Porsche raises stake in VW to 50%
Porsche is continuing to wag the dog by upping its stake in VW to over 50%. The move, which cost Porsche $8.49 billion, adds another 8% to the German automaker's ownership stake. The move to 50% was supposed happen late in 2008, but a short squeeze temporarily skyrocketed VW stock from 210 Euros to over 1,000, delaying the move. Porsche's increase in VW stake also gave the iconic automaker indirect control of Swedish truckmaker Scania. Swedish law requires a mandatory takeover offer, but since Porsche has no interest in truck tech, it will only offer the minimum amount required. The much smaller Porsche has been deliberate in its bid to own the much larger VW, and its plans don't end at 50%. A Porsche spokesman told Automotive News that, pending market conditions, the company intends to own a 75% stake by the end of 2009. And to think Porsche was once worried that its small size made it vulnerable to be taken over by other companies.
[Source: Automotive News - Sub. Req.]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
yazzO 10:16AM (1/06/2009)
@rob
dumbest comment I've ever read.
Reply
IOMTT 1:43PM (1/06/2009)
Yeah, that comment went places far off topic. But that is what happens sometimes.
gtman 11:27PM (1/06/2009)
Porsche hedge fund keeps winning!! Too bad their car lineup doesn't.
Reply
Mel. R 10:22AM (1/06/2009)
You left out the "OM NOM NOM" sound bubble for that picture.
Reply
nagmashot 10:55AM (1/06/2009)
eating Volkswagen Group means Porsche controlls the third largest truck producer of the world.
Volkswagen owns Scania(68.6% stocks directly and 17% indirectly via MAN), they have controll right over MAN (Volkswagen largest stock owner) and Volkswagen truck group...
Porsche controlls behind Mercedes truck and Volvo truck AB (largest owner Renault S.A.) the third largest truck production world wide..
Wiedekind CEO of Porsche don´t care much were the billions of win after tax come from that Porsche earns since years.. sportcars or trucks he takes every euro win...
Reply
nagmashot 10:56AM (1/06/2009)
truck production means heavy trucks over 16to
Mobius_1 11:01AM (1/06/2009)
This is what you can do with all your profits when you make nice desirable cars with a good profit margin.
(Wonder if the big 3 are listening)
Reply
LMBVette 11:20AM (1/06/2009)
Uh....the cheapest Posche starts at around 50k and they topped out at 450k (Carrera GT).
GM doesn't exactly cater to that sort of clientale.
Also...take a look at Porsche sales.....they're down 50%.
jamie 11:34AM (1/06/2009)
LMBVette
"GM doesn't exactly cater to that sort of clientale."
Maybe if they did, they wouldn't have quite the cash flow problem that they do now, and then they could slough off any government bailout loans or assistance.
CORVETTE is nice, but Viper is meaner. How about a mid-engine super-Vette?
PONTIAC should have become "the American BMW".
BUICK should strive to be more like Mercedes or Lexus.
CADILLAC should have a serious 'S' series contender. Cadillac must absolutely move more upscale for it to be considered "World Class Luxury". I want my Cadillac 16 NOW! Who gives a rip about fuel economy when you're batting against RR or Bentley?
Chase 12:00PM (1/06/2009)
"Also...take a look at Porsche sales.....they're down 50%."
And so are almost everyone else's. Porsche is being relatively smart by letting their own business run its course, and instead investing in other businesses that will shelter it. VAG probably cares less about the current economy than any other automaker.
Jay 2:07PM (1/06/2009)
@jamie
Congrats, you are todays armchair quarterback...and apparently the Rex Grossman of armchair quarterbacks.
Yes because people are absolutely jonzing for an american BMW! Thats why G8 sales are through the roof!!!
And of course Buick should be more like Lexus or Merc than it already is, so they can make and AMG/F competitor and step directly on the toes of the aforementioned BMW-ized Pontiac. But what am I saying, afterall its not like the S class, LS, and 7 series are direct competitors or anything like that.
I guess what I'm getting saying is; I don't think you've thought this through...at all.
alex 11:17AM (1/06/2009)
ronEbear, your an anti-semitic idiot. This is a car blog, go post your bs comments somewhere else.
Reply
ronEbear 11:25AM (1/06/2009)
@Alex
So why, in your omnipotent wisdom, did you choose to not point out that the very first post for the comments to this story was 0% car related. Sue me.
Hypocrite!!
Reply
Jei 12:26PM (1/06/2009)
I think it's fairly obvious that GM does want to really compete in the ultra-luxury market. They've had numerous intentions, but no real aspiration to do so.
I agree, the Sixteen would have been a direct competitor to RR, Bentley, Maybach...maybe. And what they would've learned from producing the Sixteen may have spawned a true S-class competitor within the lineup.
But GM's product structure would have to downsize drastically and the quality of their products would increase proportionally...meaning, drop weaker brands to focus on quality and content. And then, after a period of restructuring, they would be able to put the necessary resources toward developing platforms purely for ultra-luxury & true luxury-sport vehicles that command price premiums without making consumers feel like they've been gauged.
Reply
Jei 12:31PM (1/06/2009)
Oop...
GM does NOT want to really compete in the ultra-luxury market.
Executive management & board are too afraid to drop/mothball legacy brand(s) to restructure into 3 or 4 focused divisions/brands and demand a must higher quality standard for each vehicle they produce.
alex 1:14PM (1/06/2009)
ronEbear, I'm glad that you are worried about my grammar and spelling mistakes. Fact of the matter is, your prejudiced remarks (about Jews) are unwarranted.
Maybe you should spend a fraction of the time you spent dissecting the grammar of my sentence to do some real research before you claim that "Jews are murdering children."
Is there a reason you fell back on criticizing something (grammar) that is completely irrelative? Maybe it's because you really don't know what the hell "you're" talking about?
Reply
ronEbear 1:09PM (1/06/2009)
@Miguel
Hold your horses there mister, not once did I utter an anti-semitic comment, looking at the comments it can be seen that YOU have uttered the most inflammatory statements to date. I was merely pointing out that despite being oppressed and killed by the millions in the past, they can somehow easily justify killing innocent adults as well as innocent children. You, sir, have blown things out of proportion. In other news the Israelis have bombed a U.N. run school that was used to shelter people from death. How is THAT justifiable?
Reply
alex 1:15PM (1/06/2009)
ronEbear, I'm glad that you are worried about my grammar and spelling mistakes. Fact of the matter is, your prejudiced remarks (about Jews) are unwarranted.
Maybe you should spend a fraction of the time you spent dissecting the grammar of my sentence to do some real research before you claim that "Jews are murdering children."
Is there a reason you fell back on criticizing something (grammar) that is completely irrelative? Maybe it's because you really don't know what the hell "you're" talking about?
Reply
ronEbear 1:20PM (1/06/2009)
@Alex
So, no innocent children have died in Gaza in the last week?
Read my reply to Miguel.
Reply
asifgrkhan 1:21PM (1/06/2009)
@Miguel
You sir are a shill and a hypocrite.
When killing civilians by any party in a conflict is a justly condemnable act, then why does the nation of Israel not deserve condemnation for killing kids as young as 1 and 2. Dont you have the slightest shame - condoning an army which has indiscriminately killed more than a hundred civilians. Do yourself a favor and switch on BBC and picture your child as one of the scores of babies which have died.
Now get your head our of your ass and discuss Porsche. Jackass.
Reply