding the dealerships for the spiffy new vehicles developed under Mr. Iacocca's leadership, yet by any objective evaluation -- fit and finish, product durability and reliability, or plant productivity -- Chrysler was a basket case. He assumed that fixing these problems was of higher priority than new hits. This was a big mistake but Mr. Eaton turned out to be the luckiest man in Motown. At the 1998 Detroit Motor Show, Daimler-Benz chairman Jurgen Schrempp button-holed him, apparently out of the blue, to propose the great transnational auto maker that would be created by exchanging Daimler shares for Chrysler shares.

Herr Schrempp's penance for undertaking the least diligent due diligence in recent corporate history was spending $36 billion on an acquisition which almost instantly plummeted deeply into the red. It was making better quality vehicles more efficiently, thanks to Bob Eaton's efforts, but hardly anyone wanted them. The magic had vanished and despite heroic efforts by Dieter Zetsche, parachuted in from Stuttgart in 2000 to turn things around, it has not returned.

Even mini-hits like the Chrysler 300

formatting link
- the big gangsta-car with the narrow windows and powerful hemi engine, is proving to have no legs in the market. Worst of all, Chrysler's most recent new offerings have been panned by Consumer Reports, the great auto market influencer, as both mechanically and cosmetically deficient. Mr. Zetsche, rewarded in January 2006 with the top job at then DaimlerChrysler, had already cleaned things up at Chrysler the way a financially oriented new owner like Cerberus might do it. Perhaps Mr. Feinberg and his colleagues can push even further, persuading the union to accept give-ups, but it will have to overcome a natural suspicion at Solidarity House, UAW headquarters, of financial hotshots with a Park Avenue business address. To the UAW, Cerberus has deep pockets, a situation much different from 1979-80, when Chrysler was a stand-alone entity and could not survive without union help.

Cerberus may find some imaginative way of slashing Chrysler's inflated dealer body, along with the market ineffectiveness and internal cost burden it imposes on the company. But this is likely to be both expensive and time-consuming. GM says it paid out $2 billion to close down its Oldsmobile network. That may have been its out-of- pocket cost, but if staff time for negotiating dealer payoffs were factored in the real cost was undoubtedly much higher. And Chrysler dealers are legitimately wary, no matter who owns the company. Late last year they had considerable numbers of unordered and unwanted vehicles thrust down their throats to get them off Chrysler's own books.

Yet cutting costs doesn't make an auto maker successful or profitable. Chrysler demonstrated in its two recoveries under Mr. Iacocca that costs can be high and quality modest, but attractive products can make these into virtual non-issues.

There's the rub: What even Dieter Zetsche could not accomplish was the mysterious feat of generating hit products. And hitmakers are hard to find. Cerberus has brought aboard a well-known auto industry ronin, Wolfgang Bernhard, as an advisor, but Mr. Bernhard, Chrysler COO from

2000 to 2004, was on the bridge with Mr. Zetsche not when the company was generating hits, but rather when it wasn't.

Cerberus, too, is taking on serious downside risk. Chrysler's physical assets are essentially worthless because no one else will want them, and its marketplace equity is modest at best. The Dodge and Chrysler brands have only slight cachet although Jeep remains relatively iconic. How long it will remain iconic is questionable. The company has been endeavoring to exploit the brand, flooding its product line with dubious and slow-selling new variants.

Unloading 80% of Chrysler is almost certainly a good deal for Daimler. Smart and resourceful as the Cerberus principals may be, this time they could be significantly over their heads.

Reply to
George Orwell

An article obviously ahead of it's time!

Reply to
Some O

Exactly. It's pretty clear to me what Chrysler has to do - they have to take square aim at the Mercedes market. Dieter Zetsche knew this well, but he also knew his stockholders wouldn't tolerate their precious Mercedes brand being attacked by Chrysler vehicles.

Give Chrysler 2-3 years and some intelligent designers who aren't trying to make political compromises to keep stockholders happy, and they will pull out of it.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Yes the LH cars were and still are great. I've never kept a car so long as my '95 Concord and was planning to sell it when it was 10 yrs old, but Chrysler had nothing. Fortunately my maintenance has been minor in nature and it still performs as new, including the great handling; still with the original shocks. My wife loves her '91 Sebring, but I'm just a bit squashed in the front seats and most of us know of it's 2.7L engine. >:) The 300M was lovely and I was considering buying a few years old one, but it has too little ground clearance for me and I'm not into leather seats. Now with the fast increasing gas prices my next vehicle objectives have changed significantly. Only smaller cars now have my interest.

