AMLGH 2020 Annual Report

[Emilio Largo]

https://amsc-prod-cd.azureedge.net/-/media/corpora...

Page 8:
"In 2023, the front-engine range will undergo a substantial refresh, incorporating all new Mercedes-Benz technology, and allow us to return to historical front-engine sales of 3,500 to 4,000 units per annum."

Page 9:
"Our ambition is that by 2025 every one of our cars will have an electrified powertrain (hybrid) or be pure electric driven. Our ultimate goal is that by 2030, 50% of our cars will be battery electric vehicles, 45% performance oriented electrified power and 5% carbon for track-only use."

Page 15:
"Consultation process with our employees and trade unions to implement a restructuring plan and reduce personnel by up to 500 permanent employees and 150 contractors, to enhance efficiency and reduce costs in line with lower than planned production volumes."

Page 67:

[Speedraser]

Emilio Largo said:

https://amsc-prod-cd.azureedge.net/-/media/corpora...

Page 8:
"In 2023, the front-engine range will undergo a substantial refresh, incorporating all new Mercedes-Benz technology, and allow us to return to historical front-engine sales of 3,500 to 4,000 units per annum."

Page 9:
"Our ambition is that by 2025 every one of our cars will have an electrified powertrain (hybrid) or be pure electric driven. Our ultimate goal is that by 2030, 50% of our cars will be battery electric vehicles, 45% performance oriented electrified power and 5% carbon for track-only use."

Page 15:
"Consultation process with our employees and trade unions to implement a restructuring plan and reduce personnel by up to 500 permanent employees and 150 contractors, to enhance efficiency and reduce costs in line with lower than planned production volumes."

Page 67:

I went through the report quickly, so I’m really hoping I misread it. That said…

What a crying shame. The end of Aston Martin, as Aston Martin, is almost here. In just 4 years, every so-called Aston "will have an electrified powertrain (hybrid) or be pure electric driven." That doesn’t necessarily sound the death knell, but this does: About those hybrid vehicles, on page 5 the report says "These vehicles will be powered by fully customisable and cutting-edge technology developed by Mercedes-Benz AG..." One of the "Highlights" is "TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY AGREEMENT WITH MERCEDES-BENZ AG -- ACCESS TO WORLD – CLASS TECHNOLOGIES: POWERTRAIN AND ELECTRIC/ELECTRONIC ARCHITECTURE REMOVES COST AND RISKS OF DEVELOPMENT". Yes, I added the emphasis (not the caps).

Let's be honest -- "customisable" is marketing BS. It's Benz. Not Aston. Period. Don’t forget, when the first Benz agreement happened they said they’d deliver “bespoke” engines for Aston. LIARS – we got an off-the-shelf AMG engine.

Page 7 implies that the DBX platform will form the basis of future models, and the only reference made to Aston having a bespoke platform is about the DBX. Are they actually considering using the SUV platform for sports cars??? Absurd. "We expect that advances, such as our modular based engineering which allows us to use shared systems and components to reduce engineering complexities, will result in cost-saving and model synergies going forward." Electrical architectures are one thing, and they're critical and important -- and have nothing to do with the heart, soul and bones of the car. Engines and platforms have everything to do with the heart, soul and bones of the car. While I didn’t see any specific reference to sharing platforms with Mercedes, the overall language and strategy discussed in this report, in combination with reports from industry sources stating that sharing a platform with the next SL is being discussed, all point in the same shameful direction.

This is an automotive atrocity. This does not save Aston Martin. This does not allow Aston Martin to survive. This kills Aston Martin, drives a stake straight through the heart of what made Aston Martin so special, so desirable, so aspirational. This will render Aston Martin merely a "brand," in the very worst sense of the term. This is the end of Aston Martin engines, especially disgraceful given the development of Aston's own new V6 hybrid. This is NOT the way to "save" Aston, and surely not the only way. It is, reprehensibly, just the cheapest way to keep the “brand” going, a tragic example of marketing over substance.

I've said it before: It would be very difficult to find someone who loves Aston Martin, and wants them to survive, more than I do. But this isn't surviving, this is dying, and in a humiliating manner. I'd rather see Aston Martin recognize the atrocity that is happening to it and decide to bow out gracefully with (most) of its dignity intact, than to be disgraced and dishonored on the path to becoming merely a Benz-with-a-Badge. A truly great marque -- slaughtered.

