Whats Volvo in Chinese?

[Pedro_The_Swift]

BREAKING: Ford says it has come to terms with Geely on Volvo sale

by Chris Shunk (http://www.autoblog.com/bloggers/chris-shunk/) (RSS feed (http://www.autoblog.com/bloggers/chris-shunk/rss.xml)) on Dec 23rd 2009 at 9:33AM https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ (http://www.autoblog.com/tag/breaking/)
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/12/319.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/23/breaking-ford-says-it-has-come-to-terms-with-geely-on-volvo-sal/#continued)

Ford Motor Company (http://www.autoblog.com/make/ford/) has just announced that all major terms relating to the sale of Volvo (http://www.autoblog.com/make/volvo/) have been settled between Ford and Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Company Limited (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/28/ford-officially-confirms-chinas-geely-as-preferred-bidder-for-v/). That doesn't mean that all the Ts have been crossed on the deal, but it does indicate that Geely has met all of Ford's terms for the sale to be complete. Ford has issued a press release stating that a definitive sale agreement will be signed in the first quarter of 2010, while the final sale won't take place until Q2.

Earlier in the month, former Volvo executives sent a letter (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/14/report-former-volvo-directors-and-politicians-fear-sale-to-baic/) to Ford Chairman Bill Ford, Jr. voicing their concern that Geely doesn't have the necessary resources to support Volvo. Not so, according to Ford's press release. The Blue Oval states "the prospective sale would ensure Volvo has the resources, including the capital investment, necessary to further strengthen the business and build its global franchise." And even though Ford will likely soon be handing over the keys to Volvo to a Chinese automaker, the company still intends to work closely with the Swedish automaker post-sale. That makes sense considering the fact that all Volvo products share platforms and components with Ford-branded cars and crossovers.

The sale will also go far in achieving Ford's goal of divesting itself of its non-core assets so the Dearborn, MI-based automaker can concentrate on matters closer to the Blue Oval's heart. Follow the jump to study Ford's brief press release. Thanks to everyone for the tips!

[Source: Ford]

[LandyAndy]

Hey Pedro
Both our Volvos at work(grader and excavator) quite often get refererd to as Vulvas.Perhaps this could be the new translation.
Andrew

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Just bloody great ! :(

[clean32]

doint worry, thay will be buying more of fords non core assetts soon. Like Ford Australia. then maybe thay will build a product worth puting your family in.

[LandyAndy]

You want to be more concerned about the amount of ownership they have been allowed to buy into the WA mining and oil and gas industries!!!!!
Andrew

[clean32]

You want to be more concerned about the amount of ownership they have been allowed to buy into the WA mining and oil and gas industries!!!!!
Andrew

Why, do you think thay will just pick it up and take it home ??

besides what a bussness is worth is how much it can finance, as nothing of any real size is aussie financed its not aussie owned anyway so whats the diff? just the name on the bord over the front drive way

[pop058]

Why, do you think thay will just pick it up and take it home ??

besides what a bussness is worth is how much it can finance, as nothing of any real size is aussie financed its not aussie owned anyway so whats the diff? just the name on the bord over the front drive way

dig it up maybe, but yes is the short answer, and the profit goes OS with it.

Paul

[loanrangie]

The chinese are welcome to Volvo, bloody ugly pieces of crap. The sole of Volvo died (like Saab ) when the yanks took over and homogenized it.

[snowbound]

When I wonder will it be the Chinese turn to own LR :eek: Every body else has had a go. .. The great wall rangie? :o

[Captain_Rightfoot]

The chinese are welcome to Volvo, bloody ugly pieces of crap. The sole of Volvo died (like Saab ) when the yanks took over and homogenized it.

You are missing the point though. One of the few areas the Chinese have not been able to control is car supply to the world. Their products are rubbish, and their safety is even worse. Thus, they haven't been able to gain traction in any developed world market.

