AML - Stock Market Listing
Discussion
Whilst I think the investment case for AM is completely broken - cashflow is the clear problem and $200mio is a mere sticking plaster - here the direction is not clear. AML is in a corner, new investors will dilute the investor base and also have to deal with Merc's involvement - and whilst Mercedes will clearly become the longer term owner, they are likely to put=off any other suitors. It implies that Mercedes will have the final call on when and how much they pay for AML.
cardigankid said:
IMHO however there are two issues getting confused here. Firstly the idea that if the car looks great it will sell and solve all the financial problems. It is such a British concept, effortless success (a contradiction in terms) borne of the Spitfire and the E Type - get something that looks right and you will sweep the market even if the engineering is a lash up.
That is surely a complete fallacy, and has never worked for Aston. ...
That is surely a complete fallacy, and has never worked for Aston. ...
I will try with an offer of defence, m'Lud.
January 2003 - Aston Martin unveil the AMV8 concept car, at the North American Auto Show in Detroit.
The car looked so beautiful, that it was an immediate hit.
In the UK, even though almost all the car buyers had only seen pictures of the car, dealers were besieged with customers wanting to place orders. Some dealers were eventually refusing to accept any more orders, because they knew they would not be allocated a sufficient number of cars.
You can still see Pistonheads posts from that time. Posters discussing how they could place an order for the car.
Following the US motor show, customer deliveries did not begin for over 2 years. Priority was being given to start production of the DB9 first.
The AMV8 was of course named V8 Vantage, and the car helped to set the all-time Aston Martin annual production record in 2007. The V8 Vantage then went on, to become the best selling model in Aston Martin's history.
Have I convinced you yet Dieter ?
The only reason that I bought a Vantage, is because I was won over by such a beautiful looking car. Perfect proportions and every feature of the design, appeared to have a functional purpose. Nothing added on, simply for appearance sake.
During that period, sales were good enough for Aston Martin to have a rare period of profitability, but that was ended by the economic financial crisis in 2008.
Edited by Jon39 on Friday 1st July 23:53
Interesting news - European Small Volume Car Manufacturers Alliance.
https://europe.autonews.com/environmentemissions/f...
You may need to use www.12ft.io to read the article.
Jon39 said:
The car looked so beautiful, that it was an immediate hit.
In the UK, even though almost all the car buyers had only seen pictures of the car, dealers were besieged with customers wanting to place orders.
The TVR Griffith is another example.In the UK, even though almost all the car buyers had only seen pictures of the car, dealers were besieged with customers wanting to place orders.
The only problem then is that you have to meet expectations. It's one thing to make a beautiful prototype for a show, rather harder to make a reliable and profitable production car from it. And this is why I'm wary of companies pumping out too many sexy designs too quickly. They seem to get blinded by their own marketing.
Simpo Two said:
Jon39 said:
The car looked so beautiful, that it was an immediate hit.
In the UK, even though almost all the car buyers had only seen pictures of the car, dealers were besieged with customers wanting to place orders.
The TVR Griffith is another example.In the UK, even though almost all the car buyers had only seen pictures of the car, dealers were besieged with customers wanting to place orders.
The only problem then is that you have to meet expectations. It's one thing to make a beautiful prototype for a show, rather harder to make a reliable and profitable production car from it. And this is why I'm wary of companies pumping out too many sexy designs too quickly. They seem to get blinded by their own marketing.
Best Regards
Minglar
Simpo Two said:
Jon39 said:
The car looked so beautiful, that it was an immediate hit.
In the UK, even though almost all the car buyers had only seen pictures of the car, dealers were besieged with customers wanting to place orders.
The TVR Griffith is another example.In the UK, even though almost all the car buyers had only seen pictures of the car, dealers were besieged with customers wanting to place orders.
The only problem then is that you have to meet expectations. It's one thing to make a beautiful prototype for a show, rather harder to make a reliable and profitable production car from it. And this is why I'm wary of companies pumping out too many sexy designs too quickly. They seem to get blinded by their own marketing.
Pub quiz question/answer - Where was the AMV8 Concept car constructed ?
Hand Built in ................ India.
Minglar said:
... £200 Mio won’t solve the problems and it won’t be anywhere near enough to cure the patient. Will it be Daimler MB or one of the others? Who knows? It will be interesting to eventually find out who has been selling AM stock for the last nine months too. Conspiring minds may even suggest it’s the obvious potential benefactor who has been behind the sell off. I guess time will tell and all will be revealed eventually.
Media reports conjecture at the moment of course, but yes, I too was puzzled by the reference to £200 million.
At present, that seems to be the requirement for about one years trading.
Why would anyone inject that sum of money for a minority stake (have board representation) and let the current management just carry on ?
How would we find out who has been selling?
Looking at the sizeable shareholders, I think Invesco is one of the big ones. Would that be their clients money ?
Toto Wolff has or had nearly one percent. At the time, I think that would have cost about £25 million, which would be £9 million now. Is LS still on his Christmas card list?
