Acura-legend.com banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Holla at Ya Boy
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Very interesting. There is alot of information on that Website that i did not know about. The site is up to date also. I just read in the paper just this morning that TATA purchased Jaguar and LandRover from Ford for about 1.7Billion and Ford originally purchased each division for about 2.2 Billion seperately.
 

·
SGM / Type F
Joined
·
3,653 Posts
nice!

So let me get this straight-nissan owns renault or renault owns nissan? It is kinda hard to tell
Here's the very confusing part of M&A's in the corporate (especially automobile) industry:

Renault owns 44.4% of Nissan in stock. Nissan owns 15% of Renault in stock. In effect, this implies Renault has a 29.4% stake in Nissan. This is not a merger and the companies call it an 'alliance' (they're 8th largest now, had they fully merged they would have been 4th largest). Advantages to this ridiculously complex setup:

1. A profit/cost benefit increase in either company drives up the stock of both. As opposed to a merger where the stock benefit direction would primarily be subsidiary --> parent (ie parent stock goes up due to profit in subsidiary).
2. Renault avoids massive corporate taxes normally involved with M&A's in the EU.
3. Nissan avoids simply being 'taken over' by an European rival.
4. They still pay technology licensing fees to one another, essentially transferring money from the left hand to the right and back again, yet making it look like profitable business for every transaction in the books of both companies.
5. If either company tanks (as Nissan was in '99 before Ghozn) then the other minimizes their losses as the 'alliance' can be severed quite quickly, although Renault is at more risk.

Corporate ownership/stake/alliance relations are crazy, complex setups and intentionally so for tax, stock opting/share-holding and book-keeping reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,186 Posts
Here's the very confusing part of M&A's in the corporate (especially automobile) industry:

Renault owns 44.4% of Nissan in stock. Nissan owns 15% of Renault in stock. In effect, this implies Renault has a 29.4% stake in Nissan. This is not a merger and the companies call it an 'alliance' (they're 8th largest now, had they fully merged they would have been 4th largest). Advantages to this ridiculously complex setup:

1. A profit/cost benefit increase in either company drives up the stock of both. As opposed to a merger where the stock benefit direction would primarily be subsidiary --> parent (ie parent stock goes up due to profit in subsidiary).
2. Renault avoids massive corporate taxes normally involved wit M&A's in the EU.
3. Nissan avoids simply being 'taken over' by an European rival.
4. They still pay technology licensing fees to one another, essentially transferring money from the left had to the right and back again, yet making it lok like profitable business for every transaction in the books of both companies.
5. If either company tanks (as Nissan was in '99 before Ghozn) then the other minimizes their losses as the 'alliance' can be severed quite quickly, although Renault is at more risk.

Corporate ownership/stake/alliance relations are crazy, complex setups and intentionally so for tax, stock opting/share-holding and book-keeping reasons.
when my head didnt explode from trying to figure it out when I clicked the link, you just made it explOded! thanks, now my cube is all sticky with brain matter
 

·
SGM / Type F
Joined
·
3,653 Posts
when my head didnt explode from trying to figure it out when I clicked the link, you just made it explOded! thanks, now my cube is all sticky with brain matter
:rofl:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,004 Posts
Here's the very confusing part of M&A's in the corporate (especially automobile) industry:

Renault owns 44.4% of Nissan in stock. Nissan owns 15% of Renault in stock. In effect, this implies Renault has a 29.4% stake in Nissan. This is not a merger and the companies call it an 'alliance' (they're 8th largest now, had they fully merged they would have been 4th largest). Advantages to this ridiculously complex setup:

1. A profit/cost benefit increase in either company drives up the stock of both. As opposed to a merger where the stock benefit direction would primarily be subsidiary --> parent (ie parent stock goes up due to profit in subsidiary).
2. Renault avoids massive corporate taxes normally involved wit M&A's in the EU.
3. Nissan avoids simply being 'taken over' by an European rival.
4. They still pay technology licensing fees to one another, essentially transferring money from the left had to the right and back again, yet making it lok like profitable business for every transaction in the books of both companies.
5. If either company tanks (as Nissan was in '99 before Ghozn) then the other minimizes their losses as the 'alliance' can be severed quite quickly, although Renault is at more risk.

