FCA To Merge With PSA

[thomasmnile]

The French Ram is at hand???

[ShinerBock]

RobertRyan wrote:

If (and it I want to reiterate if again) this is the case, then FCA will be the one taking over since they lead PSA in net worth, net revenue, and total assets by tens of billions of dollars. So if the company with the most assets is generally the company that takes over as you say, then it would be FCA in this case.

Not sure what Americans being on the board has anything to do with it. There are many non-Americans on the board of American companies. A board member's loyalty lies with his company that employees him, not the country he was born in. It is in their best interest that the company is and stays profitable or the shareholders will vote him out.

No FCA will not be taking over anything. PSA has initiated this merger as FCA can see it will be desperate straits soon regarding BEV's. Taking or trying to takeover is not a very good idea in very constrained financial times for either party

Shinerbrock wrote:
However, there could be a PSA takeover, but they would have to pay billions for it since FCA brings more to the table. It could be that they paid for extra seats on the board and the CEO.

They are already or will be a merged company, so no reason for a .Takeover. I think everyone has not up to this point noticed that the whole exercise is a pretty European effort. Bulk of the brands involved in the merger are European, both CEO's are European a lot of the shareholders are global but the bulk European, Fiat and PSA now have the merged entity headquartered in the Netherlands, not the US. Only things left are that are American are RAM and Jeep. I doubt the Chrysler and Dodge nameplates are long for this world unless you put them on some current Fiat or PSA vehicle.
Just to add the " Europeaness" of this tie up. John Elkhann the FCA Chairman

DescriptionJohn Philip Jacob Elkann is an American-Italian industrialist. He was the chosen heir of his grandfather Gianni Agnelli, and chairs and controls the automaker Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, which has formerly represented

And I bet this all makes your American hating heart happy.

[Me_Again]

I still think they should work on an universal swappable battery pack where one pulls into a station and a robot swaps in a recharged battery and you are on your way again in a couple minutes, along with a "refueling" charge on your credit card. The number of battery packs is base on size and weight of vehicle.

The Radio Control hobby has airplanes, buggies, cars and trucks that have been doing it for years. I do not go to the field and fly a plane once and then have to bring it home and recharge it. I can fly as many flights as batteries I bring along.

[Reisender]

There has been lots of rumours of panic flying around FCA that they are finding themselves with no path to electrification. No R&D, no battery making capacity and an internal anti EV culture led by their last CEO. This article gives a glimpse into one of the reasons they may have done this merger.

GM’s approach was to contract out a car (The Bolt) to Korean firms and then assembling it in the US with a GM sticker on it. But Bolts are crazy expensive for them and sales are disappointing. I wonder if GM may not try some kind of merger approach with Volkswagen.

Here’s the article on FCA.

https://electrek.co/2019/11/02/the-fca-psa-merger-could-create-an-electric-vehicle-powerhouse-under-...

[wilber1]

FCA headquarters was already in the Netherlands. It's financial office is in London.

[RobertRyan]

If (and it I want to reiterate if again) this is the case, then FCA will be the one taking over since they lead PSA in net worth, net revenue, and total assets by tens of billions of dollars. So if the company with the most assets is generally the company that takes over as you say, then it would be FCA in this case.

Not sure what Americans being on the board has anything to do with it. There are many non-Americans on the board of American companies. A board member's loyalty lies with his company that employees him, not the country he was born in. It is in their best interest that the company is and stays profitable or the shareholders will vote him out.

No FCA will not be taking over anything. PSA has initiated this merger as FCA can see it will be desperate straits soon regarding BEV's. Taking or trying to takeover is not a very good idea in very constrained financial times for either party

Shinerbrock wrote:
However, there could be a PSA takeover, but they would have to pay billions for it since FCA brings more to the table. It could be that they paid for extra seats on the board and the CEO.