Edited by Speedraser on Friday 19th March 06:04

Edited by Speedraser on Friday 19th March 06:05

[KevinBird]

It's been on life support for years, be thankful it got this far

[anonymous-user]

Speedraser said:

I went through the report quickly, so I’m really hoping I misread it. That said…

What a crying shame. The end of Aston Martin, as Aston Martin, is almost here. In just 4 years, every so-called Aston "will have an electrified powertrain (hybrid) or be pure electric driven." That doesn’t necessarily sound the death knell, but this does: About those hybrid vehicles, on page 5 the report says "These vehicles will be powered by fully customisable and cutting-edge technology developed by Mercedes-Benz AG..." One of the "Highlights" is "TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY AGREEMENT WITH MERCEDES-BENZ AG -- ACCESS TO WORLD – CLASS TECHNOLOGIES: POWERTRAIN AND ELECTRIC/ELECTRONIC ARCHITECTURE REMOVES COST AND RISKS OF DEVELOPMENT". Yes, I added the emphasis (not the caps).

Let's be honest -- "customisable" is marketing BS. It's Benz. Not Aston. Period. Don’t forget, when the first Benz agreement happened they said they’d deliver “bespoke” engines for Aston. LIARS – we got an off-the-shelf AMG engine.

Page 7 implies that the DBX platform will form the basis of future models, and the only reference made to Aston having a bespoke platform is about the DBX. Are they actually considering using the SUV platform for sports cars??? Absurd. "We expect that advances, such as our modular based engineering which allows us to use shared systems and components to reduce engineering complexities, will result in cost-saving and model synergies going forward." Electrical architectures are one thing, and they're critical and important -- and have nothing to do with the heart, soul and bones of the car. Engines and platforms have everything to do with the heart, soul and bones of the car. While I didn’t see any specific reference to sharing platforms with Mercedes, the overall language and strategy discussed in this report, in combination with reports from industry sources stating that sharing a platform with the next SL is being discussed, all point in the same shameful direction.

This is an automotive atrocity. This does not save Aston Martin. This does not allow Aston Martin to survive. This kills Aston Martin, drives a stake straight through the heart of what made Aston Martin so special, so desirable, so aspirational. This will render Aston Martin merely a "brand," in the very worst sense of the term. This is the end of Aston Martin engines, especially disgraceful given the development of Aston's own new V6 hybrid. This is NOT the way to "save" Aston, and surely not the only way. It is, reprehensibly, just the cheapest way to keep the “brand” going, a tragic example of marketing over substance.

I've said it before: It would be very difficult to find someone who loves Aston Martin, and wants them to survive, more than I do. But this isn't surviving, this is dying, and in a humiliating manner. I'd rather see Aston Martin recognize the atrocity that is happening to it and decide to bow out gracefully with (most) of its dignity intact, than to be disgraced and dishonored on the path to becoming merely a Benz-with-a-Badge. A truly great marque -- slaughtered.

Edited by Speedraser on Friday 19th March 06:04

Edited by Speedraser on Friday 19th March 06:05

The diatribe, scrutinizing, analyzing and criticizing has gone on for a while now. In an attempt to clear up the path of destruction and gloom that's been created on this and every other thread:

• Hybrid technology will come from Mercedes; AML because of a historical lack of R&D (because its customers didn't really care for modern technology), needed a leg up. It's now got that, and the Mercedes hybrid technology is very, very capable.

• Internal combustion engines can exist in hybrid form between 2030 and 2035 so long as they're able to drive on pure electric for 'substantial' distances. That hasn't been quantified by the government, because...well it's the government - wishy washy is their thing, and aside from dates of cutoffs for when bans start on ICE usage, there's not been much useful information cascaded.

• The DBX platform was designed like the VH cars with headroom for future development; it can be adapted for longer and shorter wheelbases. Crucially, it can evolve into BEV and hybrid platforms. Contrary to what you think about the designers, AML has a group of very talented, forward thinking designers and engineers. It's not going to be used as the basis for sports cars, they already have that platform (which isn't Mercedes based). It'll be used for DBX derivatives, for those who aren't into SUV's but what something more practical than what can be offered in a GT layout. Make of it what you will as to what kind of vehicle that might be.

• Platform sharing with Mercedes; so far - the only place I've seen this idea is via yourself; you appear to be the only one talking about it. AML develops its chassis platforms in house already, and has done for some time. But, if you're to build a narrative about how you believe the company is dying, then never let the truth get in the way of a good story, I suppose.

