Saab’s fight for survival as an independent company might have just begun this morning, but the Swedish automaker has already gained a strong foothold thanks to a Swedish court that granted the company protection from potentially devastating creditors. Now, the soon-to-be-independent Saab says its freedom from General Motors should enable it to gain outside funding.
“Even though we have not been actively searching for new partners, we have had many knocking on our door showing interest in Saab,” Saab CEO Jan-Ake Jonsson said at a press conference held in the company’s museum in Trollhattan, Sweden.
“I am very confident and I think we have a solid basis for solving this financing issue.”
Saab lost about $340 million last year and says it projects a similar loss this year due to the massive slump in demand automakers across the world are facing. The automaker says that finding a partner would be essential for its survival, though no potential suitors have been given.
“We explored and will continue to explore all available options for funding and/or selling Saab,” Saab Managing Director Jan-Ake Jonsson said in a statement released to the media.
GM says it will offer Saab $400 million before it releases control on January 1, 2010, if the Swedish government guarantees a further loan of $590 million. Some analysts, however, are doubtful that the nearly $1 billion would be enough to turn Saab around – and that’s what Saab is seeking from a partner.
The Swedish government says it is waiting to hear plans on how GM will set Saab up for independent success. The government wants to hear how GM would contribute the necessary resources to allow for Saab’s survival as an independent manufacturer that would still be heavily dependent on GM for its next product cycles.
“If you provide loan guarantees to someone, you must be sure the company has a future,” said Joran Hagglund, state secretary at the Swedish Industry Ministry.
Saab is set to launch three new products in the next year, including an all-new 9-5 flagship, a 9-4x crossover and a 9-3X tall wagon. The automaker would be heavily reliant on GM to support the development costs and production tooling for the models, which are all based on GM global platforms.
GM released a statement earlier today indicating that it is “is fully committed to maintaining a viable and successful local and global supplier base during the Saab reorganization,” according to Bo Andersson, GM group vice president for Global Purchasing and Supply Chain.
The automaker intends to sell between 120,000 and 130,000 vehicles annually across the world for a sustained period beginning as early as 2010 and a return to profitability in 2011 or 2012. Saab only made a profit once during its 19-year period as a GM subsidiary. Last year, sales dipped below 94,000 for the first time since 1994, pushed down in part by the global market that began to unravel in the fall.
02/20, 1:29 PM
posted by:
Borat
I see slew of lawsuits involving all parties (sans Swedish government). The only “clean” way to deal with it would be Chapter 11 for GM, but it refused it, forcing the same on the “child” company. I am sure we are popular in Sweden (and Finland) now and I know why.
02/20, 1:40 PM
posted by:
GT2
Gm’s new motto is “Its your money and i need it now!”.
02/20, 1:57 PM
posted by:
No more oil for GM
I just hope they make it… somehow I know they will… heck, this industry needs some damn saab-mojo as an escape from the lame audis, toyotas, whatever… go go go saab!!!
02/20, 2:28 PM
posted by:
Lionwithoutpride
Even though there would be a lot of problems with my dream solution . . . here it is:
Ford lets Volvo go (while perhaps keeping a minority stake as GM has done with Saab) and Volvo joins up with Saab. Saab can make the sports cars and convertibles and Volvo can make the wagons and SUVs/CUVs. That alone would add SOME of the size that so many commenters here say Saab would need to stand on its own. Maybe Saturn could team up with them as well and badge the cheapest cars Volvo and Saab can bring themselves to make (both companies have proven they can build safe small cars and if they somehow managed to achieve a decent price-point then they might have a chance). Again, I realize the plan is my dream and probably wholly unworkable without billions in loans, but I can dream can’t I?
02/20, 3:06 PM
posted by:
ManualorDeath
Lionwithoutpride… you make a lot of sense. Saab and Volvo would be a viable answer to an independent automaker. Both carmakers are known for building cars with an “out of the box thinking.” Both companys are also known for building safe cars. I’d probably would have to add Subaru to make this a winning combination.
02/20, 3:17 PM
posted by:
07grandprix
Is it just me or has GM never really give a **** about Saab. I can’t remember the last time Saab had anything on it’s show room floor that caused a buzz. They need to go back to the days of the 900 and give us something other than a mild restyle that’s been going on for a decade now. Saab needs a partner to let them build what they need to build, not a rebaged trailblazer.
02/20, 6:07 PM
posted by:
Commissar007
Great idea – Lionwithoutpride. I completely agree with you. But alas, it is a dream… I think where all of the companies went wrong is that they’re offering too many different types of vehicles so they are unable to sell enough of any ONE of them to be profitable. Remember back in the day when if you wanted a Saab you got the 900… and the 900 only?? Now they all have too many vehicles so their production costs are UP. They could really knock out some of the useless ones… For instance… Dodge made the Magnum and it turned out to be a dud, so they stopped producing it…. NOW Toyota has started making the Venza and it’s just as ugly and stupid so it probably won’t go over any better than the Magnum did… Granted Saab took a loss last year. But they sold 94,000 vehicles, and let’s be conservative and say those vehicles cost $40,000 a piece… which they probably cost more… but 94,000 x 40,000 equals almost 4 billion dollars!! How do you earn $4 billion dollars and still fail?? There is money to be had, they just need to cut their expenses by getting rid of the duds. When I think Saab, I don’t think SUV… and the ones they came up with are UGLY. And do they really need 3 different colors of gray as options?? I love my little Saab and it’s hard enough to find parts NOW, I can’t even begin to imagine what it will be like if they fold!!
02/20, 7:02 PM
posted by:
Need more oil for GM is an idiot
Saab aka GM couldnt make an all wheel drive system if their lives depended on it.
Buy audi,its your rally duty!
02/20, 8:26 PM
posted by:
Get Real
Oooooh…..A big black hole to dump money into.
02/20, 9:27 PM
posted by:
jayjc08
ALRIGHT. JUST STOP with the stupid NMOFGM anachronisms. They’re not remotely funny. LLN, start moderating or lose readers. Your choice.
02/21, 3:49 PM
posted by:
global_lightning
Selling off Saab/Saturn as a package would be attractive to European manufacturers re-entering the U.S. market. Saturn’s strength is its dedicated dealership network that could be an easy launching point for sales. Saab brings a strongly recognized brand (despite years of GM mismanagement and neglect) that could bring some cachet to the new conglomerate. Some posible buyers could be Fiat, Renault, or Citroen.
02/21, 9:25 PM
posted by:
nestle_s
i agree with needs more oil for gm…saab needs to stay because they are a good alternative to any cars that are rather bland in styling and execution.
02/22, 1:37 AM
posted by:
olds307
The GM (Opel, really) influenced Saabs are exponentially better than the old 900s of the early 90s and prior.
02/22, 5:38 PM
posted by:
Borat
GM could not influence SAAB and they didn’t. Unless rape is synonym with influence.
SAAB 90 was build in 70’s and 900 in early 80’s. Of course compare to today’s cars they obsolete, but by today standards Olds obsolete. SAAB was the only car in late 70 with turbo motor (another was Porsche) and 900 was very advanced for its day.
However, even when Olds was produced it was pretty obsolete, starting from 70’s forward. Does anyone remember those grotesque 442 letters on 6 cylinder automatic things of 80’s? What was GM thinking, that country is full of Army rejects?