They are already or will be a merged company, so no reason for a .Takeover. I think everyone has not up to this point noticed that the whole exercise is a pretty European effort. Bulk of the brands involved in the merger are European, both CEO's are European a lot of the shareholders are global but the bulk European, Fiat and PSA now have the merged entity headquartered in the Netherlands, not the US. Only things left are that are American are RAM and Jeep. I doubt the Chrysler and Dodge nameplates are long for this world unless you put them on some current Fiat or PSA vehicle.
Just to add the " Europeaness" of this tie up. John Elkhann the FCA Chairman

DescriptionJohn Philip Jacob Elkann is an American-Italian industrialist. He was the chosen heir of his grandfather Gianni Agnelli, and chairs and controls the automaker Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, which has formerly represented

[ShinerBock]

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Again in reality there never is equals... It may be reported that how it's going to be structured but it won't last.

Is this fact or opinion. If fact, then please show me the data you have that you know it won't last

FishOnOne wrote:
Here's a copy/paste: The companies would combine under a Dutch parent company, with a board of 11 members, five nominated by FCA and five by PSA. Carlos Tavares, CEO of PSA Groupe, would be CEO of the new company; FCA Chairman John Elkann would retain his role.

I suspect the CEO will fill the 11th spot or someone at the parent company, and if this report is correct with Carlos Tavares being the new company CEO it looks like PSA will eventually dominate the company.

In this scenario, FCA actually have more leverage because they have more board representation with the 11 member being John Elkann from FCA as chairman of the board. The board can hire or fire a CEO while the CEO cannot touch a board member. The board can also override the CEO if they have enough votes to do so. So FCA will have 6 votes on the board to PSA's 5. The CEO is from PSA who does not have a vote which means FCA can out vote PSA on anything they wish to. So saying that PSA will dominate the company is highly unlikely unless PSA gets one of the FCA board members to vote against FCA.

I've been involved in a company merger of equals and it was a slow shift to one of the two companies. The company used both names and after about 5 years one of the two were removed. I've seen the same happen to one of are competitors.

Again I'll stress to you that the company that is backed by the most cash will eventually take over. If this board doesn't get along (11 seats) with the direction of the dominant group this process of dominance will accelerate.

How many American's will be on this board?

If (and it I want to reiterate if again) this is the case, then FCA will be the one taking over since they lead PSA in net worth, net revenue, and total assets by tens of billions of dollars. So if the company with the most assets is generally the company that takes over as you say, then it would be FCA in this case.

Not sure what Americans being on the board has anything to do with it. There are many non-Americans on the board of American companies. A board member's loyalty lies with his company that employees him, not the country he was born in. It is in their best interest that the company is and stays profitable or the shareholders will vote him out.

Then it’s very possible that the FCA group will eventually take control.

I view this merger as this company becomes even more European controlled and that influence will affect product.

Now only if that 11 pointer I’ve been seeing would just step out

I don't see it being Eurpean controlled in regards to FCA US(the Chrysler side) unless one of the brands loses profitability. Generally holding companies leave the profit centers alone. However, there could be a PSA takeover, but they would have to pay billions for it since FCA brings more to the table. It could be that they paid for extra seats on the board and the CEO.

I also don't see foreign holders of FCA US being a bad thing as long is it an allied country. After all the US would not even be a country if it weren't for the French. Also, jut because a company is American owned, doesn't most of its shareholders(owners) aren't foreign entities. Holding companies operate differently than most corporations in this aspect.

[FishOnOne]

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Again in reality there never is equals... It may be reported that how it's going to be structured but it won't last.

Is this fact or opinion. If fact, then please show me the data you have that you know it won't last

FishOnOne wrote:
Here's a copy/paste: The companies would combine under a Dutch parent company, with a board of 11 members, five nominated by FCA and five by PSA. Carlos Tavares, CEO of PSA Groupe, would be CEO of the new company; FCA Chairman John Elkann would retain his role.

I suspect the CEO will fill the 11th spot or someone at the parent company, and if this report is correct with Carlos Tavares being the new company CEO it looks like PSA will eventually dominate the company.