• TM01 V6 - it may still see the light of day, but the inconvenient truth is that these things cost a lot of money, and AML brought to market the cars it could with what it had available. What would have helped, would be if the core demographic, could understand the mountain that the company had to climb to be where it is today. Instead though, you've attacked them, and specific employees, as if they're killing 'your' marque. It's become tedious and tiring, but the conversation has moved on ever so slightly by your admission that you'd rather they went out, guns blazing, bankrupt, for the sake of having a Vantage engine that's designed in-house.

• The M177 / M178 V8; under the initial agreement (signed before AP took charge), it allowed for small amendments to the engine for Aston Martin applications; it was different enough that you wouldn't have been getting it maintained or repaired at a Mercedes dealer, but that wasn't enough for the purists. The company realised that, and the revised agreement signed in 2020 allows for the M178 (because the M177 is retired, and the M178 soon will be at Mercedes) to be built to Aston spec - it's an arrangement not dissimilar to how Pagani gets their engines from AMG. It means the horsepower cap doesn't pose a problem, and the engine (which isn't current, but still has a lot of headroom) can perhaps become somewhat closer to the nirvana of what some seek. The paradox here is that shortly, that engine will only be available in an Aston Martin - Mercedes will have ceased using it. I don't suppose that'll make it an easier pill to swallow though, despite one of your issues being an engine featuring in another brand's products.

Of course the AE31 V12 was designed in-house, and assembled in the same room the AM29 V12 was in Cologne, and yet - no, you didn't sing its praises, instead it's just constant, repetitive complaints about turbochargers, infotainment screens, gloveboxes and vanity mirrors. Another thread raised the question of why the AE31 was developed instead of a V8 replacement. As far as I'm aware, it's because the DB9 replacement, as the oldest member of the family, had to be seen to not go backwards on the launch of the DB11, and a V8 flagship in place of a V12, would have no doubt boiled the piss. Put simply, whatever route they went, you'd find fault with - they had to pick an engine to push forward with and they went with the V12 because they thought customers would appreciate it. Alas, no.

The greatest sadness in all this, is that when faced with an near impossible task of keeping a niche, low volume car maker afloat in the midst of a pandemic, and the relentless attack on the motor car because of the climate change agenda, it was the car maker that learned to adapt rather than die, and would-be customers, elected to remain rooted in the past, believing you can just stand still when the world is moving on and leaving you behind, for nothing more than wanting to cling to some nostalgia.

I absolutely appreciate the romance of having a home-brewed engine in a Vantage, but it simply wasn't viable in 2017 - and it was compounded by existing customers not migrating to what WAS viable, leaving the company struggling financially. You say Stroll is killing the company; on the contrary, he's the one spending money on it, because you sure as hell aren't - you're relishing sticking the boot in at every opportunity, believing you're doing Aston Martin a favour.

Lastly, you've taken swipes at Moers also; he only joined last August, and part of his reason for leaving AMG was the direction it was heading in regard to using 4 cylinder hybrids in premium AMG products - he's an engine guy, he likes the bigger stuff and he's unlikely to bring all that 4-banger hybrid stuff with him. Aston's in a very good position now where it can cherry pick what it takes from Mercedes, and that should be applauded.

The first car you'll see that has his direct input, is the Vantage variant that launches next week. It builds upon input and feedback from the last 3 years of Vantage production, and isn't the abomination you're likely to portray it as.

[Jon39]

Speedraser said:

What a crying shame. The end of Aston Martin, as Aston Martin
...... and other things

Governments have introduced laws, which will ban the sale of internal combustion engines.

If you are suggesting Aston Martin should ignore those laws, then that opens new opportunities to seek a profitable period.
Perhaps yet another affiliate scheme, but this time go for the big money - Aston Martin branded drugs.

[SFO]

NFC 85 Vette said:

The diatribe, scrutinizing, analyzing and criticizing has gone on for a while now. In an attempt to clear up the path of destruction and gloom that's been created on this and every other thread:

• Hybrid technology will come from Mercedes; AML because of a historical lack of R&D (because its customers didn't really care for modern technology), needed a leg up. It's now got that, and the Mercedes hybrid technology is very, very capable.

• Internal combustion engines can exist in hybrid form between 2030 and 2035 so long as they're able to drive on pure electric for 'substantial' distances. That hasn't been quantified by the government, because...well it's the government - wishy washy is their thing, and aside from dates of cutoffs for when bans start on ICE usage, there's not been much useful information cascaded.

