Chrysler's 3rd largest shareholder

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

studio - 01 Mar 2006 03:01 GMT

(01/30/2005)
United Arab Emerites
became 3rd largest shareholder of US automaker,
Daimler Chrysler AG --- $1bn

Reply to this Message

TBone - 01 Mar 2006 03:24 GMT

LOL, that would be all well and good except that Daimler is not and has
never been a US auto maker and now neither is Chrysler since Daimler took it
over.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

> (01/30/2005)
> United Arab Emerites
> became 3rd largest shareholder of US automaker,
> Daimler Chrysler AG --- $1bn

Reply to this Message

Max Dodge - 01 Mar 2006 05:07 GMT

> LOL, that would be all well and good except that Daimler is not and has
> never been a US auto maker and now neither is Chrysler since Daimler took
> it
> over.

Which except for the fact that DC maintains several assembly plants and
Chrysler headquarters in Michigan, making the Chrysler division a
disctinctly American operation, Tbone would actually be correct.

You are aware (are you not?) that the new Chairman of DC was hand picked
because of his success in the Chrysler division of DC?

It is also worth mention that none of the listed major shareholders of DCX
as of 12/31/05 was UAE or any company from there. However, since two months
have elapsed, and Deutsch Bank has long been interested in divesting itself
of DCX stock, its possible UAE was a buyer. But then, it would have hit at
least one financial service site on the web right?

Signature

Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

> LOL, that would be all well and good except that Daimler is not and has
> never been a US auto maker and now neither is Chrysler since Daimler took
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> became 3rd largest shareholder of US automaker,
>> Daimler Chrysler AG --- $1bn

Reply to this Message

TBone - 03 Mar 2006 04:36 GMT

> > LOL, that would be all well and good except that Daimler is not and has
> > never been a US auto maker and now neither is Chrysler since Daimler took
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Chrysler headquarters in Michigan, making the Chrysler division a
> disctinctly American operation, Tbone would actually be correct.

Sorry Max, but I am correct. Where a company builds its product has no
effect on who owns it and since Chrysler is now owned by a German
manufacturer, it is a German manufacturer, regardless of where some of its
plants are located.

> You are aware (are you not?) that the new Chairman of DC was hand picked
> because of his success in the Chrysler division of DC?

And this means what, oh yea, not a damn thing.

> It is also worth mention that none of the listed major shareholders of DCX
> as of 12/31/05 was UAE or any company from there. However, since two months
> have elapsed, and Deutsch Bank has long been interested in divesting itself
> of DCX stock, its possible UAE was a buyer. But then, it would have hit at
> least one financial service site on the web right?

Signature

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

> > over.
> >
> >> (01/30/2005)
> >> United Arab Emerites
> >> became 3rd largest shareholder of US automaker,
> >> Daimler Chrysler AG --- $1bn

Reply to this Message

Max Dodge - 03 Mar 2006 22:27 GMT

> Sorry Max, but I am correct. Where a company builds its product has no
> effect on who owns it and since Chrysler is now owned by a German
> manufacturer, it is a German manufacturer, regardless of where some of its
> plants are located.

Except that little detail of having its operational headquarters in
Michigan, you might actually be correct. See, since it was a "merger of
equals", and the Chrysler side is bigger by far, AND a Court of Law has
upheld that "merger of equals" thing, AND Chrysler not only had better
profits, but better QUALITY than its German half, the only conclusion is
that Chrysler, despite being a division of a holding company known as DCX,
is in fact a North American operation, and is denoted as such by its parent
company.

>> You are aware (are you not?) that the new Chairman of DC was hand picked
>> because of his success in the Chrysler division of DC?
>
> And this means what, oh yea, not a damn thing.

Its demonstration of the autonomous nature of the Chrysler division, yet
another bit of evidence that proves you incorrect in calling Chrysler a
German operation.

>> It is also worth mention that none of the listed major shareholders of
>> DCX
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> at
>> least one financial service site on the web right?

I see you had nothing to say to this point, which was in fact the issue at
hand.

