How About Ford-Renault-Nissan?

[adplusone]

How about Ford-Renault-Nissan?

Chemistry with Ghosn, complementary lineup could make more sense than alliance with GM.

Might Ford Motor Co. be a better fit? As investors weigh the pros and cons of an alliance among General Motors Corp., Renault SA and Nissan Motor Co., the Dearborn automaker's name keeps cropping up.

According to the local version of events, Carlos Ghosn, CEO of both Renault and Nissan, first sounded out Ford when he began his search a little over a year ago for a third partner for the Renault-Nissan alliance.

Those talks didn't lead anywhere, but the chemistry was good enough for Ford to approach Ghosn last fall about the job of running the world's No. 3 automaker. That, however, would be little more than a lateral move -- Renault and Nissan together form the world's fourth-largest auto grouping.

About the same time, Renault expressed interest in acquiring Ford's Volvo Cars -- a Swedish company that the French company had sought as a merger partner in the early 1990s.

Volvo is the most successful and profitable brand in Ford's Premier Automotive Group of upscale nameplates, including the loss-making Jaguar marque. Analysts believe the deal probably fell through because Ford would not sell Volvo by itself.

Now Ford risks being left out in the cold if Kirk Kerkorian, GM's largest individual shareholder, succeeds in pushing the struggling U.S. auto giant into a three-way alliance with Renault-Nissan.

But auto analyst Robert Hinchliffe of UBS Securities says Ford might be a more logical partner for Renault-Nissan, and not just because the top executives already know each other.

(story continues at link)

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs...plate=printart

[Bravada]

Ford-Renault-Nissan?

[kenman923]

I don't think that would happen either. Not as long as Bill Ford has control of Ford Motor Company. His great grandfather Henry would roll over in his grave.

[ChevyOptra5]

I don't think that alliance would be worthwhile either, Ford covers pretty much every niche with mazda, volvo etc.

[FoMoCo Fan]

Ford already has a Japanese partner, and just installed their version of Ghosn in charge of the "turnaround". Mark Fields did with Mazda the same thing Ghosn did with Nissan. Ghosn is really the only reason anyone would want an "alliance" with Nissan/Renault.

[1931Chevy]

IMO this wouldnt sound too bad because the Ford family has about 40% of Ford voting stock so if an alliance happen they still have a lot of control on the alliance

[megeebee]

Originally Posted by FoMoCo Fan

Ford already has a Japanese partner, and just installed their version of Ghosn in charge of the "turnaround". Mark Fields did with Mazda the same thing Ghosn did with Nissan. Ghosn is really the only reason anyone would want an "alliance" with Nissan/Renault.

I agree. I wonder if its Renault/ Nissan that feels it needs an alliance more than either Ford or GM.

[johnny smallblock]

Ford is a better fit because above all else, they don't have a plan. I can see Ghosn coming in and cutting divisions and jobs quickly. Of course then the next Z will be a Mustang.

The only problem is that what Ghosn does best is cut costs. And FoMoCo has a hard time spending money to differentiate vehicles as it is. A sea of identical cars sold under 4 different badges may follow.

[SteveWallace]

Hmm, in the late 90's Ford actually looked at buying Nissan! It was around the time that MB and Chrysler "merged."

[1BadPig]

Okay, this thread got me thinking... if Ford & Renault did form an alliance, would they make a car called "Cle-Taurus?"

[kenman923]

Originally Posted by 1BadPig

Okay, this thread got me thinking... if Ford & Renault did form an alliance, would they make a car called "Cle-Taurus?"

Sure would sound better than a Maxipala, or an Altibu, or a Sentbalt.

[FoMoCo Fan]

Originally Posted by johnny smallblock

Ford is a better fit because above all else, they don't have a plan. I can see Ghosn coming in and cutting divisions and jobs quickly. Of course then the next Z will be a Mustang.

The only problem is that what Ghosn does best is cut costs. And FoMoCo has a hard time spending money to differentiate vehicles as it is. A sea of identical cars sold under 4 different badges may follow.

Ford has a plan. The problem is they have had TOO MANY plans. And either those prior plans have failed, or have been changed every six months thanks to a revolving door of top executives. Mark Fields and his "Way Forward" plan is either going to work, or fail miserably and THEN we might talk about a merger.

[87aero]

Originally Posted by FoMoCo Fan

Ghosn is really the only reason anyone would want an "alliance" with Nissan/Renault.

That's the truth. That's why he'd love an alliance with GM. GM has a lot of things going for it. They're competitive globally and have access to South Asian production, not to mention the largest market base in America. GM still has problems with legacy, unions, and image, but the products are better than they've ever been and there's a lot of global resources to tap. If GM had the infrastructure, and product it does today, say 15, 20 years ago, they'd be way healtheir than Toyota is now. Ghosn knows this and would love a piece of everything GM's accomplished the last couple years.

And Jerkorian is just trying to push stock. Does this 89 year old billionaire investor really care in the long term future of GM (or the millions of Americans this decision will affect)? I doubt it. He's spent his whole life aquiring wealth and he'll do it until the day he croaks (hopefully in the very near future). I don't know why the board can't just tell that avaricious pig to F off (in a nicer way of course). Are they scarred he'll dump his stock? If he does is that a bad thing? If he dumps that much stock the price will drop severely, but won't other investors quickly buy back the cheap stock while they can?

[mikesright]

I don't even want to see Ford in an Alliance, or merger, or takeover, whichever words you want to use here. I think Ford will definitely take time to come back, and some tough decisions need to be made here, such as the future of Lincoln or Mercury. They need to be proactive, and speed things up rapidly to turn the ship. Of the big 2's problems, Ford's are the deepest and the worst, so it will be tough to turn it around. By 2009 I see them bankrupt or making some hefty profits. Ghosn would probably be able to make it work there, as Ford has many outdated factories and brands, and they would be able to share more equally R&D and parts savings, and the scale might be easier, too. I still don't see Ford going after Ghosn other than to make him CEO of Ford and taking him away from Renault/Nissan.

From Renault/Nissan's perspective, GM is easier to take over and is much farther in the turnaround, and would net them big savings in product development, too. Also, GM is really cheap for 20% control, and could net huge gains in a very short amount of time as they turn around quickly. In 2007, many analysts see GM making as much as $8-$12 billion as more new models come out and the cost savings accelerates, and GM could potentially save Renault/Nissan $20 billion in R&D alone, while GM would get Ghosn, and nothing else. I see GM taking the offer seriously for "due dilligence," but there is so little benefit from getting a pompous CEO and $3 billion, I see them turning it down. GM has more to lose than gain here.

[Kheiron]

As much as it may make fiscal sense, there is an X factor with Ford, quite simply: The Ford Family. I am highly skeptical of them letting a takeover occur (merger, alliance, whatever you want to call it) by anyone, let alone Ghosn. Bill Ford Jr. seems intent on "righting the ship" and leading this company through "innovation" in this century.

Mikesright made a very good point in his second paragraph about the situation of GM and the N-R alliance. The cost benefit relationship, given the knowledge we have here on GMI, just doesn't pan out for the General. Now behind closed doors with insider information, who knows? But as I've consistantly said since joining GMI, GM needs to do whats in the best long term consistantly profitable competitive future. If the alliance is more beneficial, go for it; If GM can stand on their own two feet and do it on their own (which I fully believe they are capable of doing as long as they execute their business plan with relatively no errors), I am all for GM's profitable future long term.