• The DBX platform was designed like the VH cars with headroom for future development; it can be adapted for longer and shorter wheelbases. Crucially, it can evolve into BEV and hybrid platforms. Contrary to what you think about the designers, AML has a group of very talented, forward thinking designers and engineers. It's not going to be used as the basis for sports cars, they already have that platform (which isn't Mercedes based). It'll be used for DBX derivatives, for those who aren't into SUV's but what something more practical than what can be offered in a GT layout. Make of it what you will as to what kind of vehicle that might be.

• Platform sharing with Mercedes; so far - the only place I've seen this idea is via yourself; you appear to be the only one talking about it. AML develops its chassis platforms in house already, and has done for some time. But, if you're to build a narrative about how you believe the company is dying, then never let the truth get in the way of a good story, I suppose.

• TM01 V6 - it may still see the light of day, but the inconvenient truth is that these things cost a lot of money, and AML brought to market the cars it could with what it had available. What would have helped, would be if the core demographic, could understand the mountain that the company had to climb to be where it is today. Instead though, you've attacked them, and specific employees, as if they're killing 'your' marque. It's become tedious and tiring, but the conversation has moved on ever so slightly by your admission that you'd rather they went out, guns blazing, bankrupt, for the sake of having a Vantage engine that's designed in-house.

• The M177 / M178 V8; under the initial agreement (signed before AP took charge), it allowed for small amendments to the engine for Aston Martin applications; it was different enough that you wouldn't have been getting it maintained or repaired at a Mercedes dealer, but that wasn't enough for the purists. The company realised that, and the revised agreement signed in 2020 allows for the M178 (because the M177 is retired, and the M178 soon will be at Mercedes) to be built to Aston spec - it's an arrangement not dissimilar to how Pagani gets their engines from AMG. It means the horsepower cap doesn't pose a problem, and the engine (which isn't current, but still has a lot of headroom) can perhaps become somewhat closer to the nirvana of what some seek. The paradox here is that shortly, that engine will only be available in an Aston Martin - Mercedes will have ceased using it. I don't suppose that'll make it an easier pill to swallow though, despite one of your issues being an engine featuring in another brand's products.

Of course the AE31 V12 was designed in-house, and assembled in the same room the AM29 V12 was in Cologne, and yet - no, you didn't sing its praises, instead it's just constant, repetitive complaints about turbochargers, infotainment screens, gloveboxes and vanity mirrors. Another thread raised the question of why the AE31 was developed instead of a V8 replacement. As far as I'm aware, it's because the DB9 replacement, as the oldest member of the family, had to be seen to not go backwards on the launch of the DB11, and a V8 flagship in place of a V12, would have no doubt boiled the piss. Put simply, whatever route they went, you'd find fault with - they had to pick an engine to push forward with and they went with the V12 because they thought customers would appreciate it. Alas, no.

The greatest sadness in all this, is that when faced with an near impossible task of keeping a niche, low volume car maker afloat in the midst of a pandemic, and the relentless attack on the motor car because of the climate change agenda, it was the car maker that learned to adapt rather than die, and would-be customers, elected to remain rooted in the past, believing you can just stand still when the world is moving on and leaving you behind, for nothing more than wanting to cling to some nostalgia.

I absolutely appreciate the romance of having a home-brewed engine in a Vantage, but it simply wasn't viable in 2017 - and it was compounded by existing customers not migrating to what WAS viable, leaving the company struggling financially. You say Stroll is killing the company; on the contrary, he's the one spending money on it, because you sure as hell aren't - you're relishing sticking the boot in at every opportunity, believing you're doing Aston Martin a favour.

Lastly, you've taken swipes at Moers also; he only joined last August, and part of his reason for leaving AMG was the direction it was heading in regard to using 4 cylinder hybrids in premium AMG products - he's an engine guy, he likes the bigger stuff and he's unlikely to bring all that 4-banger hybrid stuff with him. Aston's in a very good position now where it can cherry pick what it takes from Mercedes, and that should be applauded.

The first car you'll see that has his direct input, is the Vantage variant that launches next week. It builds upon input and feedback from the last 3 years of Vantage production, and isn't the abomination you're likely to portray it as.

At last, some cool headed, comprehensive and well thought analysis.

Despite what Speedraser thinks, the stock market thinks AM has a decent future.

[Speedraser]

SFO said:

At last, some cool headed, comprehensive and well thought analysis.

Despite what Speedraser thinks, the stock market thinks AM has a decent future.

If you noticed, I didn't say a word about the stock price. I'm well aware of it, its, er, interesting history, and why it matters. I've clearly been talking about the product. If all I cared about was the stock price, then I wouldn't care at all what the product is as long as it's massively profitable. Such as Jon's idea

I'm an Aston enthusiast because of the cars and the history, not the stock.

[Speedraser]

NFC 85 Vette said:

The diatribe, scrutinizing, analyzing and criticizing has gone on for a while now. In an attempt to clear up the path of destruction and gloom that's been created on this and every other thread:

• Hybrid technology will come from Mercedes; AML because of a historical lack of R&D (because its customers didn't really care for modern technology), needed a leg up. It's now got that, and the Mercedes hybrid technology is very, very capable.

• Internal combustion engines can exist in hybrid form between 2030 and 2035 so long as they're able to drive on pure electric for 'substantial' distances. That hasn't been quantified by the government, because...well it's the government - wishy washy is their thing, and aside from dates of cutoffs for when bans start on ICE usage, there's not been much useful information cascaded.

• The DBX platform was designed like the VH cars with headroom for future development; it can be adapted for longer and shorter wheelbases. Crucially, it can evolve into BEV and hybrid platforms. Contrary to what you think about the designers, AML has a group of very talented, forward thinking designers and engineers. It's not going to be used as the basis for sports cars, they already have that platform (which isn't Mercedes based). It'll be used for DBX derivatives, for those who aren't into SUV's but what something more practical than what can be offered in a GT layout. Make of it what you will as to what kind of vehicle that might be.

• Platform sharing with Mercedes; so far - the only place I've seen this idea is via yourself; you appear to be the only one talking about it. AML develops its chassis platforms in house already, and has done for some time. But, if you're to build a narrative about how you believe the company is dying, then never let the truth get in the way of a good story, I suppose.

• TM01 V6 - it may still see the light of day, but the inconvenient truth is that these things cost a lot of money, and AML brought to market the cars it could with what it had available. What would have helped, would be if the core demographic, could understand the mountain that the company had to climb to be where it is today. Instead though, you've attacked them, and specific employees, as if they're killing 'your' marque. It's become tedious and tiring, but the conversation has moved on ever so slightly by your admission that you'd rather they went out, guns blazing, bankrupt, for the sake of having a Vantage engine that's designed in-house.

• The M177 / M178 V8; under the initial agreement (signed before AP took charge), it allowed for small amendments to the engine for Aston Martin applications; it was different enough that you wouldn't have been getting it maintained or repaired at a Mercedes dealer, but that wasn't enough for the purists. The company realised that, and the revised agreement signed in 2020 allows for the M178 (because the M177 is retired, and the M178 soon will be at Mercedes) to be built to Aston spec - it's an arrangement not dissimilar to how Pagani gets their engines from AMG. It means the horsepower cap doesn't pose a problem, and the engine (which isn't current, but still has a lot of headroom) can perhaps become somewhat closer to the nirvana of what some seek. The paradox here is that shortly, that engine will only be available in an Aston Martin - Mercedes will have ceased using it. I don't suppose that'll make it an easier pill to swallow though, despite one of your issues being an engine featuring in another brand's products.

Of course the AE31 V12 was designed in-house, and assembled in the same room the AM29 V12 was in Cologne, and yet - no, you didn't sing its praises, instead it's just constant, repetitive complaints about turbochargers, infotainment screens, gloveboxes and vanity mirrors. Another thread raised the question of why the AE31 was developed instead of a V8 replacement. As far as I'm aware, it's because the DB9 replacement, as the oldest member of the family, had to be seen to not go backwards on the launch of the DB11, and a V8 flagship in place of a V12, would have no doubt boiled the piss. Put simply, whatever route they went, you'd find fault with - they had to pick an engine to push forward with and they went with the V12 because they thought customers would appreciate it. Alas, no.

The greatest sadness in all this, is that when faced with an near impossible task of keeping a niche, low volume car maker afloat in the midst of a pandemic, and the relentless attack on the motor car because of the climate change agenda, it was the car maker that learned to adapt rather than die, and would-be customers, elected to remain rooted in the past, believing you can just stand still when the world is moving on and leaving you behind, for nothing more than wanting to cling to some nostalgia.

