Aston seeking funding for new models article, SUV .......
Discussion
Neil1300r said:
mikey k said:
Being cool is no good if you aren't selling or making a profit from what little you do sell 
Means there is lots of value in the brandYes, I am sure that the 'brand' has been crucial in all of the rescues.
However in 1926, they might not have been using that word.
Perhaps then it was called passion and enthusiasm, which is what we all still feel for the cars.
A spooky thought.
The company failure in 1925, is said to have been due to funding being stopped by a Mercedes (death at the wheel of). Now we are discussing the group again.
I previously mentioned debt. You will all know that an administrator can get rid of that. It puzzles me though, how in the case of a rescued business, it can then continue to deal with the same suppliers, who have not been paid. It cannot be, 'we are all friends again'.
WayneB said:
The Germans don't need the prestige AM would apparently bring , they already view Mercedes Benz as an pinnacle of quality, engineering and design.
If that were true, they would not have tried and failed with Maybach. Mercedes is a brand that carries prestige in the market, but only up to a certain level. Aston operates to a large extent above that level.I think the main problem with Maybach was that it was priced way above the market it was originally aimed at (Rolls Royce) and the name meant nothing really to younger clientele .
I see Astons up and coming relationship with Mercedes in a similar light to Lotuses with Toyota.
Both companies are willing to supply engines to them (as long as the bills are paid), but as far as owning loss making entities no, they are just too smart.
AM's appeal for investment seems to be an act of desperation (to me), a clear sign that current investors are no longer willing to pump more money into the company.
The recent unveiling of the movie show only DB10 reminded me of the Dany Bahar fiasco at Lotus where the brand became more about marketing and perceived value than actually developing and building cars that could be sold to make money.
Less sizzle more steak required at AM IMO, and If it means AM has to scale back and cut down its model range and operation so be it.
I see Astons up and coming relationship with Mercedes in a similar light to Lotuses with Toyota.
Both companies are willing to supply engines to them (as long as the bills are paid), but as far as owning loss making entities no, they are just too smart.
AM's appeal for investment seems to be an act of desperation (to me), a clear sign that current investors are no longer willing to pump more money into the company.
The recent unveiling of the movie show only DB10 reminded me of the Dany Bahar fiasco at Lotus where the brand became more about marketing and perceived value than actually developing and building cars that could be sold to make money.
Less sizzle more steak required at AM IMO, and If it means AM has to scale back and cut down its model range and operation so be it.
WayneB said:
AM's appeal for investment seems to be an act of desperation (to me), a clear sign that current investors are no longer willing to pump more money into the company.
AM, like almost all other luxury car brands, needs a rich parent. Otherwise, it won't survive the medium to long term. Cool brands do die. Without profit, businesses die.I was staggered to read this from the Reuters article:
"The company is paying out 10.25 percent annually on the latest $165 million bond issue in March, whose CCC+ rating from Standard & Poor's was closer to default than investment grade."
Certainly not a vote of confidence in Aston's future.
individual loan rates are lower than that!
WayneB said:
I think the main problem with Maybach was that it was priced way above the market it was originally aimed at (Rolls Royce) and the name meant nothing really to younger clientele .
I see Astons up and coming relationship with Mercedes in a similar light to Lotuses with Toyota.
Both companies are willing to supply engines to them (as long as the bills are paid), but as far as owning loss making entities no, they are just too smart.
AM's appeal for investment seems to be an act of desperation (to me), a clear sign that current investors are no longer willing to pump more money into the company.
The recent unveiling of the movie show only DB10 reminded me of the Dany Bahar fiasco at Lotus where the brand became more about marketing and perceived value than actually developing and building cars that could be sold to make money.
Less sizzle more steak required at AM IMO, and If it means AM has to scale back and cut down its model range and operation so be it.
apart from being loss-making (and the current level of loss is pretty small in comparison with revenues), Aston Martin is hardly comparable with Lotus. The company has real revenues, albeit not high enough.I see Astons up and coming relationship with Mercedes in a similar light to Lotuses with Toyota.
Both companies are willing to supply engines to them (as long as the bills are paid), but as far as owning loss making entities no, they are just too smart.
AM's appeal for investment seems to be an act of desperation (to me), a clear sign that current investors are no longer willing to pump more money into the company.