Signature

Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

>> > LOL, that would be all well and good except that Daimler is not and has
>> > never been a US auto maker and now neither is Chrysler since Daimler
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>> >> became 3rd largest shareholder of US automaker,
>> >> Daimler Chrysler AG --- $1bn

Reply to this Message

TBone - 05 Mar 2006 14:29 GMT

> > Sorry Max, but I am correct. Where a company builds its product has no
> > effect on who owns it and since Chrysler is now owned by a German
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Except that little detail of having its operational headquarters in
> Michigan, you might actually be correct.

Once again, it doesn't matter. Especially when Chrysler is only a division
of the main GERMAN company.

> See, since it was a "merger of
> equals", and the Chrysler side is bigger by far, AND a Court of Law has
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> is in fact a North American operation, and is denoted as such by its parent
> company.

Merger of equals, LOL! It was a takeover, simple as that. It was called a
merger of equals to calm the American stock holders to get the deal to go
through much easier and this was admitted by both sides. Funny how most of
the leadership of Chrysler are no longer working for it so even if by some
remote chance that were true (and it really isn't), just about all of the
corporate officers are either from Daimler or were selected by Daimler.
Also funny how the US courts have little jurisdiction on German companies.
I realise that you have this love affair with Chrysler and Dodge but face it
Maxi, the corporate leadership once again sold out for the big bucks, after
all it is the new American way.

> >> You are aware (are you not?) that the new Chairman of DC was hand picked
> >> because of his success in the Chrysler division of DC?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> another bit of evidence that proves you incorrect in calling Chrysler a
> German operation.

No, it demonstraited the ability of the person that they picked. If he
could keep the Chrysler division profitable while GM and Ford took a dump,
he was the man for the job, nothing more.

> >> It is also worth mention that none of the listed major shareholders of
> >> DCX
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I see you had nothing to say to this point, which was in fact the issue at
> hand.

LOL, sorry Maxi, but just because you say it doesn't make it fact and as
usual, you jump into a thread with no actual valid information, just to
flame as usual.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

Reply to this Message

Max Dodge - 05 Mar 2006 17:59 GMT

> Once again, it doesn't matter. Especially when Chrysler is only a
> division
> of the main GERMAN company.

Of course, given that its been found to be a merger of equals, as it was
supposed to be (not that I like the idea, but the facts are what they ware)
I suppose some German schmuck like yourself is arguing that Mercedes is no
longer a German automaker. Thats no more true than what you claim.

> Merger of equals, LOL! It was a takeover, simple as that.

I'm awfully sorry, but against what you and I would like, its been found by
a judge in a court of law to be exactly what it was claimed to be. Again,
I'm no fan of the decision, but... the facts are what they are.

> It was called a
> merger of equals to calm the American stock holders to get the deal to go
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> remote chance that were true (and it really isn't), just about all of the
> corporate officers are either from Daimler or were selected by Daimler.

I agree and yet, a court, with far more facts and evidence at hand than we
have, has decided otherwise.

> Also funny how the US courts have little jurisdiction on German companies.
> I realise that you have this love affair with Chrysler and Dodge but face
> it
> Maxi, the corporate leadership once again sold out for the big bucks,
> after
> all it is the new American way.

I realize you don't have a clue what I think after that remark. First, I
like Chrysler, and don't like the fact that its merged, owned, or what ever,
by a German company (at least it wasn't BMW or Audi). BUT... a court says
its merged, and so that is the fact. It would be a good idea for you to
figure out the laws. ANY corporation operating in this country, no matter
the location of its headquarters, is bound by our laws.

>> Its demonstration of the autonomous nature of the Chrysler division, yet
>> another bit of evidence that proves you incorrect in calling Chrysler a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> could keep the Chrysler division profitable while GM and Ford took a dump,
> he was the man for the job, nothing more.

Obviously you forgot one important bit of info that makes my statement true.
Deiter Zeische operated without needing command from above; indeed, operated
BETTER than Jergen Schremp who was his boss. The only way he could do this
would be if Chrysler was operated as an American company. The next important
bit of info you forgot is the reason Daimler wanted to merge with Chrysler:
They wanted an American company that had not only a decent market share
(larger than Mercedes) but had innovative ideas and design. Chrysler had all
that, and has been urged to continue that.

