MG-Rover.org Forums banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
other_rover
Joined
·
8,737 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just wondered, if MGR own 30% of this new joint venture do they also own part of Ssangyong? Or is that not a part of the JV? If it's not part of the JV and SAIC own the MG brand, then presumable the JV can licence the name MG to Ssangyong for £1 a car with only 30% of that going back to MGR (30p). Doesn't sound particually good to me.
 

·
Registered
other_manufacturer
Joined
·
5,867 Posts
NO. MGR doesn't own so much as a single share in SAIC so they don't own any part of SAIC's assets. For what it's worth too - SAIC only own 49.1% of Ssangyong. Unlikely granted, but someone else could always buy all the smaller shareholdings that make up the remaining 50.9% and rain all over SAIC's parade.
 

·
Registered
other_manufacturer
Joined
·
5,867 Posts
why would it? When Honda owned their bit of Rover there cross shareholding didn't even Rover owning any of Honda the parent company - just 20% of Honda UK. Why therefore should a JV with 1 company immediately include ownership or further deals with every subsidiary company of SAIC? And as far as I'm aware the JV isn't actually with "SAIC" anyway - it's with one of the subsiduary companies of "SAIG" itself a subsiduary of "SAIC".

And if it involved MGR buyina a stake in Ssangyong that would dilute SAIC's own stake as the only bit they can sell is their own 49.1%. the remaining shares aren't on offer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,361 Posts
I wonder if the JV deal involves SSangyong taking a stake in the JV or PVH taking a stake in SSangyong.

why would it? When Honda owned their bit of Rover there cross shareholding didn't even Rover owning any of Honda the parent company - just 20% of Honda UK. Why therefore should a JV with 1 company immediately include ownership or further deals with every subsidiary company of SAIC? And as far as I'm aware the JV isn't actually with "SAIC" anyway - it's with one of the subsiduary companies of "SAIG" itself a subsiduary of "SAIC".

And if it involved MGR buyina a stake in Ssangyong that would dilute SAIC's own stake as the only bit they can sell is their own 49.1%. the remaining shares aren't on offer.
Hold your horses Patrick! I wasn't suggesting it should, just that it might. Who said anything about every subsidiary of Ssangyong?

Reasons for cross-holdings? It may be that the Ssangyong board have money to invest in the JV. It may be a way of binding Ssangyong into the various arangements. Incidentally, the JV is already supposed (AFAWK) to involve more than one other company (on top of the 2 making the original deal), namely Nanjing. Ssangyong may be able to contribute financially to the deal, hence a share-owning stake. Maybe PVH have money to invest in Ssangyong to bind the two closer together, or maybe just a nominal stake? This may have nothing to do with SAIC (i.e. PVH owning 5% of Ssangyong shares, but after acquisition from the 50.9% not owned by SAIC).

It was only idle speculation anyway. The Rhonda partnership had each holding some sort of stake in the other as there was no JV company as such. The JV will probably be the binding factor in the current situation, and this might result in shares in the JV (well it will re: MGR, SAIC, Nanjing).

I'm well aware of the different parts of SAIC, so other than pedantry, what's your point? Shouldn't you have stipulated which SAIC you were on about in the 300 plus references you made to SAIC in the past year?
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top