My thoughts are that Mercedes-Benz are unlikely to be a seller. They have never paid for any of their holding, are due to receive more shares next year (probably mostly cash now under the terms of the Agreement) and every number to do with M-B is so huge, why would they even bother with (to them) such a trifling amount ?
Break time over for me now.
Edited by Jon39 on Saturday 2nd July 12:31
Jon39 said:
Interesting news - European Small Volume Car Manufacturers Alliance.
https://europe.autonews.com/environmentemissions/f...
You may need to use www.12ft.io to read the article.
Thank you also for the 12ft link - I can now read Telegraph articles for free
Regards,
Ed
Jon39 said:
Simpo Two said:
Jon39 said:
The car looked so beautiful, that it was an immediate hit.
In the UK, even though almost all the car buyers had only seen pictures of the car, dealers were besieged with customers wanting to place orders.
The TVR Griffith is another example.In the UK, even though almost all the car buyers had only seen pictures of the car, dealers were besieged with customers wanting to place orders.
The only problem then is that you have to meet expectations. It's one thing to make a beautiful prototype for a show, rather harder to make a reliable and profitable production car from it. And this is why I'm wary of companies pumping out too many sexy designs too quickly. They seem to get blinded by their own marketing.
Pub quiz question/answer - Where was the AMV8 Concept car constructed ?
Hand Built in ................ India.
Minglar said:
... £200 Mio won’t solve the problems and it won’t be anywhere near enough to cure the patient. Will it be Daimler MB or one of the others? Who knows? It will be interesting to eventually find out who has been selling AM stock for the last nine months too. Conspiring minds may even suggest it’s the obvious potential benefactor who has been behind the sell off. I guess time will tell and all will be revealed eventually.
Media reports conjecture at the moment of course, but yes, I too was puzzled by the reference to £200 million.
At present, that seems to be the requirement for about one years trading.
Why would anyone inject that sum of money for a minority stake (have board representation) and let the current management just carry on ?
How would we find out who has been selling?
Looking at the sizeable shareholders, I think Invesco is one of the big ones. Would that be their clients money ?
Toto Wolff has or had nearly one percent. At the time, I think that would have cost about £25 million, which would be £9 million now. Is LS still on his Christmas card list?
My thoughts are that Mercedes-Benz are unlikely to be a seller. They have never paid for any of their holding, are due to receive more shares next year (probably mostly cash now under the terms of the Agreement) and every number to do with M-B is so huge, why would they even bother with (to them) such a trifling amount ?
Break time over for me now.
Edited by Jon39 on Saturday 2nd July 12:31
Best Regards
Minglar
Minglar said:
Invesco haven’t been selling, well not recently anyway.
They have actually been using this move to add to their holding.
There were two new RNS issued yesterday suggesting that their holding has increased.
Whether they are just obliged to add because of weightings and price movements I don’t know,
but in essence their overall stake has grown by about 1% over the last few days.
They have actually been using this move to add to their holding.
There were two new RNS issued yesterday suggesting that their holding has increased.
Whether they are just obliged to add because of weightings and price movements I don’t know,
but in essence their overall stake has grown by about 1% over the last few days.
Apart from seeing their name as a significant holder in the AML Report & Accounts (have you been collecting those as souvenirs?), I don't know any more.
Fairly sure they run investment funds for clients.
I always have a sneaky feeling, that when managing our own money, we might try to be extra cautious.
Other peoples money is easier to spend (eg. governments and councils).
Wonder if the Invesco fund manager has been following Aston Martin, as closely as we have?
There are 109 years of clues available.
Unless they have been shorting, they must have made losses with this holding.
It would only be a miniscule part of their assets under management of course.
We expect better from The Financial Times.
Was this written by graduate trainees, who have little knowledge about recent times at Aston Martin ?
Leaving aside that the additional financing has not been confirmed, the article is riddled with inaccuracies.
https://www.ft.com/content/58f8ae6c-f3a8-4544-b6b5...
( Use www.12ft.io )
When looking for more money, it always sounds good to say it is needed to' accelerate future growth'.
If the lender studies the accounts though, they might start wondering about ongoing losses, the wage bill, other costs and debt interest repayments.
Edited by Jon39 on Monday 4th July 06:19
Jon39 said:
I will try with an offer of defence, m'Lud.
January 2003 - Aston Martin unveil the AMV8 concept car, at the North American Auto Show in Detroit.
The car looked so beautiful, that it was an immediate hit.
Have I convinced you yet Dieter ?
During that period, sales were good enough for Aston Martin to have a rare period of profitability, but that was ended by the economic financial crisis in 2008.
Are you not saying, in effect, that if the cars are sufficiently good looking, the company will be successful? It is important, absolutely vital in fact, but it is not the whole story. Good looks didn't save Jensen, or TVR. Am I misunderstanding you?