Yesterday as I approached my Concord from the front in a parking lot something I saw gave me a chuckle. Right beside it was a new 300C in a nice light grey paint job. I had to chuckle because I never could stand the 300C styling and seeing one beside my Concord really illustrated how ugly I feel the 300 looks. Yes some like it, but no one I know. What a massive truck like grill and squashed window depth!

I could then see how the 300 body was designed. The Chrysler SUV designers did it up to the windows, then the car designers did it from there up. However the car designers couldn't use a normal window depth that would give good vision and balance the vertical look, because the roof would have been too high, approaching an SUV in height.

Reply to
Some O

On this particular day of this month, in the Year Of The Golden Pig, George Orwell did state:

Yep!

Reply to
ouzo-uzi

Read

formatting link

Their take (and they have a good history) is Cerberus is expected to offer the UAW a take-it-or-leave-it offer this Summer, and if they don't take it, they'll start parting out the company immediately. No such thing as three year and five year timelines. Chyrsler dealers are apparently already lining up to become "Brilliance" dealers, the Chinese car company that will begin importing shortly.

Reply to
Ken Finney

This is an extreme simplification of things.

The head honchos of the UAW have their own accountants who can read a balance sheet. They aren't dumb. This so called "take it or leave it" offer was negotiated between Cerberus and the UAW before Chrysler was purchased. Proof that the UAW and Cerberus came to an agreement is that Cerberus went ahead with the purchase - they never would have done so if the UAW hadn't struck a deal.

The problem now is in selling this agreement to the UAW membership. So what the apparent tack is going to be, is that both the head honchos at the UAW and Cerberus have worked out a propaganda campaign to convince the membership that it's big bad Cerberus who is pushing things around and that this take it or leave it agreement is the only option.

Of course there is. Once the UAW accepts the contract this summer, you would be daft if you think that Cerberus is going to sit back and run the company forever. Not at all, instead, they will be very concerned with getting the company profitable - but if for some reason they fail, they will have no choice but to write it off and break up the company.

And here we go with the Yugo all over again....

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Another example of flimsly WSJ "reporting." Eaton was brought on board LONG before this time by Iacocca to impose a system of financial controls on what was basically an uncontrolled enterprise wasting money on decisions made by incompetent middle and upper management. It was Eaton's job to seek out "finance guys" to implement the new system, which is exactly what he did at Woodward Avenue for GM. He was/is NOT a "car guy;" he's a beancounter of the same ilk whose decisions at GM tanked the company. Iacocca lists naming Eaton as his successor as "the biggest mistake of my life." Iacocca DID have a car guy, Bob Lutz, now mired at a collapsing GM.

Didn't happen that way. Eaton took over and immediately cut off all but "skeleton" funding for the Belvidere Design Center, opining that Chrysler Group's product line was "good enough" to compete. Remember, Eaton was NOT a "car guy." At the same time, he slashed operating costs at the plants through attrition-driven downsizing, cut quality engineering staff and made other obvious gaffes, and then started looking for a buyer. THAT's where Schrempp fit into this...he was the proverbial sucker to Eaton's polished pitch. Eaton took the money and ran like hell, knowing that hoary K-car based products and a much-troubled LH platform were ticking time bombs.

That's because they're shitty vehicles. The 300 is exactly what the WSJ writer implies...a "gangta car," only now purchased by blacks in ghettos, who immediately deck them out with 22" baby buggy wheels and thumper car stereos, only to have them repossessed a few months later. The 300 is dead. One only has to look at the depreciation of these toadmobiles to know. Another zero..the "Charger", as well as the panned Caliber, which is not selling well at all due to bad design and quality gaffes.

The UAW will have to tell Snow to shove it. There will be no major "give-ups." Those days are over, and Labor is tired of fat cat private equities like Cerberus crying poor mouth when they sit on billions of cash in some very right wing pockets. When Iacocca negotiated cuts from UAW in the '80s, he did it from a position of poverty, and UAW's Doug Fraser knew it. Iacocca told the bargaining committee that he had "lots of jobs at $17, but I haven't got any at $20." Fraser knew Iacocca was honest and reliable, and decided to join in Chrysler's rehabilitation. This isn't the case now. Right wing fruitcakes like Snow will look at that '80s episode as a sign of weakness and will try to pin all of Chrysler Group's troubles on labor, just as GM and Ford have tried to do. Ain't gonna work this time.

