China buys Volvo from Ford. "Cheap"

[Sonny]

Bloomberg
China’s Geely to Buy Volvo From Ford for $1.8 Billion (Update1)

March 28, 2010, 10:15 AM EDT
More From Businessweek

By Ola Kinnander and Keith Naughton


March 28 (Bloomberg) -- Zhejiang Geely Holding Co. agreed to buy Volvo Cars from Ford Motor Co. for $1.8 billion in the biggest overseas acquisition by a Chinese automaker.
<
Ford paid $6.5 billion for Volvo in 1999.
<

Geely, Is China’s largest private automaker based on 2008 sales.
<
Nationwide auto sales in China increased 46 percent last year to 13.6 million, helping it supplant the U.S. as the world’s largest auto market.
<
Ford ended three years of losses with net income of $2.7 billion in 2009 and was the only major U.S. automaker to avoid bankruptcy.



--With assistance from Tian Ying in Beijing. Editors: Kenneth Wong, James Amott, Will Kennedy.

To contact the reporters on this story: Ola Kinnander in Stockholm at okinnander@bloomberg.net Keith Naughton in Dearborn, Michigan, at Knaughton3@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jamie Butters at jbutters@bloomberg.net Kenneth Wong at kwong11@bloomberg.net

[Potemkin]

It is a good fit. Geely needs a good truck division to compliment their car unit.

[dyrt]

What about the Volvo marine products?

[Ross]

March 28 (Bloomberg) -- Zhejiang Geely Holding Co. agreed to buy Volvo Cars from Ford Motor Co. for $1.8 billion in the biggest overseas acquisition by a Chinese automaker.
<
Ford paid $6.5 billion for Volvo in 1999.

1.8 - 6.5 = 4.7 Billion Loss .
I assume big bonuses were paid between 1999 and 2010 .
Could shareholders mount a class action to reclaim the money or
ask the FBI to investigate fraudulent accounting practices ?

[leistb]

1.8 - 6.5 = 4.7 Billion Loss .
I assume big bonuses were paid between 1999 and 2010 .
Could shareholders mount a class action to reclaim the money or
ask the FBI to investigate fraudulent accounting practices ?

Please don't take this the wrong way but are you trying out your material before you go on the road as a stand-up comedian? :D

[Ross]

Liestb .... Naturally I new the answer would be no .

It is frustrating to me that nobody apparently tries to recover
stolen bonus money .

There seem to be so many examples of accounting fraud
used to facilitate theft by management and the nothing happens.

An Australian legal firm called IMF has opened an office in the USA
and this is very similar to the kind of class action they specialise in .
( http://www.imf.com.au/ ) <------- attention Ford stockholders.
I assume there are many similar legal firms already operating
in the USA .

With so many shareholders the return
per holder would be extremely low if bonus money were recovered
however a legal firm may still be able to make money
from the action .

If actions were undertaken it would cause a lot of corporate
thieves to have sleepless nights and therefore would be worth the
effort IMO even if returns to individual shareholders were effectively
zero .

( Yes I know I am dreaming and nothing will happen ) .

[flourbug]

Ross, lemme tell you something I know personally.

Company A - sells to a very vulnerable very large niche market. They sell KNOWING their market will default.
Company B - has an exclusive contractual association with A. They purchase the defaults for pennies on the dollar and collect full price +interest +legal fees +++. In the states they cover, each county has a judge work one day per week hearing cases brought by B. It is THAT big. Their practices are denounced as unethical, illegal, abusive, fraudulent, they are accused of using dishonest methods, and seizing bank accounts and paychecks from people who have no association with the debt other than happening to have the same name as a debtor.

Both of the above companies sit on state and federal government advisory boards that oversee rules and practices for their line of work.
Both of the above companies give heavily, under the table, to friendly politicians.
Both of the above companies have been involved in very serious crimes - identity theft, organized crime, hiding assets, forgery, fraud. Over and over again newspapers, magazines, tv shows, websites "expose" the connection but no charges are brought against them. Ever.
Both of the above companies are showered with peer and civic awards, recognition, etc.

I have intimate, first hand knowledge of their practices, and let me tell you, they OWN the courts. They OWN the legislature. One word from either company and a judge loses his job, a politician does not get the slot on the ballot, a prosecutor is replaced. They are above the law.

My experience goes way back - 10, 20 years. So I have no doubt this type of corruption goes on all the time. It is pervasive. What is new is, it is becoming blatant, because they are so powerful they believe no one CAN stop them.

[Ross]

Thank-you FB

Would it be fair to say there is wide variation between the states in
terms of quality of justice ?

If so perhaps you might venture an opinion on some of the best and worst
states and what drives the differences .

[flourbug]

Ross, the vast majority of people do not have the clout to influence a judge or politician in any way. I have had experienced, ethical lawyers SWEAR to me that the courts where they practice are beyond reproach... when I know for a fact they are corrupt. So just because many people do find justice in a courtroom, it is not an indicator that justice exists for all.

Watch Obama's birth certificate case, and tell me how far up it goes. This case is no longer about producing proof of eligibility for a job that has very specific requirements - but how many judges will let the Defendant get away with NOT EVER showing proof.

Tell me if the courts would entertain, even for a moment, the possibility that YOU would not have to show proof you are eligible to hold your job. Neurosurgeon, lawyer, accountant, electrician, hair stylist - if you are working in any job that has eligibility requirements, you must provide proof on demand, because if you are not eligible or lied or committed fraud in order to get the job, it's a crime.