How a car drives is important to some people, but for many they don't know and if offered a chinese product at a given price, they would take it. Same for build quality - most people wouldn't now.

However safety is one thing they just can't crack. Their cars are **really** bad in this regard and they don't understand what all the fuss is about (there are heaps of people - whats the problem). However consumer crash testing shows them off publicly. People won't buy their cars because they will be mocked (Don't you love your wife, little Johnny...).

The difficult bit is that safety is real hard. It's a black art that the car manufacturers have been unwilling to share thus far with the Chinese. It's about engineering and attention to detail. By purchasing Volvo (and SAAB ) the US Government (GM) have given the safety FAQ and howto to the Chinese government. This technology will be distributed to all their car manufacturers.

I reckon within 5-10 years the Chinese will be delivering cars to the shores of developed nations that will do acceptably well in crash tests. So, while the Yanks think they have divested themselves of non-core brands - they have in fact set themselves up for an another formidable competitor in a few years time.

Clearly GM is purely in survival mode. They need every last drop of liquidity or they won't be around to see the new competitors.

I find it fascinating watching how the Chinese are winning the GFC. :o

[clean32]

dig it up maybe, but yes is the short answer, and the profit goes OS with it.

Paul

and where do ypu think the profits go now??? sheeesh basic bussness. the bussness you buy pays the finance, the profit goes to the money peaple not to australia. what australia gets is the taxes and thats all australia gets now anyway regardles of who the owners are. the only damage to australia would be if thay decided to bring in cheep labour and i cant see that happening, australia has way to many red necks for that

[BMKal]

Why, do you think thay will just pick it up and take it home ??

besides what a bussness is worth is how much it can finance, as nothing of any real size is aussie financed its not aussie owned anyway so whats the diff? just the name on the bord over the front drive way


and where do ypu think the profits go now??? sheeesh basic bussness. the bussness you buy pays the finance, the profit goes to the money peaple not to australia. what australia gets is the taxes and thats all australia gets now anyway regardles of who the owners are. the only damage to australia would be if thay decided to bring in cheep labour and i cant see that happening, australia has way to many red necks for that

There's a bit more to it than that. True - the fact that profit is going offshore is no different to any other business that is owned by multinational companies. But the difference here is that the Chinese companies that are buying into our resources are all, without exception, owned and controlled by the Chinese government. This cannot be said for any other significant investor or group of investors in Australia.

Where the potential problem lies is that the Chinese Government has already demonstrated that they are more than willing to use their control of a commodity to regulate the market for that commodity to their own political ends. For example, if they gain enough of a foothold in the iron ore supply market, they are likely to drive down the price of iron ore supplied to their own steel mills, while at the same time, forcing up the price of iron ore supplied to their competitors.

If you think that this will not happen - look at the world market for rare earth minerals. At present, China is by far the world's largest supplier. The Chinese Government recently announced that they are closing down a number of their rare earth mines, purely to drive up the global price for these minerals to customers outside of China (while continuing to supply their own industry at lower prices).

The only other serious contender to China's dominance of this market is the Mount Weld rare earths project north of Kalgoorlie, which is currently under development and yet to come into production. The Chinese recently attempted to buy out the Australian company which owns this deposit. Fortunately, there was enough of an outcry and it was unlikely in the end that the Australian Government was going to approve the sale, and the Chinese have since withdrawn from this one. Had they gained control, it was likely that the Australian project would have been put "on hold" as part of the Chinese Government's strategic manipulation of the supply and price of these minerals.

It is not only the Chinese Government that is known for such practices - Xstrata did the same in WA when they purchased and shut down the Windimurra Vanadium mine to prop up their other Vanadium operations in South Africa (and there are still people in Australia who believe that Xstrata and its parent, Glencore, should be welcomed as investors in this country).

I have no problem with foreign investment, wherever it comes from. However, we need to be very careful that this investment is not allowed to the detriment of Australian interests. There is a very big difference between resources (particularly strategic ones) being controlled by multi national resource companies, and being controlled by a foreign government, whose agenda may not always be in line with our own interests.