In this scenario, FCA actually have more leverage because they have more board representation with the 11 member being John Elkann from FCA as chairman of the board. The board can hire or fire a CEO while the CEO cannot touch a board member. The board can also override the CEO if they have enough votes to do so. So FCA will have 6 votes on the board to PSA's 5. The CEO is from PSA who does not have a vote which means FCA can out vote PSA on anything they wish to. So saying that PSA will dominate the company is highly unlikely unless PSA gets one of the FCA board members to vote against FCA.

I've been involved in a company merger of equals and it was a slow shift to one of the two companies. The company used both names and after about 5 years one of the two were removed. I've seen the same happen to one of are competitors.

Again I'll stress to you that the company that is backed by the most cash will eventually take over. If this board doesn't get along (11 seats) with the direction of the dominant group this process of dominance will accelerate.

How many American's will be on this board?

If (and it I want to reiterate if again) this is the case, then FCA will be the one taking over since they lead PSA in net worth, net revenue, and total assets by tens of billions of dollars. So if the company with the most assets is generally the company that takes over as you say, then it would be FCA in this case.

Not sure what Americans being on the board has anything to do with it. There are many non-Americans on the board of American companies. A board member's loyalty lies with his company that employees him, not the country he was born in. It is in their best interest that the company is and stays profitable or the shareholders will vote him out.

Then it’s very possible that the FCA group will eventually take control.

I view this merger as this company becomes even more European controlled and that influence will affect product.

Now only if that 11 pointer I’ve been seeing would just step out

[ShinerBock]

Reisender wrote:
We spend quite a bit of time in Europe. I’m surprised Jeep doesn’t have a bigger presence there. Probably the only vehicles we ever owned from the big 3 that were any good. Our grand Cherokee was a nice vehicle for it’s time.

Jeeps overseas are like Toyota and Nissan full size trucks in the US market. They don't sell well compared to the domestics for many reasons even though they may be better in some ways. Some of those reasons are loyalty to domestic brands, not being in the market as long, market constraints and so on. In the case of global midsize trucks in the US market, a vast majority of truck owners just don't want them because you are giving up a lot of space and capability for no real benefit in fuel economy or cost savings versus full size trucks.

[ShinerBock]

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Again in reality there never is equals... It may be reported that how it's going to be structured but it won't last.

Is this fact or opinion. If fact, then please show me the data you have that you know it won't last

FishOnOne wrote:
Here's a copy/paste: The companies would combine under a Dutch parent company, with a board of 11 members, five nominated by FCA and five by PSA. Carlos Tavares, CEO of PSA Groupe, would be CEO of the new company; FCA Chairman John Elkann would retain his role.

I suspect the CEO will fill the 11th spot or someone at the parent company, and if this report is correct with Carlos Tavares being the new company CEO it looks like PSA will eventually dominate the company.

In this scenario, FCA actually have more leverage because they have more board representation with the 11 member being John Elkann from FCA as chairman of the board. The board can hire or fire a CEO while the CEO cannot touch a board member. The board can also override the CEO if they have enough votes to do so. So FCA will have 6 votes on the board to PSA's 5. The CEO is from PSA who does not have a vote which means FCA can out vote PSA on anything they wish to. So saying that PSA will dominate the company is highly unlikely unless PSA gets one of the FCA board members to vote against FCA.

I've been involved in a company merger of equals and it was a slow shift to one of the two companies. The company used both names and after about 5 years one of the two were removed. I've seen the same happen to one of are competitors.

Again I'll stress to you that the company that is backed by the most cash will eventually take over. If this board doesn't get along (11 seats) with the direction of the dominant group this process of dominance will accelerate.

How many American's will be on this board?

If (and it I want to reiterate if again) this is the case, then FCA will be the one taking over since they lead PSA in net worth, net revenue, and total assets by tens of billions of dollars. So if the company with the most assets is generally the company that takes over as you say, then it would be FCA in this case.