The recent unveiling of the movie show only DB10 reminded me of the Dany Bahar fiasco at Lotus where the brand became more about marketing and perceived value than actually developing and building cars that could be sold to make money.
Less sizzle more steak required at AM IMO, and If it means AM has to scale back and cut down its model range and operation so be it.
The movie reveal is very different from Danny Bahar's five vapourware cars.
Maybach was not priced over Rolls-Royce, but at similar levels. The product had no class and little
appeal to most of its target market.
As for debt funding, the rate is high, but raising debt in itself is completely normal. It's the private equity model. It is not efficient to keep pumping in equity.
WayneB said:
AM's appeal for investment seems to be an act of desperation (to me), a clear sign that current investors are no longer willing to pump more money into the company.
No, that might not be correct.
A paragraph in the Reuters article indicated 'rights', should additional equity be issued.
'The fundraising would generate 100-150 million pounds, with any new shares offered to current investors, said one of the sources, close to the strategy discussions.'
It will be interesting though, if the equity route is chosen, whether all of the existing investors do invest more. If not, then of course their existing holding will be diluted.
For those interested in the Aston Martin financials, here is an article.
Not new but worth reading, if you have not already seen it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-05/aston-mar...
Jon1967x said:
Anyway... the art has to be sharing of the parts bin but in a clever way. Bentley using a VW platform... Don't rolls use 7 series underpinnings? These things are different to the cygnet which is a prime example of getting it wrong.
Budgets are limited, so I'd prefer ever penny going into the bits that make admins astons, and reuse parts to save every penny that would otherwise be spent on eu crumple zone design and sticking airbags everywhere for the U.S. market.
Yes, the Rolls Ghost (and Wraith) are modified 7-series underneath, which is why, as I said above, I have no interest in them. Same issue for the VW Phaeton-based Bentley Continental series. This platform (and engine) sharing may be plenty clever, but it ruins the whole thing for me. If I want a Rolls-Royce, I want a Rolls-Royce -- not a Rolls-BMW. An Aston-AMG, at least if that engine is identical but for the ECU and exhaust to the engine in AMG cars, is of zero interest to me. An Aston Martin should have an Aston Martin chassis/platform and an Aston Martin engine (which, IMO, the current cars do). These ARE the bits that make an Aston Martin an Aston Martin!Budgets are limited, so I'd prefer ever penny going into the bits that make admins astons, and reuse parts to save every penny that would otherwise be spent on eu crumple zone design and sticking airbags everywhere for the U.S. market.
Yes, they clearly need a wealthy parent, but one that treats them with the respect that the great Aston Martin marque deserves.
For goodness sake - who needs to pays £400m to 'stop the Germans getting it'? They are not the Afrika Korps, they are the same people who are running Bentley, Rolls, Lamborghini extremely well. Without any damage to the integrity of the brands. I own an Aston, and I would be as happy to own one which Had a Merc based engine as my current Ford based V12, based purely on a judgement on the quality of what was on offer.
Aston is an extraordinary brand, which has suffered through its history because it has with the exception of the Ford era never had the real capital to deliver its fantastic products with the thoroughness and quality they need. As soon as they did have that backing, they were successful. Now the finances are looking shaky again, prospective purchasers start to worry, and won't part with the 190k or so their top models require. And today more than ever, cars are about technology, not craftsmanship.
Mercedes may be too smart to take over a loss making business, but they must equally be smart enough to realise they are going to get very little out of a minority holding in a dead duck. They tried Maybach, but hopefully learnt that it was a brand that simply did not have the content required. What does Maybach mean to you? Nothing, I expect. To me neither. There is a price barrier they cannot go through with an up spec S- Class saloon, because almost anybody can wander into a showroom and get something very similar in appearance for £25k. That is the corner they have painted themselves into. If they do a really imposing 'Grosser Mercedes' it is going to be associated with, er, Hitler. Their sports cars? SLK? Ladies cruiser. SL? Big ladies cruiser for rich people without much discrimination. The SLS AMG was more a 100k car than a 190k one. It was never in a million years going to compete with Ferrari, McLaren and the rest. They must realise that Aston Martin and Lagonda can take them into a market level they cannot otherwise compete in. AM can take Mercedes technology and give it class and magic. Mercedes can give AM financial and technical stability, with the result that rather than putting off discriminating buyers, it will give them the confidence to buy. Maybe they are hoping that by being the only viable technical partner they will end up being handed AM for nothing?