> LOL, sorry Maxi, but just because you say it doesn't make it fact and as
> usual, you jump into a thread with no actual valid information, just to
> flame as usual.

LOL, sorry if you can't take it when I join a thread at its inception with
facts that trump your blather.

Signature

Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

>> > Sorry Max, but I am correct. Where a company builds its product has no
>> > effect on who owns it and since Chrysler is now owned by a German
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
> usual, you jump into a thread with no actual valid information, just to
> flame as usual.

Reply to this Message

Max Dodge - 05 Mar 2006 17:59 GMT

> Once again, it doesn't matter. Especially when Chrysler is only a
> division
> of the main GERMAN company.

> Merger of equals, LOL! It was a takeover, simple as that.

I agree and yet, a court, with far more facts and evidence at hand than we
have, has decided otherwise.

> LOL, sorry Maxi, but just because you say it doesn't make it fact and as
> usual, you jump into a thread with no actual valid information, just to
> flame as usual.

LOL, sorry if you can't take it when I join a thread at its inception with
facts that trump your blather.

Signature

Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Reply to this Message

TBone - 06 Mar 2006 13:47 GMT

> > Once again, it doesn't matter. Especially when Chrysler is only a
> > division
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I suppose some German schmuck like yourself is arguing that Mercedes is no
> longer a German automaker. Thats no more true than what you claim.

First of all, I am not German, not that it would matter either way.
Regardless of what the court may regard it as, it is still run by the execs
that were either in or hand picked by Daimler, a German company and Chrysler
is only a division of such. Since the parent company is very much a German
company, why would Mercedes be regarded any different than it always was.
You appear to be spinning yourself now.

> > Merger of equals, LOL! It was a takeover, simple as that.
>
> I'm awfully sorry, but against what you and I would like, its been found by
> a judge in a court of law to be exactly what it was claimed to be. Again,
> I'm no fan of the decision, but... the facts are what they are.

Sorry Max, but the facts are not always what they appear to be.

> > It was called a
> > merger of equals to calm the American stock holders to get the deal to go
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I agree and yet, a court, with far more facts and evidence at hand than we
> have, has decided otherwise.

All that says is that it is an American division of a foreign company and it
really doesn't matter what they decided. Who is in control of the company?
Where did the execs running it come from? Who picked them?

> > Also funny how the US courts have little jurisdiction on German companies.
> > I realise that you have this love affair with Chrysler and Dodge but face
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> figure out the laws. ANY corporation operating in this country, no matter
> the location of its headquarters, is bound by our laws.

LOL! Sure, it has to follow American laws but so do Honda and Toyota. Are
you saying that they are also American companies? On paper it may still be
listed as a merger but in reality, it was an admitted takeover, simple as
that.

> >> Its demonstration of the autonomous nature of the Chrysler division, yet
> >> another bit of evidence that proves you incorrect in calling Chrysler a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Obviously you forgot one important bit of info that makes my statement true.

That is because there isn't one.

> Deiter Zeische operated without needing command from above; indeed, operated
> BETTER than Jergen Schremp who was his boss. The only way he could do this
> would be if Chrysler was operated as an American company.

Complete BS. Even in GM there were divisions that operated outside of the
corporate requirements and demands, especially during the muscle car era.
Are you saying that Pontiac and Olds were foreign manufacturers now, LOL!

> The next important
> bit of info you forgot is the reason Daimler wanted to merge with Chrysler:
> They wanted an American company that had not only a decent market share
> (larger than Mercedes) but had innovative ideas and design. Chrysler had all
> that, and has been urged to continue that.

Actually, it was Chryslers technology that they wanted and the market share
(smallest of the American manufacturers) was just an added bonus. BTW, I
don't recall Mercedes being in financial trouble. Do you know something
different and if so, please supply a link. That would be interesting.

> > LOL, sorry Maxi, but just because you say it doesn't make it fact and as
> > usual, you jump into a thread with no actual valid information, just to
> > flame as usual.
>
> LOL, sorry if you can't take it when I join a thread at its inception with
> facts that trump your blather.

If that were only true but as usual, it isn't. Hey, if you feel the need to
pump up your deflated EGO go for it. The only problem is more times than
not, you just make yourself look like a fool.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

Reply to this Message

Max Dodge - 06 Mar 2006 23:13 GMT

> First of all, I am not German, not that it would matter either way.

Nope, but the schmuck in Germany acting like you probably IS German. Get it
yet?

> Regardless of what the court may regard it as, it is still run by the
> execs
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> company, why would Mercedes be regarded any different than it always was.
> You appear to be spinning yourself now.

And you appear to be missing the point, as usual. That and disregarding
anything that might actually be regarded as fact by anyone else in the world
except you and your German schmuck counterpart.

> Sorry Max, but the facts are not always what they appear to be.

In this case, they are EXACTLY what they appear to be. Kerkorian probably
likes those facts even less than I do.

> All that says is that it is an American division of a foreign company and
> it
> really doesn't matter what they decided. Who is in control of the
> company?
> Where did the execs running it come from? Who picked them?

For someone who thinks laws are for everyone, such as the seatbelt law,
speed limits, ETC, you sure seem happy to totally disregard yet another
legal ruling by a U.S. Court.

Stockholders are said to be worldwide, so the claim by DCX is that it is a
"gloabal company".

The exec running Chrysler RIGHT NOW is a Canadian. He is part of a
Management Board (of international origin) that is appointed by a
Supervisory Board. The supervisory board consists of 10 shareholders'
representatives and 10 employees' representatives. The Supervisory Board
appoints the Board of Management and approves important corporate decisions.
It is notable that this board is ALSO of international origin.

If one looks at the Corporate entities held by DCX, one finds Chrysler
Group, Sterling Trucks, Freightliner Trucks, Western Star (trucks), Thomas
Built buses, and Orion buses and Detroit Diesel. With a total of eight
companies, this outnumbers the German componants by four, with Mecedes-Benz
(funny how thats a german automacker, but by your terms, could be called
american, were the tables reversed) Maybach, Smart and Setra busses. The
last componant is Mitsubishi Fuso. Clearly, if we are to look at corporate
entities and where they are based, one might well conclude that DCX is
largely an AMERCIAN company.

But never mind the facts.....

> LOL! Sure, it has to follow American laws but so do Honda and Toyota.
> Are
> you saying that they are also American companies? On paper it may still
> be
> listed as a merger but in reality, it was an admitted takeover, simple as
> that.

Admitted by whom? DCX never admitted such a thing, only Jergen Schremp,
noted for his poor PR and decision making, has said that. Everyone else,
except for Kirk Kerkorian, has called DCX a global company with holdings in
both Europe and America. Each of its divisions, including Mercedes Group and
Chrysler Group, operates autonomously. The important opinion on all of this
is the Federal Court, that ruled DCX was a merger, not a take over.

>> Deiter Zeische operated without needing command from above; indeed,
> operated
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Complete BS.

LOL, completely proving you are full of said BS.

> Even in GM there were divisions that operated outside of the
> corporate requirements and demands, especially during the muscle car era.
> Are you saying that Pontiac and Olds were foreign manufacturers now, LOL!

No, but they certainly WERE autonomous, which is the point. Thanks for
proving what I've said to be true.

> Actually, it was Chryslers technology that they wanted and the market
> share
> (smallest of the American manufacturers) was just an added bonus. BTW, I
> don't recall Mercedes being in financial trouble. Do you know something
> different and if so, please supply a link. That would be interesting.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=8244

"A combination of strong euro, the cost of launching new vehicles and the
spending required to fix quality problems, particularly on E-Class sedans,
as well as losses at the Smart unit, slashed operating profit at Mercedes to
just $25 million in the fourth quarter of 2004 from $900 million a year
earlier. In addition, Mercedes-Benz' operating profit was cut in half during
2004."

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_levin&sid=atdD
41EpoiC8

"Zetsche collected his reward last month when he was picked to replace Chief
Executive Officer Juergen Schrempp, 60, and patch up another problem, this
time at headquarters in Stuttgart. Management is in disarray. Mercedes, the
most-storied name in German automotive history, is beset by poor quality and
dismal financial results."

"Mercedes's attempt to enhance its image with the ultra- luxury Maybach
sedan, with a starting list price of $325,000, has been a disappointment.
Mercedes sold about 500 Maybachs last year and 67 in the first quarter of
2005. At the other end of the spectrum, the automaker's Smart small car has
been a market and financial disappointment."

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0509/12/A01-311379.htm

If all that this link says comes to pass, it could well be that the Chrysler
division and the American companies keep the Mercedes division finacially
afloat. A probe into admitted bribes by executives in the Mercedes
division, as well as quality problems with the C class and now rumblings of
the same with the S Class, are both current problems for Mercedes.

> If that were only true but as usual, it isn't. Hey, if you feel the need
> to
> pump up your deflated EGO go for it. The only problem is more times than
> not, you just make yourself look like a fool.

Seen the mirror lately? Better go do some research before writing another
bunch of crap on a company you know very little about, it appears.

Signature

Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

>> > Once again, it doesn't matter. Especially when Chrysler is only a
>> > division
[quoted text clipped - 125 lines]
> pump up your deflated EGO go for it. The only problem is more times than
> not, you just make yourself look like a fool.

Reply to this Message

Max Dodge - 08 Mar 2006 06:01 GMT

Well Tbone, I've not seen anything from you on this thread in over a day.
Yet, you seem to have time to post to others in the newsgroup. Thus, I am
forced to conclude that since you've failed to post a factless monologue,
let alone one with well reasoned rebuttal, that you are avoiding the fact
that you have been proven wrong on your statements.

I'm done here.

Signature

Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

>> First of all, I am not German, not that it would matter either way.
>
[quoted text clipped - 265 lines]
>> pump up your deflated EGO go for it. The only problem is more times than
>> not, you just make yourself look like a fool.

Reply to this Message

miles - 08 Mar 2006 13:12 GMT

> Well Tbone, I've not seen anything from you on this thread in over a day.
> Yet, you seem to have time to post to others in the newsgroup. Thus, I am
> forced to conclude that since you've failed to post a factless monologue,
> let alone one with well reasoned rebuttal, that you are avoiding the fact
> that you have been proven wrong on your statements.

Nah Max. He'll make some biased liberal remark to change the subject and
declare himself a winner of nothing.

Reply to this Message

Max Dodge - 08 Mar 2006 14:09 GMT

> Nah Max. He'll make some biased liberal remark to change the subject and
> declare himself a winner of nothing.

Well, he's already done that. But its never stopped him from digging deeper
just because he was already in a hole.

What is really funny is, if he had just looked at DCX's website, he'd have
had all the info I posted.

Signature

Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

>> Well Tbone, I've not seen anything from you on this thread in over a day.
>> Yet, you seem to have time to post to others in the newsgroup. Thus, I am
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Nah Max. He'll make some biased liberal remark to change the subject and
> declare himself a winner of nothing.

Reply to this Message

TBone - 08 Mar 2006 17:00 GMT

> > Well Tbone, I've not seen anything from you on this thread in over a day.
> > Yet, you seem to have time to post to others in the newsgroup. Thus, I am
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Nah Max. He'll make some biased liberal remark to change the subject and
> declare himself a winner of nothing.

LOL, what's the matter Miles? Are you getting upset because you cannot
answer a simple question based on the facts that YOU provided? Get over it
and answer the question.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

Reply to this Message

TBone - 08 Mar 2006 17:16 GMT

I didn't bother to reply because the facts that you gave are so full of
sh.t, you either are in hyperactive spin mode or are just a moron. Either
way, there is no point because you are still wrong. If I get time later, I
will make you look like an idiot again but I really don't have the time to
deal with you right now, troll boy.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

> Well Tbone, I've not seen anything from you on this thread in over a day.
> Yet, you seem to have time to post to others in the newsgroup. Thus, I am
[quoted text clipped - 104 lines]
> > earlier. In addition, Mercedes-Benz' operating profit was cut in half
> > during 2004."

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_levin&sid=atdD
41EpoiC8

> > "Zetsche collected his reward last month when he was picked to replace
> > Chief Executive Officer Juergen Schrempp, 60, and patch up another
[quoted text clipped - 161 lines]
> >> pump up your deflated EGO go for it. The only problem is more times than
> >> not, you just make yourself look like a fool.

Reply to this Message

Max Dodge - 08 Mar 2006 22:02 GMT

>I didn't bother to reply because the facts that you gave are so full of
> sh.t, you either are in hyperactive spin mode or are just a moron.

Interesting that you would say that. ALL of those facts can be found by
simply accessing

www.daimlerchrysler.com

Are you saying a multi-billion dollar global corporation is lying about the
structure of its corporate leadership?

Are you further saying that the sources I dug up, just a couple from
thousands that hit on my search, are also lying about Mercedes financial
failures?

> Either
> way, there is no point because you are still wrong.

Prove it genius.

> If I get time later, I
> will make you look like an idiot again but I really don't have the time to
> deal with you right now, troll boy.

You have plenty of time to answer other people, and now me. Yet you have no
facts, no rebuttal and no clue about the truth.

Truly you are done here as well. Don't bother replying, I'm not interested
in your drivel on this subject.

Signature

Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

>I didn't bother to reply because the facts that you gave are so full of
> sh.t, you either are in hyperactive spin mode or are just a moron. Either
[quoted text clipped - 343 lines]
> than
>> >> not, you just make yourself look like a fool.

Reply to this Message

TBone - 13 Mar 2006 19:55 GMT

> >I didn't bother to reply because the facts that you gave are so full of
> > sh.t, you either are in hyperactive spin mode or are just a moron.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> www.daimlerchrysler.com

LOL, perhaps you should learn how to read between the lines.

> Are you saying a multi-billion dollar global corporation is lying about the
> structure of its corporate leadership?

Oh yea, that would never happen. Funny how the stock is controlled by a
German company and ALL stock holders meetings are held in Germany. Like I
said, you need to read between the lines.

> Are you further saying that the sources I dug up, just a couple from
> thousands that hit on my search, are also lying about Mercedes financial
> failures?

Not at all but since Mercedes didn't run into any real trouble until 03 and
the merger (takeover) happened in 98, unless they all have magical crystal
balls, how would they know. Funny how you didn't mention the 20% layoff in
Chrysler in 99 and the "shutdown" of 4 production facilities at that time.
It looks more like Mercedes was supporting Chrysler when the takeover took
place.

> > Either
> > way, there is no point because you are still wrong.
>
> Prove it genius.

Read above and even with your lawsuit crap, what you failed to mention that
DCX settled in a $300,000,000 lawsuit with other Chrysler investors a few
months earlier. Now why would a company pay out that much money if it
didn't do anything wrong?

> > If I get time later, I
> > will make you look like an idiot again but I really don't have the time to
> > deal with you right now, troll boy.
>
> You have plenty of time to answer other people, and now me. Yet you have no
> facts, no rebuttal and no clue about the truth.

No Max, it is just pointless to try when I don't have the time because you
just rattle on aimlessly, just like in the power outlet thread.

> Truly you are done here as well. Don't bother replying, I'm not interested
> in your drivel on this subject.

IOW, you don't want to be shown in error once again.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

Reply to this Message

TBone - 13 Mar 2006 20:17 GMT

> > First of all, I am not German, not that it would matter either way.
>
> Nope, but the schmuck in Germany acting like you probably IS German. Get it
> yet?

Acting like me, LOL!?!?!? No I don't get it and I doubt that anyone else
does either.

> > Regardless of what the court may regard it as, it is still run by the
> > execs
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> anything that might actually be regarded as fact by anyone else in the world
> except you and your German schmuck counterpart.

The point is that you as usual have no valid point.

> > Sorry Max, but the facts are not always what they appear to be.
>
> In this case, they are EXACTLY what they appear to be. Kerkorian probably
> likes those facts even less than I do.

He was whining because he was a fool and like many, got burned for it.

> > All that says is that it is an American division of a foreign company and
> > it
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> speed limits, ETC, you sure seem happy to totally disregard yet another
> legal ruling by a U.S. Court.

The legal ruling of the court simply said that Daimler did not call it a
merger of equals to manipulate the stock market

> Stockholders are said to be worldwide, so the claim by DCX is that it is a
> "gloabal company".

LOL, many stocks are owned by people world wide. The location of the stock
owners means nothing.

> The exec running Chrysler RIGHT NOW is a Canadian. He is part of a
> Management Board (of international origin) that is appointed by a
> Supervisory Board. The supervisory board consists of 10 shareholders'
> representatives and 10 employees' representatives. The Supervisory Board
> appoints the Board of Management and approves important corporate decisions.
> It is notable that this board is ALSO of international origin.

But all of these meetings are held at in Germany. Why do you think that is?

> If one looks at the Corporate entities held by DCX, one finds Chrysler
> Group, Sterling Trucks, Freightliner Trucks, Western Star (trucks), Thomas
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> entities and where they are based, one might well conclude that DCX is
> largely an AMERCIAN company.

LOL, all that shows is that American businessmen are basically whores who
are only interested in the short term dollars. That should be obvious by
the current state of the American auto makers.

> But never mind the facts.....

Because your facts are meaningless. Someone could wash his car on Sunday,
that would be a fact. It could rain in the same area from the following
Monday thru that Friday, yet another fact. Now you would attribute the fact
the car was washed as the reason that it rained, IOW, complete BS even
though both facts are true.

> > LOL! Sure, it has to follow American laws but so do Honda and Toyota.
> > Are
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Admitted by whom? DCX never admitted such a thing, only Jergen Schremp,
> noted for his poor PR and decision making, has said that.

Really, then why did they settle on a 300 million lawsuit based on that very
claim?

> Everyone else,
> except for Kirk Kerkorian, has called DCX a global company with holdings in
> both Europe and America. Each of its divisions, including Mercedes Group and
> Chrysler Group, operates autonomously. The important opinion on all of this
> is the Federal Court, that ruled DCX was a merger, not a take over.

No, it ruled that Daimler did not call it a merger of equals to manipulate
the stock market.

> >> Deiter Zeische operated without needing command from above; indeed,
> > operated
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> LOL, completely proving you are full of said BS.

This is no answer at all, imagine that.

> > Even in GM there were divisions that operated outside of the
> > corporate requirements and demands, especially during the muscle car era.
> > Are you saying that Pontiac and Olds were foreign manufacturers now, LOL!
>
> No, but they certainly WERE autonomous, which is the point. Thanks for
> proving what I've said to be true.

It doesn't matter and proves no such thing, despite your spin. The fact is
that they are not independant companies and are fully owned by GM, just like
Chrysler is by Daimler.

> > Actually, it was Chryslers technology that they wanted and the market
> > share
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=8244

Sorry Max, but this what, 5 years after the "merger". Unless they all had
magical crystal balls....

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_levin&sid=atdD
41EpoiC8

> "Zetsche collected his reward last month when he was picked to replace Chief
> Executive Officer Juergen Schrempp, 60, and patch up another problem, this
> time at headquarters in Stuttgart. Management is in disarray. Mercedes, the
> most-storied name in German automotive history, is beset by poor quality and
> dismal financial results."

Again, we are talking about problems YEARS after the merger so what is your
point. Oh that's right, nothing but spin.

> "Mercedes's attempt to enhance its image with the ultra- luxury Maybach
> sedan, with a starting list price of $325,000, has been a disappointment.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0509/12/A01-311379.htm

Again, this is today and has NOTHING to do with anything. All it shows is
that Daimler has returned Chrysler to profitabilirty and is currently having
trouble with Mercedes, nothing more.

> If all that this link says comes to pass, it could well be that the Chrysler
> division and the American companies keep the Mercedes division finacially
> afloat.

Maybe so, but it still doesn't change anything. This would not be the only
case where a division winds up supporting the parent company at times, you
do know that, right????