I absolutely appreciate the romance of having a home-brewed engine in a Vantage, but it simply wasn't viable in 2017 - and it was compounded by existing customers not migrating to what WAS viable, leaving the company struggling financially. You say Stroll is killing the company; on the contrary, he's the one spending money on it, because you sure as hell aren't - you're relishing sticking the boot in at every opportunity, believing you're doing Aston Martin a favour.

Lastly, you've taken swipes at Moers also; he only joined last August, and part of his reason for leaving AMG was the direction it was heading in regard to using 4 cylinder hybrids in premium AMG products - he's an engine guy, he likes the bigger stuff and he's unlikely to bring all that 4-banger hybrid stuff with him. Aston's in a very good position now where it can cherry pick what it takes from Mercedes, and that should be applauded.

The first car you'll see that has his direct input, is the Vantage variant that launches next week. It builds upon input and feedback from the last 3 years of Vantage production, and isn't the abomination you're likely to portray it as.

Wow. Clearly I’m not a fan of what the current plans appear to me to be, or the use of Benz engines, but you’ve grossly misinterpreted much what I’ve said and a great deal of what I think. You are also attributing many statements to me that I never made. Go back and reread my posts and others’, then yell at me for what I did say, but then yell (if you must) at the people who said things you mistakenly attribute to me.

Never have I suggested that Aston’s engineers are anything other than superb. To say that I’ve criticized or think badly of their engineers is completely absurd. I think they’re fantastically capable, and it’s why I want them to design Aston Martins rather than use Benz engines or platforms.

My comments about future plans are based on what I’ve read (and heard in interviews directly), very much aware that some info is accurate, and much is inaccurate. When the information comes from Aston, Benz, Stroll, Moers, or the Annual Report, their words combined with history (recent and otherwise) carry considerable weight. I didn’t make up the rumor about potential platform-sharing, I’ve read about it from what should be credible sources (doesn’t mean they’re right), and Moers has been vague at best on that topic. I’ve said that if they do that – and it sounds like it’s being considered – it would kill Aston. If it’s true that it’s being considered, hopefully they’ll decide against it. I think it’s crucial that Aston continues to use its own platforms, not shared with anyone else. "Cherry-picking" from Mercedes could be great or could be awful. Engines and platforms shouldn't be from Benz. I stand by that.

I haven’t “attacked” any specific employees who have "gotten the company to where it is today." Stroll and Moers just got there – they’re responsible for where Aston goes, not where it is today. Moers has strongly implied that Aston’s new V6 won’t happen, and that the future is likely Benz-powered. I didn’t make it up. I said I don’t like it. Because I don’t.

When the first Mercedes engine deal was announced, the information straight from Aston about engines and Mercedes was explicit – they would be “bespoke” engines specifically for Aston Martin. Allowing for “small amendments” to a Benz engine, as you described it, is an entirely different stratosphere from bespoke. And the resulting engine itself turned out to be completely unchanged. Was the statement that the engines would be bespoke just a lie?

You claim that I “didn’t sing its praises” regarding the current V12, turbos and all. This is patently false. In fact, I have repeatedly said that it’s an Aston engine (and why), that it’s an extraordinary engine, and that the DB11 V12 and the DBS are true Aston Martins. I’ve said that I do prefer naturally aspirated engines (is that not OK to say?). I’ve also said that I completely understand why everything is using turbos now and that, done well like the Aston V12 is, turbos can be great. Go back and read my posts. I have explicitly acknowledged that Andy Palmer said he only had the funds to develop either a new V8 or a new V12 – and he chose the V12. I've also explicitly stated that if that's true, then I understood why he chose the V12, and why the AMG V8 could be a temporary measure until there could be an Aston engine again. Which the TM01 V6 should be. I hate the afterthought-looking stuck-on nav screen. I’ve said so, as have many others. I have not written one single word complaining about gloveboxes or vanity mirrors. You’re thinking of someone else.

I’d love to buy another new Aston Martin. I want to want one. I did spend my hard-earned money on a new Aston. That was quite a while ago now, but the day I took delivery remains one of the great days of my life, and I continue to love that car. I bought another Aston, used this time, some years later. Had they made a new one I wanted more than the used one I bought, I’d have bought the new one. But they didn’t. It’s my money to spend. If they build one I want enough, I’ll buy it, and I hope that happens. But I won’t want one with a Benz engine. Or a Benz platform, if that becomes a reality.

I’ve also repeatedly said that I hope I’m wrong about the direction it looks to me like they’re going. I still do. You seem to have a fair amount of knowledge about what may lie ahead, including that the TM01 V6 may yet live, and that Benz platforms are less likely than some of what I’ve read suggests. I hope you’re right.

[Jon39]

Speedraser said:

I’ve also repeatedly said that .....

But I won’t want one with a Benz engine, a Benz engine, a Benz engine, a Benz engine, a Benz engine, a Benz engine.

"I might have mentioned the Mercedes Benz engine, but I think I got way with it," - Basil Fawlty.

[LTP]

I don't spend as much time staring at annual reports as maybe I should, especially when there's an Aston to be driven, but looking at the Remuneration page in Emilio's post above one thing struck me was that the directors were named. I'm willing to be educated but whenever I've looked previously at any company reports, not just AML's, I remember only being presented with "Highest paid director" and you had to guess who it might be (hint: usually CEO).

I did wonder, having seen the numbers, whether this is another bit of virtue signalling ("Look how parsimonious the new management is in taking money from the company") whilst taking the opportunity to put the boot into the previous team. Again.

I'm not saying Andy Palmer deserved a £1.2M package; I'm not saying he didn't. I think sometimes salaries in listed company senior execs can be "willy waving" on behalf of the business ("Look how high-powered our top team are. Just look at how much we have to pay them. Look! Just look!") plus they often all sit on each others' remuneration committees and don't suggest lower rewards might be justified in case the compliment is returned. Finally, as the constant litany of company failures show, some of them couldn't run a whelk stall - and you can't claim the credit for success (as they are often prone to do) without accepting the responsibility when things go tits up (as they are definitely not usually up for). Disclaimer: I'm not a socialist or anti-business - I just read Private Eye

[AlexT]

NFC 85 Vette said:

• The M177 / M178 V8; under the initial agreement (signed before AP took charge), it allowed for small amendments to the engine for Aston Martin applications; it was different enough that you wouldn't have been getting it maintained or repaired at a Mercedes dealer, but that wasn't enough for the purists. The company realised that, and the revised agreement signed in 2020 allows for the M178 (because the M177 is retired, and the M178 soon will be at Mercedes) to be built to Aston spec - it's an arrangement not dissimilar to how Pagani gets their engines from AMG. It means the horsepower cap doesn't pose a problem, and the engine (which isn't current, but still has a lot of headroom) can perhaps become somewhat closer to the nirvana of what some seek. The paradox here is that shortly, that engine will only be available in an Aston Martin - Mercedes will have ceased using it. I don't suppose that'll make it an easier pill to swallow though, despite one of your issues being an engine featuring in another brand's products.

So AM are currently using the M177 (C63)...when will they use the M178 (AMG GT) in the new Vantage?

[Emilio Largo]

LTP said:

"Look how parsimonious the new management is in taking money from the company")

Well, Lawrence Stroll perhaps is, receiving no remuneration at all. But I found it remarkable that the not insignificant sum of EUR 1m (GBP 901,000.00) had/has to be paid to Tobias Moers just as compensation for lost incentives that he would have earned at AMG. So right from the start not a cheap recruitment given the AML´s financial situation. He better be (very) good.

[LTP]

Emilio Largo said:

Well, Lawrence Stroll perhaps is, receiving no remuneration at all. But I found it remarkable that the not insignificant sum of EUR 1m (GBP 901,000.00) had/has to be paid to Tobias Moers just as compensation for lost incentives that he would have earned at AMG. So right from the start not a cheap recruitment given the AML´s financial situation. He better be (very) good.

A good point, well made.

Just as, I would imagine, a very large salary would be required to entice an executive (who was definitely not the first choice) away from a relatively successful "career for life" at a major Franco-Japanese manufacturer to pick up the potentially career-killing poisoned chalice of becoming the CEO of a completely rudderless and tiny independent on the verge of going bankrupt (again), that had ageing products, nothing that looked remotely like a plan, a chairman asleep at the wheel, board members at each other's throats and a bunch of foreign shareholders with no automotive experience (until the arrival of InvestIndustrial) who thought owning a car company would be glamorous, fun and lucrative but who were now beginning to find the whole thing rather tedious and expensive

Edited by LTP on Saturday 20th March 15:01

[Jon39]

Speedraser said:

If all I cared about was the stock price, then I wouldn't care at all what the product is as long as it's massively profitable.
Such as Jon's idea

Of course they cannot use my (in jest) suggestion, it is against the law.
Profits to fund AML's future will have to come from selling good products, which customers want.

