RE: moment of silence for BMW

["Geoff Jenkins" <jenkinsg@pilot.msu.edu>]

Despite Bernd Pischetsrieder's fall, there's no overwhelming reason why BMW
should "die". Last year, BMW's return on invested capital (@ approx. 20%)
was second only to (pre-Chrysler) Daimler Benz. That's not a sick company.
What BMW suffers from currently, is the folly of believing that it would
only take a few years and "smarter management" to turn Rover into a
profitable wing. In a somewhat prescient article two weeks ago, The
Economist concluded that "It is bad enough trying to run an independent
company in this age of giants. Diluting its value with a dodgy acquisition
makes the problem worse."

If someone buys out the Quandts and purchases BMW, they will be getting a
strong, healthy company with a very weak offshoot. If BMW is bought out,
it's not BMW's future which I'd be worried about, but Rover's.

Anyway, as BMW's value comes from its cars (rather than its production
facilities etc.), and its cars are upmarket sporty vehicles, who should BMW
mate with? VW and Fiat are the most commonly mentioned suitors, but do they
_need_ BMW? VW? No, our Audis, with Lambo, Bentley, Bugatti et al, fill that
niche well enough. Fiat? Maybe, but Fiat doesn't have desperately deep
pockets, as was seen by Volvo's decision to team up with Ford instead.

Geoff

ps: Quote of the week (from an article in The Economist about the Volvo
deal): "Jac Nasser... says 'Volvo has a world class reputation for safety,
quality, durability and envionmental responsibility'. He might also have
said that Volvo cars are no longer cubic fridges on wheels"

> Paul Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Let's cut out the competitive BS.  If BMW dies we all lose something.
They
> > make great cars(and bikes) whether you like them or not.  By making
great
> > cars they make their competition(we all know who that is) better.