> > If that were only true but as usual, it isn't. Hey, if you feel the need
> > to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Seen the mirror lately? Better go do some research before writing another
> bunch of crap on a company you know very little about, it appears.

http://www.ftppro.com/library/DaimlerChrysler

Perhaps you should do some as well and stop relying on biased corporate web
sites. Notice how the crossfire is using Mercedes parts. How many Mercedes
products are using Chrysler parts? Wait until the smaller Dodge trucks
start using Mercedes diesels.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

Reply to this Message

Max Dodge - 03 Mar 2006 22:27 GMT

>> You are aware (are you not?) that the new Chairman of DC was hand picked
>> because of his success in the Chrysler division of DC?
>
> And this means what, oh yea, not a damn thing.

Its demonstration of the autonomous nature of the Chrysler division, yet
another bit of evidence that proves you incorrect in calling Chrysler a
German operation.

>> It is also worth mention that none of the listed major shareholders of
>> DCX
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> at
>> least one financial service site on the web right?

I see you had nothing to say to this point, which was in fact the issue at
hand.

Signature

Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Reply to this Message

Nosey - 01 Mar 2006 17:05 GMT

What you say is very true Tom, but the wording of his statement can be taken
several ways and is very misleading. Perhaps "US auto maker" means an auto
maker that produces cars in the US, or a maker that produces cars for the US
market. Either of those would make DC a "US auto maker" even though it's not
a US owned company.

Signature

Ken

Reply to this Message

TBone - 03 Mar 2006 04:24 GMT

While what you said is true, if that is what he meant what would be the
purpose of the post? Under that definition, Honda, Toyota, BMW and many
others would all be considered "US auto makers" and who would give a sh.t if
the third largest shareholder of any of them were the United Arab Emerites.
I think that this was a lame attempt at a cheep shot against the US,
possibly based on that port control screw-up.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

> What you say is very true Tom, but the wording of his statement can be taken
> several ways and is very misleading. Perhaps "US auto maker" means an auto
> maker that produces cars in the US, or a maker that produces cars for the US
> market. Either of those would make DC a "US auto maker" even though it's not
> a US owned company.

Reply to this Message

Nosey - 03 Mar 2006 04:43 GMT

> While what you said is true, if that is what he meant what would be
> the purpose of the post?

I think he was trying to stir up an arguement, but it didn't work yet.

Signature

Ken

Reply to this Message

TBone - 03 Mar 2006 04:57 GMT

It was too lame to really fire anyone up.

Signature

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

> > While what you said is true, if that is what he meant what would be
> > the purpose of the post?
>
> I think he was trying to stir up an arguement, but it didn't work yet.

Reply to this Message

Max Dodge - 03 Mar 2006 22:27 GMT

Interestingly enough, I agree with you that the post was a lame attempt to
stir up something based on the UAE port company. However, given the nature
of UAE's involvement, its more likely they wish to make money, rather than
mess with the ports. Beyond all the pro and con of this corporate action,
the fact remains that security is taken care of (or not taken care of,
depending on the amount of funding allotted) by U.S. government agencies,
not capitalist enterprise.

We could of course, debate how the capitalist enterprise handles the fed
paperwork etc, and just how well the security in place works, but the point
is that security is not for sale on the open market. Beyond that, its a
guess.

Signature

Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

> While what you said is true, if that is what he meant what would be the
> purpose of the post? Under that definition, Honda, Toyota, BMW and many
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> not
>> a US owned company.

Reply to this Message

.boB - 01 Mar 2006 05:06 GMT

> (01/30/2005)
> United Arab Emerites
> became 3rd largest shareholder of US automaker,
> Daimler Chrysler AG --- $1bn

That's why my truck gets such crappy mileage!

Signature

.boB
On Order: 2006 FXDI, Red.
1997 HD FXDWG - Turbocharged Stolen 11/26/05 in Denver
1HD1GEL10VY3200010 CO License J5822Z
2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92
1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver
1965 FFR Cobra - 427W EFI, Damn Fast.

Reply to this Message