Now that AML is a publicly listed company, the stock price and therefore the market value of the company, ought to be of at least passing interest to Aston Martin enthusiasts. There is a direct connection between the cars and the stock price. Day to day share price movements are irrelevant, but it is the total market value which is of more importance.

That value is now £2.3 billion ($3.2 billion for Speedraser.) There is about £1 billion debt also to consider (repayable or refinanced in 2026).
The business would never be worth £2.3 bn based on the current losses, which is where good products which sell well come in.
Current investors are not buying the shares to receive dividends, they are expecting either a much higher level of car sales and therefore profits in the near future, or that Mercedes-Benz will buy the company.

Any faltering will result in a reduction of the company value.

[Jon39]

Emilio Largo said:

Well, Lawrence Stroll perhaps is, receiving no remuneration at all. But I found it remarkable that the not insignificant sum of EUR 1m (GBP 901,000.00) had/has to be paid to Tobias Moers just as compensation for lost incentives that he would have earned at AMG. So right from the start not a cheap recruitment given the AML´s financial situation. He better be (very) good.

What is wrong with that?

Say you were an employee and had for example accumulated share options (effectively future incentive pay), from your present employer.
You are then headhunted by another employer, but if you resign you lose your rights to all those existing accumulated benefits.
If the new employer really wants the individual, they might choose to encourage the person to leave their job, by compensating them for the money they would have obtained by staying.
All perfectly normal and sensible for both parties.

Someone on here spoke very highly of Tobias Moers ability. If he can make AML profitable, just that compensation alone will be well worthwhile and all shareholders will then benefit. We shall see in time.

Some caution is needed when reading company reports. Jealousy sometimes becomes evident.
Leading a big company is far from easy and a muck up soon results in resignation, accompanied by a press release saying the CEO wants to spend more time with his family.

Edited by Jon39 on Saturday 20th March 17:01

[Emilio Largo]

Jon39 said:

IF he can make AML profitable, ....

And I am not jealous.

[Jon39]

Emilio Largo said:

Jon39 said:

IF he can make AML profitable, ....

And I am not jealous.

Yes, your empasis shows why I said if.

The long history shows what a difficult task he faces, but hopefully the (AP) SUV will make the difference this time (12th rescue).
The Monday car I think should give the Vantage a boost. A great idea to mimic the safety car.

[Jon39]

LTP said:

Just as, I would imagine, a very large salary would be required to entice an executive (who was definitely not the first choice) away from a relatively successful "career for life" at a major Franco-Japanese manufacturer to pick up the potentially career-killing poisoned chalice of becoming the CEO of a completely rudderless and tiny independent on the verge of going bankrupt (again), that had ageing products, nothing that looked remotely like a plan, a chairman asleep at the wheel, board members at each other's throats and a bunch of foreign shareholders with no automotive experience (until the arrival of InvestIndustrial) who thought owning a car company would be glamorous, fun and lucrative but who were now beginning to find the whole thing rather tedious and expensive

Your point about InvestIndustrial is not quite right Paul.

They left (think they have now sold the last of their holding) having made a huge amount of money.
Probably wished they could have sold a bigger percentage of their holding in the IPO. That was when their profit was made, but it seems there was the limit to the amount of equity the market would take.
The balance of their original investment was sold at much lower levels, but they had already 'cleaned up' by then.

There might be a moral there. Never buy, when a private equity business is selling.
Wonder what they have planned for Morgan?

[LTP]

Jon39 said:

Your point about InvestIndustrial is not quite right Paul.

Sorry. Upon second reading I realise that you could think I was lumping InvestIndustrial in with the original shareholders who thought it would be glamorous and were getting tired - that referred purely to the original Kuwaitis et al, chaired by Dave Richards, who bought the business from Ford.

InvestIndustrial are an entirely different bunch who have a track record in the auto industry (Ducati, anyone?) of turning things around and then getting out with a profit, like all "good" VCs. I have heard that the original AMG/MB tie-up came about because InvestIndustrial had a shareholding in AMG and, realising that AML needed some tech, facilitated a meeting and the technology transfer agreement. But that could be just rumour.