Another one to watch at the moment is the proposed uranium mine at Arkaroola in SA. The third largest shareholder (and major investor) in this project is the Chinese Government - through one of their investment companies which already has a strong presence in the WA iron ore industry.

[clean32]

There's a bit more to it than that. True - the fact that profit is going offshore is no different to any other business that is owned by multinational companies. But the difference here is that the Chinese companies that are buying into our resources are all, without exception, owned and controlled by the Chinese government. This cannot be said for any other significant investor or group of investors in Australia.
Well true, But I was answering the Chinese question of profits. Where you have answered the question of Monopoly, a question not asked.
If we were to replace the word Chinese with the word America in the 1960s or even Japan in the 1970s well you are getting the point.

And yes you are correct that the Chinese are trying to get global control of the market for different raw materials just as Russia is trying to get global control of some manufacturing or technology industries.
Now you can sit there and complain that that’s not fair or get with the program and play the game. If Chinese consumption is 40% of the global production. And China owns 40 % of global production, then yes they can force the global prices down. BUT they can not force the global prices below the cost of production!! if the Chinese owns a mine in Australia and even if they are running that mine at a loss, this may have a global effect but it will have no effect on the money that that mine provides to Australia though direct and indirect wage costs, GST tax, land tax, license fees etc etc so really the whole argument is mute apart from some red neck pride.

[BMKal]

Well true, But I was answering the Chinese question of profits. Where you have answered the question of Monopoly, a question not asked.
If we were to replace the word Chinese with the word America in the 1960s or even Japan in the 1970s well you are getting the point.

And yes you are correct that the Chinese are trying to get global control of the market for different raw materials just as Russia is trying to get global control of some manufacturing or technology industries.
Now you can sit there and complain that that’s not fair or get with the program and play the game. If Chinese consumption is 40% of the global production. And China owns 40 % of global production, then yes they can force the global prices down. BUT they can not force the global prices below the cost of production!! if the Chinese owns a mine in Australia and even if they are running that mine at a loss, this may have a global effect but it will have no effect on the money that that mine provides to Australia though direct and indirect wage costs, GST tax, land tax, license fees etc etc so really the whole argument is mute apart from some red neck pride.

Except for when they choose to close down the mine/s that they control in Australia in times of lesser demand, purely to prop up the price they get for the iron ore that they produce from their own mines (China IS capable of being a major producer of iron ore in its own right you know - it's just that their iron ore deposits are low grade, high cost and very inefficient in comparison with those in Australia and South America).

This is the same as the examples that I mentioned previously where China (and Xstrata) have already attempted to manipulate world market prices at the expense of mines in Australia.

As I said - I don't have a problem with foreign investment, but I do not agree with these resources in Australia falling under the control of a foreign government - particularly one which has demonstrated its arrogance in the past the way that the Chinese Government has. I am also not singling out the Chinese here - I do not believe that ANY government should have the right to control the resources of another country.

There is a big difference between what China is attempting to do now and what American companies did in the 1960's and the Japanese in the 1970's - and that is that the American and Japanese companies concerned were public companies, and not owned and controlled by their respective governments.

[clean32]

As I said - I don't have a problem with foreign investment, but I do not agree with these resources in Australia falling under the control of a foreign government - particularly one which has demonstrated its arrogance in the past the way that the Chinese Government has. .


Mate, For GODs sake who do you think has control of them NOW?? australians i think not, but just have a look at the question i asked will you sheeesh

and what has the chinese goverment done that the American or british or french havent already done ?? so what you saying is its ok IF we do it but not ok if thay do it

Oh and think about it, thay will close one of there own mines at great cost?? before thay stop purchasing materials from another mine??? I doint think so

[BMKal]

Mate, For GODs sake who do you think has control of them NOW?? australians i think not, but just have a look at the question i asked will you sheeesh

and what has the chinese goverment done that the American or british or french havent already done ?? so what you saying is its ok IF we do it but not ok if thay do it

Oh and think about it, thay will close one of there own mines at great cost?? before thay stop purchasing materials from another mine??? I doint think so

Sadly, you don't seem to comprehend the difference between a public company and a government owned company.

And as for closing down mines that they own - how many examples do I need to quote you ?? Check some facts will you.

[clean32]

Sadly, you don't seem to comprehend the difference between a public company and a government owned company.

Please enlighten me


And as for closing down mines that they own - how many examples do I need to quote you ?? Check some facts will you.

doint just flap about it, post it.

and as for steel manufacture i had 3 years there when flecture had there deal with minmetals.

you need to start looking at the big picture and not worry so much about the puddle in your back yard. you puddle will not exsist if a bulldozer goes though your house. or to put it another way King Knut

[BMKal]

Post it !!! What - you've got a reading problem or something. Maybe check what the past few posts have been referring to for a start.

And three years in steelmaking - wow, I'm impressed. That must really qualify you to understand what we're talking about here.

And your last comment - well I really don't get where you're coming from. Obviously not capable of engaging in a discussion without resorting to some sort of pathetic abuse - usually a sign of a complete lack of knowledge of the subject that someone is trying to talk about.

I can't be bothered arguing or trying to explain it to you - you obviously think you know all the answers already, and the rest of us are idiots.

[clean32]

Post it !!! What - you've got a reading problem or something. Maybe check what the past few posts have been referring to for a start. .

You haven’t referred to any thing, you have how ever made statements


And three years in steelmaking - wow, I'm impressed. That must really qualify you to understand what we're talking about here. .

Oh sarcasm how witty. I do and that’s why I am posting. And it’s not 3 years in steel making, its 1/2 my life overseas


And your last comment - well I really don't get where you're coming from. Obviously not capable of engaging in a discussion without resorting to some sort of pathetic abuse - usually a sign of a complete lack of knowledge of the subject that someone is trying to talk about. .

Knowledge I have, and I am sorry you don’t understand what I have posted maybe if you used Google???


I can't be bothered arguing or trying to explain it to you - you obviously think you know all the answers already, and the rest of us are idiots.

Then don’t argue and realize that the world is a much bigger place. Just ask yourself for example why would a Chinese company close a mine, what would the cost to them be? And would they be able to recover the losses? If you know the answers to all of that then you will be on the correct track.

As for your public company comments, what rights or power has a shareholder really got??

I have posted before, that Australia is in the best position and is looking at its only chance to be come a player in the world

Worse case scenario either economic or political up heavel, china cares the losses Australia keeps the mine. in the VERY worse scenario the would goes bi or tri polar in which case ownership would revert back to the aussie government and we would be supplying what ever needs are within the sphere Australia has fallen into

its all quite simple really

[vnx205]

There are a couple of problems with referring someone to the story of King Knut. although I suspect that in this instance someone's first reaction was that he was being referred to as King Nut rather than to the legend of King Knut.

The first problem is that his name is more often spelled as Cnut or more often still, as Canute, so googling might not be as successful as you would hope.

The second problem is that contrary to most people's belief, Canute was not a deluded king who foolishly thought he hold back the waves. He was actually demonstrating to his fawning courtiers that their declarations of the extent of his power were ridiculous.

He knew he couldn't stop the waves. It was his courtiers who were made to look foolish.

[loanrangie]

You are missing the point though. One of the few areas the Chinese have not been able to control is car supply to the world. Their products are rubbish, and their safety is even worse. Thus, they haven't been able to gain traction in any developed world market.

How a car drives is important to some people, but for many they don't know and if offered a chinese product at a given price, they would take it. Same for build quality - most people wouldn't now.

However safety is one thing they just can't crack. Their cars are **really** bad in this regard and they don't understand what all the fuss is about (there are heaps of people - whats the problem). However consumer crash testing shows them off publicly. People won't buy their cars because they will be mocked (Don't you love your wife, little Johnny...).