Aston is an extraordinary brand, which has suffered through its history because it has with the exception of the Ford era never had the real capital to deliver its fantastic products with the thoroughness and quality they need. As soon as they did have that backing, they were successful. Now the finances are looking shaky again, prospective purchasers start to worry, and won't part with the 190k or so their top models require. And today more than ever, cars are about technology, not craftsmanship.
Mercedes may be too smart to take over a loss making business, but they must equally be smart enough to realise they are going to get very little out of a minority holding in a dead duck. They tried Maybach, but hopefully learnt that it was a brand that simply did not have the content required. What does Maybach mean to you? Nothing, I expect. To me neither. There is a price barrier they cannot go through with an up spec S- Class saloon, because almost anybody can wander into a showroom and get something very similar in appearance for £25k. That is the corner they have painted themselves into. If they do a really imposing 'Grosser Mercedes' it is going to be associated with, er, Hitler. Their sports cars? SLK? Ladies cruiser. SL? Big ladies cruiser for rich people without much discrimination. The SLS AMG was more a 100k car than a 190k one. It was never in a million years going to compete with Ferrari, McLaren and the rest. They must realise that Aston Martin and Lagonda can take them into a market level they cannot otherwise compete in. AM can take Mercedes technology and give it class and magic. Mercedes can give AM financial and technical stability, with the result that rather than putting off discriminating buyers, it will give them the confidence to buy. Maybe they are hoping that by being the only viable technical partner they will end up being handed AM for nothing?
Edited by cardigankid on Tuesday 16th December 22:26
SFO said:
cardigankid said:
Mercedes can give AM financial and technical stability, with the result that rather than putting off discriminating buyers, it will give them the confidence to buy.
AgreeEdited by Speedraser on Wednesday 17th December 18:18
cardigankid said:
They are not the Afrika Korps, they are the same people who are running Bentley, Rolls, Lamborghini extremely well. Without any damage to the integrity of the brands. I own an Aston, and I would be as happy to own one which Had a Merc based engine as my current Ford based V12, based purely on a judgement on the quality of what was on offer.
I think there has been considerable damage to the integrity of those brands. Many people I know simply do not view them with the reverence that they used to (whereas Aston has retained that reverence). A major reason I bought an Aston rather than a Continental is because the Conti is VW-based and VW or Audi-powered. I have no interest in a Rolls Ghost because it's a BMW, in large part, underneath -- platform and engine. The Huracan? No thanks, it's also an Audi. I might be happy to own an Aston with an AMG-based engine if it's "based" on the AMG engine in the same manner that the current V8 is Jaguar-based or the V12 is Ford-based. This is very different from the possibility of an unmodified-but-for-the-ECU-and-exhaust AMG engine being used in an Aston. Aston's integrity is exactly what's at stake, and an off-the-shelf AMG engine would destroy that integrity.Completely counter to your position that the car market now is about technology and not about craftsmanship, IMO the ONLY reason (other than the badge) to buy a Conti or a Ghost rather than the VW or BMW they're based on IS the craftsmanship.
If memory serves (apologies in advance if it doesn't), we disagreed about the Cygnet also...
Speedraser said:
cardigankid said:
They are not the Afrika Korps, they are the same people who are running Bentley, Rolls, Lamborghini extremely well. Without any damage to the integrity of the brands. I own an Aston, and I would be as happy to own one which Had a Merc based engine as my current Ford based V12, based purely on a judgement on the quality of what was on offer.
I think there has been considerable damage to the integrity of those brands. Many people I know simply do not view them with the reverence that they used to (whereas Aston has retained that reverence). A major reason I bought an Aston rather than a Continental is because the Conti is VW-based and VW or Audi-powered. I have no interest in a Rolls Ghost because it's a BMW, in large part, underneath -- platform and engine. The Huracan? No thanks, it's also an Audi. I might be happy to own an Aston with an AMG-based engine if it's "based" on the AMG engine in the same manner that the current V8 is Jaguar-based or the V12 is Ford-based. This is very different from the possibility of an unmodified-but-for-the-ECU-and-exhaust AMG engine being used in an Aston. Aston's integrity is exactly what's at stake, and an off-the-shelf AMG engine would destroy that integrity.Completely counter to your position that the car market now is about technology and not about craftsmanship, IMO the ONLY reason (other than the badge) to buy a Conti or a Ghost rather than the VW or BMW they're based on IS the craftsmanship.
If memory serves (apologies in advance if it doesn't), we disagreed about the Cygnet also...
It follows that they have alienated 'x' number of potential buyers but attracted a significantly larger number than 'x' of new buyers. They sell more cars, that are making more profit, by a large margin, than they ever have before. Same with Bentley, same with RR. Can a board not choose a strategy that goes against the decades old traditions if financially it improves the company's position in every respect ?
Or put another way, what is more important to a board/owner - making better cars, making cars more in keeping with a company's tradition or making more money both short & long term ? Do the board even have a choice ?
Speedraser said:
I think there has been considerable damage to the integrity of those brands. Many people I know simply do not view them with the reverence that they used to (whereas Aston has retained that reverence). A major reason I bought an Aston rather than a Continental is because the Conti is VW-based and VW or Audi-powered.......
If memory serves (apologies in advance if it doesn't), we disagreed about the Cygnet also...
Yes, and I may have been wrong about the Cygnet, but it took cojones and independence to try to pull a stunt like that. I would say that the Ferrari and Lamborghini who built the Daytona and the Miura couldn't exist in today's supercar environment. They were about taking the basic well understood technology of motor engineering to the limits of the envelope, and were about what people could physically create. Today most engineering is on the electronic chemical or nano technical level, one way or another, it is on another level of cost and sophistication. I think that what McLaren are doing is truly heroic, but they are as RD would tell you, a tech company who is also involved in road cars and racing. There is no space these days for the balls out enthusiasts, because when they build a car in a shed and try to sell it for 190k nobody in their right mind would buy it, because you can get a Boxster for 40k which is in every way superior. I have been thinking about a Morgan, but struggle with the idea, because however many good things there are about them, the technology is a bit sIf memory serves (apologies in advance if it doesn't), we disagreed about the Cygnet also...
t, and why would you buy a car which can't be sold in the USA because it can't pass the safety tests?What is Aston's integrity? I loved the DB's and thought Jensen a fool's car by comparison because they just bought a big Chrysler lump and auto transmission. But then all DB was, was a tractor manufacturer, and the DB' succeeded initially because of the WO Bentley designed Lagonda engine. The current range of cars was developed under Ford's ownership. The previous owners who had saved it from oblivion sold it to Ford because they expressly recognised that the days of the brave independents was over. I would suggest that Aston' s integrity is a function of top guys at Aston Martin being allowed to do what they think is right with the resources they are given, and is just as strong under German ownership as any other.
jonby said:
we're of course having a similar discussion on another thread but this post gets to the nub of a very difficult core argument. You, I and a number of other enthusiasts may well think that for instance Lamborghini is no longer the Lamborghini we once admired/respected/desired (I fully agree with your views on this). We are also real potential owners, not just admirers from afar. But the fact remains Lamborghini are now selling many times more cars than they used to, presumably to a section of the market that doesn't care about the things we do.
It follows that they have alienated 'x' number of potential buyers but attracted a significantly larger number than 'x' of new buyers. They sell more cars, that are making more profit, by a large margin, than they ever have before. Same with Bentley, same with RR. Can a board not choose a strategy that goes against the decades old traditions if financially it improves the company's position in every respect ?
Or put another way, what is more important to a board/owner - making better cars, making cars more in keeping with a company's tradition or making more money both short & long term ? Do the board even have a choice ?
This is why I'm worried (although I believe the board does have a choice)... It follows that they have alienated 'x' number of potential buyers but attracted a significantly larger number than 'x' of new buyers. They sell more cars, that are making more profit, by a large margin, than they ever have before. Same with Bentley, same with RR. Can a board not choose a strategy that goes against the decades old traditions if financially it improves the company's position in every respect ?
Or put another way, what is more important to a board/owner - making better cars, making cars more in keeping with a company's tradition or making more money both short & long term ? Do the board even have a choice ?
cardigankid said:
Yes, and I may have been wrong about the Cygnet, but it took cojones and independence to try to pull a stunt like that...
Cojones can lead to all sorts of things, some very good and some very bad...About Morgan, IMO you are far too interested in technology (I don't mean that as good or bad, but just as a true statement) for a Morgan to be the right car for you. They're wonderful, but only if you fully understand -- and want -- what they are and what they are not.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff