Now for the "rest of the story"

itguy08 wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
It was posted to show the facts of what is and is not going to happen. Unlike the many posts talking about 300,000 to 500,000 trucks, cars and or SUV's.

As always I have never hide the fact that I work for FCA US not one time.

FCA is going to spend a lot of $$ on this, that's the fact. Trying to spin it any other way is ludicrous. Their garbage vehicles are starting to catch up to them. Spin it as Daimler this, Cereberus that but the fact is Chrysler has been making garbage for most of their 100 year history. So much so that they have been bailed out by You and I TWICE!!!

Yes, the up to $2 Billion (500k * $5k per vehicle) is 10% of their cash reserves. And probably not going to matter. But when you constantly make the lowest quality vehicles on the road, this does not bode well for future sales. Smart people will take FCA's money, run to the nearest competitor and get out of their POS Chrysler product.

You know it's bad when Sergio is now splitting FCA up and begging for a merger. You can't survive long on low quality, razor thin margins, and high incentives.

Here's the real info straight from the US Government:
FCA Recall Info from safecar.gov

I don't know where the $5,000 per vehicle figure came from, but that sounds WAY low. From what I have read, the buyback agreement is for the original purchase price less "reasonable" depreciation for mileage. Not too many people are going to allow their $40,000+ truck to be bought back for five grand. My hunch is FCA settled to get the entire amount on the front side of a bankruptcy. Because even if they buy back every single vehicle, I am sure there is a whole lot of class action lawsuits in their future and this will obviously cripple the brand going forward. Getting all the liabilities on the table, filing bankruptcy and trying to emerge without all that hanging over their heads is the only logical strategy for the Chrysler Brand. Then, maybe a buyer will come forward. It would at least potentially save the workers, but the stockholders would most likely be toast.