Not sure what Americans being on the board has anything to do with it. There are many non-Americans on the board of American companies. A board member's loyalty lies with his company that employees him, not the country he was born in. It is in their best interest that the company is and stays profitable or the shareholders will vote him out.

[RobertRyan]

Reisender wrote:
We spend quite a bit of time in Europe. I’m surprised Jeep doesn’t have a bigger presence there. Probably the only vehicles we ever owned from the big 3 that were any good. Our grand Cherokee was a nice vehicle for it’s time.

Jeep is not a big seller outside of NA or more specifically the US. Seems like boomtine for SUV production by European and Asian manufacturers that have already established markets in Europe

[wilber1]

RobertRyan wrote:

Philh wrote:
would not be surprised to see Jeep spun off, but I don't know who would buy jeep brand.

No the status quo will stay as Jeep is pretty profitable for FCA

I agree, their business is building vehicles. Why would you sell off winners?

[Reisender]

We spend quite a bit of time in Europe. I’m surprised Jeep doesn’t have a bigger presence there. Probably the only vehicles we ever owned from the big 3 that were any good. Our grand Cherokee was a nice vehicle for it’s time.

[FishOnOne]

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Again in reality there never is equals... It may be reported that how it's going to be structured but it won't last.

Is this fact or opinion. If fact, then please show me the data you have that you know it won't last

FishOnOne wrote:
Here's a copy/paste: The companies would combine under a Dutch parent company, with a board of 11 members, five nominated by FCA and five by PSA. Carlos Tavares, CEO of PSA Groupe, would be CEO of the new company; FCA Chairman John Elkann would retain his role.

I suspect the CEO will fill the 11th spot or someone at the parent company, and if this report is correct with Carlos Tavares being the new company CEO it looks like PSA will eventually dominate the company.

In this scenario, FCA actually have more leverage because they have more board representation with the 11 member being John Elkann from FCA as chairman of the board. The board can hire or fire a CEO while the CEO cannot touch a board member. The board can also override the CEO if they have enough votes to do so. So FCA will have 6 votes on the board to PSA's 5. The CEO is from PSA who does not have a vote which means FCA can out vote PSA on anything they wish to. So saying that PSA will dominate the company is highly unlikely unless PSA gets one of the FCA board members to vote against FCA.

I've been involved in a company merger of equals and it was a slow shift to one of the two companies. The company used both names and after about 5 years one of the two were removed. I've seen the same happen to one of are competitors.

Again I'll stress to you that the company that is backed by the most cash will eventually take over. If this board doesn't get along (11 seats) with the direction of the dominant group this process of dominance will accelerate.

How many American's will be on this board?

[RobertRyan]

Philh wrote:
would not be surprised to see Jeep spun off, but I don't know who would buy jeep brand.

No the status quo will stay as Jeep is pretty profitable for FCA

[RobertRyan]

Just because he says he wants to do it, does not mean he can at this time or should. The US heavy duty truck market is very cyclical meaning that it generally has 2-5 good years with lots of truck orders followed by 1-3 bad years. We are just coming our of a 5 year boom meaning Navistar's shares are high. This means their value is high which means it will cost more for VW to purchase them.

If VW were smart, they would wait at least a few years for the Navistar value to drop and then acquire more assets into Navistar. It would probably take a few more cycles for it to be a full acquisition. This is what VW did on the last bust in the heavy duty market when they bought around 16% of the shares of Navistar several years ago. This is why we hear that VW has no current plans to acquire Navistar and will likely wait a few years when their value goes down.

It would be foolish of VW or any investor to purchase when values are high and are historically at their peak when they can wait just a few years for the value to drop.

That is what I am saying and seeing. They will wait for more buoyant Global conditions before they make a move. Traton wants to overtake Volvo and eventually MB in the Global Truck market. Problem is MB and Volvo already own other European and Asian manufacturers