Bernhardt (correct spelling; again, the WSJ couldn't report the temperature correctly) is a major mistake. He's responsible for the ghettomobile 300 and the now-failing Caliber and "Charger" as well as other screw-ups. Snow got him on board mainly because Snow doesn't know crap about the car biz, and Dr. Z probably sold Bernardt to him to get rid of him from D-B.

If the "Dodge Nitro" is any example, they will fail at this. My local (D)C dealer cannot sell "Nitros" even with $3000 spiffs.

ROFLMAO!!! Snow?? Quayle? These are Republipedo Party silver spooned dumbasses! Snow almost tanked CSX and Quayle...well, all anyone has to do in research there is listen to some of his "speehes" and read some of his Bush-like scribblings to know what's going on there...another born-rich, dyslexic moron á la George Dubya Bush, with no credentials at all except those bestowed upon him by other Republipedoes and the WSJ.

The WSJ has no credibility writing about Chrysler at all. All you have to do is dig up all those anti-loan-guarantee articles they wrote back in '79, '80 and '81 to see that these Wall St. shills are just that...shills. A perfect takeover target for a right wing whack job like Rupert Murdoch, sure, but any business/financial sagacity? Fahgetddaboutit. Remember, it was the WSJ's editorial statements that said over and over that Chrysler under Iacocca would fail and the cadaver should have been divied up among all the banks holding Chrysler Corporation's debt. WSJ also was guilty of false reporting even then, repeatedly writing that the Federal loan guarantees were a "giveaway." Nothing could've been further from the truth. They pulled the same stunt during the Conrail reorganization, and cheered when Snow made a severely undervalued bid, championed by "Newt The Galoot" Gingrich in the House, to get CR's assets for pennies on the taxpayer's dollar.

Reply to
DeserTBoB

...which hasn't even arrived yet.

Reply to
DeserTBoB

Its going to take a lot more than that. The only way Chysler is going to be able to buy time and stay in bussiness to try to tuen around is through some serious cost cutting starting with labor. If they do not, it will not be too long before they are on the auction/chopping block because Cerberus has neither the money or desire to bankroll them in current state of operations. Whether Chrysler survives now is more up to the workforce than the owner because without a big reduction in operating cost there will be no time or money for R&D for new model to sell.

----------------- TheSnoMan.com

Reply to
SnoMan

Nope, eventually a fine car. My '95 still runs as new.

Not quite, but they made too many. Doesn't sell here, many new 2006s for 30% off.

Styling for kids. Good functional design though.

UGH! Honda Fit competition?

Reply to
Some O

Based on what Cerberus did with their involvement with the Air Canada recovery, they will tighten up everything and will try higher prices for a slightly premium product. Less volume higher prices. This could mean the dumping of some vehicle lines, just as A/C gave up some less profitable routes.

formatting link

Reply to
who

Because everybody who's tried this has been so successful, right? GM with Cadillac, Ford with Volvo, Nissan with Infiniti...

Good think you're not being paid for advice.

Oh BS. Chrysler has never competed in the Mercedes market, and nobody in the market for a Mercedes or BMW would even consider Chrysler.

Reply to
Lloyd

Charger is outselling 300 so far this year:

formatting link

25,000 sales so far this year isn't peanuts.

Reply to
Lloyd

It is going to take more than that, Daimler spent 500 million to sell Chyrsler after all the money was spent (most of it went back to Chysler Financail) and you do you spend a extra 500 milion to sell a company unless it stands to cost you a lot more to keep it. Chysler has major labor cost problems and either they reduce them a lot with major consesions or they go out of bussiness because there will be no

3rd option here.

----------------- TheSnoMan.com

Reply to
SnoMan

Generally you're correct, but I've heard a number of hemi buyers say they changed from Mercedes to Chrysler because that drive train was almost half the price of the Mercedes.

However most Mercedes buyers don't buy for performance, just image. We have many Mercedes vehicles around here and they just put along in the city and seldom are seen on the highway.

Reply to
who

DC could afford to pay to dump Chrysler, they sucked cash out of Chrysler after the take over. That Chrysler cash got DC profitable again.

DC will still own part of Chrysler so I expect they will still benefit from Chryslers higher parts volume and lower costs. Also I expect Chrysler will still benefit from what they get from Mercedes. So both sides should be happy; at least for a while.

Reply to
who

Well, we lived in Germany for five years and Mercedes, in Germany, are not de-tuned as they are for America. Over 100mph is not unusual on the Autobahn, although it may be slower today. I am sure that there are many Mercedes owners, in America, who do not know how to drive a Mercedes. But I never drove a Mercedes in Germany, I drove an E-Type Jaguar, so what do I know.

Reply to
Billzz

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.