The difficult bit is that safety is real hard. It's a black art that the car manufacturers have been unwilling to share thus far with the Chinese. It's about engineering and attention to detail. By purchasing Volvo (and SAAB ) the US Government (GM) have given the safety FAQ and howto to the Chinese government. This technology will be distributed to all their car manufacturers.

I reckon within 5-10 years the Chinese will be delivering cars to the shores of developed nations that will do acceptably well in crash tests. So, while the Yanks think they have divested themselves of non-core brands - they have in fact set themselves up for an another formidable competitor in a few years time.

Clearly GM is purely in survival mode. They need every last drop of liquidity or they won't be around to see the new competitors.

I find it fascinating watching how the Chinese are winning the GFC. :o

The point is just because it is foreign owned doesnt mean they are going to ship the whole volvo assembly plant to China and start building volvo's, there will be hardly any change at least untill the engine/platform supply contract with ford runs out. If ever they are fully designed and built in china the brand will fail to exist- Tata havent added curry warmers to Landrovers now have they ?

[clean32]

There are a couple of problems with referring someone to the story of King Knut. although I suspect that in this instance someone's first reaction was that he was being referred to as King Nut rather than to the legend of King Knut.

The first problem is that his name is more often spelled as Cnut or more often still, as Canute, so googling might not be as successful as you would hope.

The second problem is that contrary to most people's belief, Canute was not a deluded king who foolishly thought he hold back the waves. He was actually demonstrating to his fawning courtiers that their declarations of the extent of his power were ridiculous.

He knew he couldn't stop the waves. It was his courtiers who were made to look foolish.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was not referring to the poster as being a King nut as you pointed out.

To look at the story of King Knut/Cnut or Canute. I was looking at it from the view of one person with the knowledge ( limits of power) and the masses believing in perceptions ( unlimited power) and being wrong
In reference to the thread of my post is that there is a common misbelieve in china’s power a misbelieve not shared by china.
We in Australia have not yet been affected greatly or to the same existent that other countries have. Most Australians have a perception that is historical at best or just erroneous of china and Chinas ambitions.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

The point is just because it is foreign owned doesnt mean they are going to ship the whole volvo assembly plant to China and start building volvo's, there will be hardly any change at least untill the engine/platform supply contract with ford runs out. If ever they are fully designed and built in china the brand will fail to exist- Tata havent added curry warmers to Landrovers now have they ?

It's not that I'm talking about. The point I was trying to make is that the US government (GM) has handed the Chinese government all of Volvos (and SAABs ) safety technology and know how which they will distribute amongst their manufacturers.

Pretty much the only thing which has been stopping the Chinese from competing against first world manufacturers is their poor safety standards. It is my belief that in 5-10 years the yanks (and everyone else) will have to compete against the Chinese in car manufacturing too who will try and compete with this new safety knowledge.

What happens to Volvo and SAAB is largely irrelevant except to the Swedes.

[LandyAndy]

I see the new Great Wall Navara and Rodeo copies have been recalled for faulty seatbelt tensioners.
Seems they didnt copy the important bits correctly!!!!
Andrew

[clean32]

I see the new Great Wall Navara and Rodeo copies have been recalled for faulty seatbelt tensioners.
Seems they didnt copy the important bits correctly!!!!
Andrew

the Great wall Utes are Toyota clips. you may be intrested to note that the seat belts come from Korea, i beleve from the same factory that supplyes holden and ford australia.

[LandyAndy]

Rodeo and Navara
Andrew

[Captain_Rightfoot]

I see the new Great Wall Navara and Rodeo copies have been recalled for faulty seatbelt tensioners.
Seems they didnt copy the important bits correctly!!!!
Andrew

Well... the sale of Volvo and SAAB have just been announced so it will take time. You might start seeing bits put onto existing models, but it will be 5+ years before you see big steps forward which is about a model cycle.