Corporate ownership/stake/alliance relations are crazy, complex setups and intentionally so for tax, stock opting/share-holding and book-keeping reasons.
wow. It only took 2 semesters of accounting but i think i understand about 80% of what you just said:bowdown:
 

·
SGM / Type F
Joined
·
3,653 Posts
I invest and trade stocks in multiple markets so I had to learn me all this to make some $'s and not be dependent on a job accountable to my stupid bosses all my life. Not there yet, but getting closer!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
^ Warning! I might have to start picking your brain. I'm looking to create assets in the stock market as well. Nothing big yet, just putting aside money here and there (5%) for investments.

GM owns some of Ferrari, WOW. So is a Vette a poor man's Ferrari?

BMW, and Honda are still independent, and mostly isolated. :yes: :woot:
 

·
SGM / Type F
Joined
·
3,653 Posts
^ Warning! I might have to start picking your brain. :lol: I'm looking to create assets in the stock market as well. Nothing big yet, just putting aside money here and there (5%) for investments.

GM owns some of Ferrari, WOW.

BMW, and Honda are still independent, and somewhat isolated. :yes:
Sure thing man, always ready to help someone learn the markets and develp their wn investment style...especially a fellow forum member! GM 'owns' Ferrari in a very roundabout way too. They actually went around acquiring stakes in Ferrari vendors. This is because these vendors are a very niche market, making not commonly found products, and so there are only X number of companies capable of supplying Ferrari with OEM spec parts. So GM went around acquiring stock in those companies. In effect, GM doesn't really own Ferrari, but 5% of the cost of every Ferrari bought goes back to GM via the suppliers. GM also has a 20% stake in Fiat Auto (and Fiat Auto a 5.9% stake in GM, similar to Renault-Nissan). Fiat Auto in turn owns Fiat SPA and Fiat SPA owns Ferrari. GM's stake in Fiat Auto therefore translates into another 5% 'interest' (too low to be a 'stake') in Ferrari. Bottom line, ~10% of the profit of every Ferrari sold goes back to GM. And no there is no technology sharing between Vette's and Rari's.

I am proud the BMW and Honda remain independent (to an extent)! It's a good sign, because your product is strong enough to generate enough revenue on its own! :woot:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Sure thing man, always ready to help someone learn the markets and develp their wn investment style...especially a fellow forum member! GM 'owns' Ferrari in a very roundabout way too. They actually went around acquiring stakes in Ferrari vendors. This is because these vendors are a very niche market, making not commonly found products, and so there are only X number of companies capable of supplying Ferrari with OEM spec parts. So GM went around acquiring stock in those companies. In effect, GM doesn't really own Ferrari, but 5% of the cost of every Ferrari bought goes back to GM via the suppliers. GM also has a 20% stake in Fiat Auto (and Fiat Auto a 5.9% stake in GM, similar to Renault-Nissan). Fiat Auto in turn owns Fiat SPA and Fiat SPA owns Ferrari. GM's stake in Fiat Auto therefore translates into another 5% 'interest' (too low to be a 'stake') in Ferrari. Bottom line, ~10% of the profit of every Ferrari sold goes back to GM. And no there is no technology sharing between Vette's and Rari's.
Thanks man, I appreciate any knowledge I can get about the crazy complicated stock markets. I'll probably start a thread about stock advice in a couple of weeks, after the dust settles with this years tax return.:hide:

:headscrat So if you buy a Malibu and an F430 do you get a discount?

I am proud the BMW and Honda remain independent (to an extent)! It's a good sign, because your product is strong enough to generate enough revenue on its own! :woot:
hmm I never thought about it like that. Live and learn. I just thought it was good because they don't have to compromise about what kind of products they can make to meet the strict demands of any "partnerships".
 

·
SGM / Type F
Joined
·
3,653 Posts
:headscrat So if you buy a Malibu and an F430 do you get a discount?

hmm I never thought about it like that. Live and learn. I just thought it was good because they don't have to compromise about what kind of products they can make to meet the strict demands of any "partnerships".
:rofl:

And I never thought about independent manufacturers like that ^^!! Good point.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top