We had people who CLEARLY did not meet the eligibility requirements on the last Presidential ballot - NJ had a Nicaraguan national on the ballot. No one has been held accountable. It is pass the buck time. No one has "standing" to challenge who goes on the ballot any more, and if you win, no worries. No one really cares. Right?

[leistb]

What is new is, it is becoming blatant,

This is what is keeping me up at night. I'm tired of having to play by a different set of rules.

[Ross]

FB -
I know the Obama's birth certificate case has significance to you but
while apparently wrong it was also seems to me to be a reasonable
pragmatic decision by the legal system to stay well clear of the issue .

The alternative would be for the courts to appear partisan or at the
very least allow the courts to be labelled as tool of the Republicans .

You may remember an Australian Governor General sacked the
Australian Prime Minister . Even though the GG was appointed by
the same party he was vilified and pilloried by the left-wing until
the day he died .

The fact that it could be reasonably argued he made a fair and
sensible decision was totally ignored .

My point is that the courts need to appear impartial to have credibility
with the public even if in doing so they may seem incompetent or
disinterested . Frankly I think there is no chance in the world that they
would not be attacked and vilified in the same way the
Australian GG was .

( I now await an verbal explosion from Malcolm and probably from
FB , if not the entire frign forum :D ) .


If you want to follow legality to its logical conclusion ......
The Coinage Act of 1792, section 19 stipulates "that the penalty
for anyone who would debase the coinage of the US, is death."
( Ref Zero Hedge )

So Bernanke and the Treasury Bosses should have been
physically retired long ago .:D

[flourbug]

Ross, I don't think the courts are worried about appearing partisan, or subverting the intent of the Constitution. Our courts are extremely arrogant. Remember back to 2000 and the 'hanging chads'? That issue was expedited right up through our court system to the Supreme Court and not one judge shirked it or cared what the population thought, though there were plenty of cries of being a tool of this party or that along the way.

I became interested in the birth certificate issue during the election campaign, when both McCain and Obama were still candidates. What got my attention wasn't either of the main candidates, but the fact that a Nicaraguan citzen was on the ballot as the Socialist Party candidate in my native state, and a "proxy" candidate for him in four others. Having spent a couple of decades deeply involved in politics, right up to the Federal level, I know there isn't a spec of sand left unexamined along the path to the White House. Everything is checked, double checked, and turned over to be inspected for it's maker's mark. Presidential candidates HAVE been removed from ballots when deemed ineligible in the past (I clearly remember Eldridge Cleaver being bounced because he would not meet the age requirement on Election Day). So why, in 2008, is there suddenly a Nicaraguan candidate on the ballot, and an act of Congress (interestingly sponsored by Obama) "declaring" McCain a Natural Born Citizen?

The birth certificate story was not one that was laid on a silver platter in front of us to consume whole. It has been a string of discoveries about McCain and Obama, the electoral process, the law, and the system of enforcing the law.

Suspicions of fraud should be enough to have multiple entities within our government demanding answers - and between Obama's relatives giving conflicting answers to where he was born, Kenya sealing his records, Hawaii couching their answers in legalese so as to mislead the public, the fact that Obama's selective service form was either forged or filed just before he ran for office, and his choice to spend millions to hide his birth certificate rather than show it to the public - few can say there aren't at least QUESTIONS about his eligibility.

But this has gone beyond merely failing to provide proper documentation and authorities passing the buck when it comes to validating candidates, and is now misuse of power and a coverup involving both parties. ie, this is much, much bigger than Watergate. IF it goes down, a LOT of people in very powerful positions will fall like dominoes.

I don't think the judges are afraid of being labeled partisan. I think they know this is a lose/lose situation.

[Fiddlerdave]

Well, in the meantime, China has acquired a very technologically advanced industrial company for 27 cents on the dollar.

A nice way to build an empire. With their cash on hand (3 trillion), they could only do that purchase 1,650 more times before they would need to borrow any money at all to acquire even more industry and technology.

[Potemkin]

Well, in the meantime, China has acquired a very technologically advanced industrial company for 27 cents on the dollar.

A nice way to build an empire. With their cash on hand (3 trillion), they could only do that purchase 1,650 more times before they would need to borrow any money at all to acquire even more industry and technology.


And Ford got Volvo Car Corporation from Sweden.

Ford ran it down and is now paying the price.

Sounds very Libertarian to me.

[Ross]

With their cash on hand (3 trillion), they could only do that purchase 1,650 more times before they would need to borrow any money at all to acquire even more industry and technology.

Actually Dave if you do a bit of research you will find that your
Chinese 3T is a bit of an illusion and the money is tied up in various
ways and is not as great as suggested .

However in principle I agree , the danger is that they will assume
ownership or gain directorships in strategically important companies.
It is already happening in Australia and probably elsewhere .

The significance being that it is foreign government ownership of local
enterprises .

[Fiddlerdave]

Actually Dave if you do a bit of research you will find that your
Chinese 3T is a bit of an illusion and the money is tied up in various
ways and is not as great as suggested . True enough but it is a far cry from having an actualized 10+ trillion debt. Which actually is much larger.

However in principle I agree , the danger is that they will assume
ownership or gain directorships in strategically important companies.
It is already happening in Australia and probably elsewhere .

The significance being that it is foreign government ownership of local
enterprises .
Indeed. And that significance is even MORE significant since we have just removed any limits whatsover on those enterprises directly influencing the electorate and elected officials with their money, no nudge-nudge-wink-wink needed!