Ferrari is not in any way comparable. Ferrari were well structured, left in good financial order and with a far wider base than simply car manufacture. One thing that astonishes me here, though, is how many apparently reputable investment managers appear to have thought that Aston Martin was a sensible investment proposition. Now I can see how they may make money by shorting the shares (and I wonder whether that is what is happening to cause the recent share dips, with other interested parties trying to fight back). Invesco? Are they not supposed to have some basic grasp of what they are doing? Are they not supposed to be managing customers' investments responsibly? Or are they just a pack of ill informed clowns? Aston Martin Lagonda was NEVER by any stretch of the imagination at any point since Ford sold them, an investable proposition. I said so in 2018 and my view hasn't changed. What InvestIndustrial did wasn't investment, it was looting the ruins, and I only hope that Morgan end up in better shape. How can serious people entrust funds to managers who think that AML was a good place to put money? Is their judgement as flawed in their other investments? Mind you I saw similar investment advice based on gross ignorance in Money Week a while back promoting companies who convert classic cars to electric, another certain route to penury. Are these guys now putting money into BritishVolt? Because I can tell you right here, how that is going to end up, and my views won't surprise you.
There won't be 2023 new/facelift cars because the company hasn't the money to develop them, you wouldn't want to drive them if they did, and in any case AML will be insolvent before the end of this year. The solution is administration followed by a Pre-Pack with all IP rights sold for next to nothing to MercedesBenz, with MB covering the TUPE rights of remaining employees, and some kind of cut price deal for the Gaydon factory. Jon39 has kindly pointed out the grouping of specialist car manufacturers who are going to be able to manufacture ICE cars for a further 5 years. (I suspect that is just the start as political posturing starts to encounter reality). This is however an opportunity for MB to comply with the new rules (if it wishes to do so) and extend ICE production through an AML subsidiary. The company has zero value in anyone else's hands, unless you believe that it has a future as a supplier of high end toiletries.
Edited by cardigankid on Monday 4th July 10:35
cardigankid said:
Jon39 said:
I will try with an offer of defence, m'Lud.
January 2003 - Aston Martin unveil the AMV8 concept car, at the North American Auto Show in Detroit.
The car looked so beautiful, that it was an immediate hit.
Have I convinced you yet Dieter ?
During that period, sales were good enough for Aston Martin to have a rare period of profitability, but that was ended by the economic financial crisis in 2008.
Are you not saying, in effect, that if the cars are sufficiently good looking, the company will be successful? It is important, absolutely vital in fact, but it is not the whole story. Good looks didn't save Jensen, or TVR. Am I misunderstanding you?
Ferrari is not in any way comparable. Ferrari were well structured, left in good financial order and with a far wider base than simply car manufacture. One thing that astonishes me here, though, is how many apparently reputable investment managers appear to have thought that Aston Martin was a sensible investment proposition. Now I can see how they may make money by shorting the shares (and I wonder whether that is what is happening to cause the recent share dips, with other interested parties trying to fight back). Invesco? Are they not supposed to have some basic grasp of what they are doing? Are they not supposed to be managing customers' investments responsibly? Or are they just a pack of ill informed clowns? Aston Martin Lagonda was NEVER by any stretch of the imagination at any point since Ford sold them, an investable proposition. I said so in 2018 and my view hasn't changed. What InvestIndustrial did wasn't investment, it was looting the ruins, and I only hope that Morgan end up in better shape. How can serious people entrust funds to managers who think that AML was a good place to put money? Is their judgement as flawed in their other investments? Mind you I saw similar investment advice based on gross ignorance in Money Week a while back promoting companies who convert classic cars to electric, another certain route to penury. Are these guys now putting money into BritishVolt? Because I can tell you right here, how that is going to end up, and my views won't surprise you.
There won't be 2023 new/facelift cars because the company hasn't the money to develop them, you wouldn't want to drive them if they did, and in any case AML will be insolvent before the end of this year. The solution is administration followed by a Pre-Pack with all IP rights sold for next to nothing to MercedesBenz, with MB covering the TUPE rights of remaining employees, and some kind of cut price deal for the Gaydon factory. Jon39 has kindly pointed out the grouping of specialist car manufacturers who are going to be able to manufacture ICE cars for a further 5 years. (I suspect that is just the start as political posturing starts to encounter reality). This is however an opportunity for MB to comply with the new rules (if it wishes to do so) and extend ICE production through an AML subsidiary. The company has zero value in anyone else's hands, unless you believe that it has a future as a supplier of high end toiletries.
Edited by cardigankid on Monday 4th July 10:35
Bentley have made a huge success of the very deeply ugly Bentayga, because the Bentayga A) is an extremely good product and B) still does a good job, despite being so awfully ugly, of reminding all viewers how much money its driver has.
That's not something to boast about, but it's a core part of the Bentley brand, and so Bentayga 'works'. Good lord does it 'work'.
Aston Martins, since 1994, have been beautiful first, and everything and anything else second. Owners want their Aston Martin to say things about their taste and refinement that their Bentley (traditionally) could not. (You could argue now that the current Continental GT is parked very squarely on Aston Martin's lawn, in a way the first two definitely were not)
Now the AM product is neither beautiful, or shouty, or in the context of the contemporary Bentley products, particularly high-quality.
(All just my opinion, eye of the beholder, etc, etc)
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff