2022 Chrysler Pacifica Touring L on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Why FCA-PSA merger is no quick fix for their China problem

BEIJING — Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot owner PSA's merger is unlikely to provide a quick fix to their problems in China, as both companies have long struggled to find the right products at the right price for the world's top car market, analysts say. The companies said on Thursday they aimed to reach a binding deal in the coming weeks to create the world's fourth-biggest automaker by production volume. But scale alone will not make Italian-American Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) and France's PSA Group more competitive in a market where they have been slow to adapt to trends and win over consumers, leading their sales to lag far behind foreign rivals such as Volkswagen and General Motors. PSA does not have enough competitive SUV models, and neither company has enough electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, or enough cars packed with hi-tech features for Chinese tastes, analysts say. In a market where 28 million cars were bought in 2018, FCA sold just 155,215, while PSA sold 257,723, according to consultancy LMC Automotive. At the end of September, FCA had a market share of 0.5% in China's passenger car market, while PSA's was 0.6%. Analysts say they have been squeezed by Japanese and local brands, which have product line-ups better suited to Chinese tastes at cheaper prices. "Both companies are very home-market centred and have failed to adapt to shifts in Chinese market preferences," said Bill Russo, head of Shanghai-based consultancy Automobility Ltd and a former senior Asia-based Chrysler executive. "Neither company has recognized and delivered on the trends of shared, connected and electric vehicles,” Russo said. That makes them ill-prepared to deal with further shifts in the Chinese market, which saw annual sales contract for the first time since the 1990s last year and is expected to see another drop this year. "China's overall market is experiencing a transmission and adjustment period," said Alan Kang, a Shanghai-based senior analyst at LMC Automotive. "It is very hard for these two companies, which do not have enough competitive up-to-date products, to quickly recover with the merger." FCA has a partnership in China with Guangzhou Automobile Group, which said on Thursday it backed the merger. PSA has been trying to reboot its operations in China.

5 reasons why GM is cutting jobs, closing plants in a healthy economy

DETROIT — Even though unemployment is low, the economy is growing and U.S. auto sales are near historic highs, General Motors is cutting thousands of jobs in a major restructuring aimed at generating cash to spend on innovation. It's the new reality for automakers that are faced with the present cost of designing gas-powered cars and trucks that appeal to buyers now while at the same time preparing for a future world of electric and autonomous vehicles. GM announced Monday that it will cut as many as 14,000 workers in North America and put five plants up for possible closure as it abandons many of its car models and restructures to focus more on autonomous and electric vehicles. The reductions could amount to as much as 8 percent of GM's global workforce of 180,000 employees. The cuts mark GM's first major downsizing since shedding thousands of jobs in the Great Recession. The company also said it will stop operating two additional factories outside North America by the end of next year. The move to make GM get leaner before the next downturn likely will be followed by Ford Motor Co., which also has struggled to keep one foot in the present and another in an ambiguous future of new mobility. Ford has been slower to react, but says it will lay off an unspecified number of white-collar workers as it exits much of the car market in favor of trucks and SUVs, some of them powered by batteries. Here's a rundown of the reasons behind the cuts: Coding, not combustion CEO Mary Barra said as cars and trucks become more complex, GM will need more computer coders but fewer engineers who work on internal combustion engines. "The vehicle has become much more software-oriented" with millions of lines of code, she said. "We still need many technical resources in the company." Shedding sedans The restructuring also reflects changing North American auto markets as manufacturers continue to shift away from cars toward SUVs and trucks. In October, almost 65 percent of new vehicles sold in the U.S. were trucks or SUVs. That figure was about 50 percent cars just five years ago. GM is shedding cars largely because it doesn't make money on them, Citi analyst Itay Michaeli wrote in a note to investors. "We estimate sedans operate at a significant loss, hence the need for classic restructuring," he wrote. The reduction includes about 8,000 white-collar employees, or 15 percent of GM's North American white-collar workforce. Some will take buyouts while others will be laid off.

Auto bailout cost the US goverment $9.26B

Depending on your outlook, the US Treasury's bailout of General Motors, Chrysler (now FCA) and their financing divisions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program was either a complete boondoggle or a savvy move to secure the future of some major employers. Regardless of where you fall, the auto industry bailout has officially ended, and the numbers have been tallied. Of the $79.69 billion that the Feds invested to keep the automakers afloat, it recouped $70.43 billion – a net loss of $9.26 billion. The final nail in the coffin for the auto bailout came in December 2014 when the Feds sold its shares in Ally Financial, formerly GMAC. The deal turned out pretty good for the government too because the investment turned a 2.4 billion profit. The actual automakers have long been out of the Treasury's hands, though. The current FCA paid back its loans six years early in 2011, the Treasury sold of the last shares of GM in late 2013. According to The Detroit News, the government's books actually show an official loss on the auto bailouts of $16.56 billion. The difference is because the larger figure does not include the interest or dividends paid by the borrowers on the amount lent. While it's easy to see fault in any red ink on the Feds' massive investment, the number is less than some earlier estimates. At one time, deficits around $44 billion were thought possible, and another put things at a $20.3 billion loss. Outside of just the government losing money, the bailouts might have helped the overall economy. A study from the Center for Automotive Research last year estimated that the program saved 2.6 million jobs and about $284.4 billion in personal wealth. It also indicated that the Feds' reduction in income tax revenue alone from Chrysler and GM going under could have been around $100 billion for just 2009 and 2010, significantly more than any loss in the bailout.