mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

Source: Opel’s Financial Problems Exaggerated By Muddy Accounting

As General Motors strategizes to restructure its loss-making European operations, a source familiar with the automaker’s European unit told GM Authority that the losses are more “on paper than anything else”.

Speaking on the basis of anonymity, the source explained that Opel doesn’t “get paid for its share of development, engineering, or design” when it comes to rebadged vehicles. The prime example is the Buick Regal, which was, barring a “few minor exceptions, conceived by the staff at GM Europe” as the Opel Insignia. “For every Regal sold in North America or in China, Opel doesn’t see a cent.” The same is true for the Buick Verano/Excelle — which also was predominantly developed by Opel as the Astra.

In effect, Opel doesn’t get residual revenue from products it primarily developed. “The school of thought is that they [Opel] will earn plenty from selling their cars in home turf, resulting in a free car for Buick.”

Another item of contention is the fact that the platforms that are engineered by Opel “are handed over to GM to use as they wish without charge.” Engineers in Europe “spend years developing things like the Epsilon, Delta, and Gamma for Opels; then when Chevy wants to make a compact sedan, it has most of the work all done”, said the source referring to the Chevrolet Cruze. “The same is true of the Malibu, Aveo [Sonic], Buick Regal, Verano”.

The source admitted that no one really knows how much the losses amount to if tallied up, but said that the practice has been going on “for years”. “It would be the same as if Opel decided to build a heavy duty diesel pickup and used the GMT platform and the Duramax V8 [developed in the U.S.] free of charge.” “The problem is cash flow for technology sharing.”

In addition, we were told that the problem will become further exacerbated as GM integrates Opel and Buick on a global level, with the next vehicle to be available free of charge to Buick being the Opel Mokka, aka Buick Encore subcompact crossover.

GM Europe reported a loss of $300 million in the first quarter of 2012 compared with break-even result in the same time frame a year ago.

GM Authority Executive Editor with a passion for business strategy and fast cars.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. No GM would never use smoke and mirrors to make one brand look like it was loosing money. They would never sling a little mud at one or more brands to cloud the water from the truth. I just can not believe such a practice could ever take place at GM. Nor can I believe most people bought into the story SATURN was a money loser, and Roger Penske wanted to buy Saturn from GM.

    Reply
  2. I think something that everyone seems to forget is that General Motors OWNS Opel, and good or bad, right or wrong, they can do whatever they want with it, right? Why is it so bad if they decide to use one part of the business’s technology for the other part? Would it be bad, for example if Apple decided to use some of its software developed for their desktop machines on their iPhones? Why is it so bad if one part of the company is leveraged to help out another part of the company. They are ALL PART of the same corporation.

    This type of pitting one unit against another (perhaps by the media as much as Opel workers themselves!) is exactly the type of thing that will prevent General Motors from truly leveraging their assets, regardless of WHERE it’s developed, to the maximum extent possible and therefore realizing the profitability that has eluded it, in comparison to its competitors, like Toyota and Ford, who both seem to be more profitable. Ford’s motto these days is One Ford. And look at how they’ve turned things around.

    Opel, ask yourself (and be honest about it, for gosh sakes) do you really, REALLY think you’d be able to exist as business entity without General Motors. You should be thankful someone bought your ass out and gave you a lifeline.

    Reply
    1. The Apple analogy does not work in this scenario sorry. I understand that GM is using Opel resources for other parts of the company. The fact is Opel is still losing money and if Opel is losing money GM is losing money. The big problem is Opel’s factories are not producing as much as they need to. I think if GM didn’t own Opel they would have consolidated there factory’s by now to get out of the red. That’s my opinion

      Reply
  3. As far as Apple is concerned they do not own or operate their own factories. So let’s say this month they sell less MacBook pros than iPhones. All they have to do is order less from the factories that produce for them. From what I have read they have a 3 day supply of inventory on hand. 🙂

    Reply
  4. GM bought Opel in 1929 …. The point of the artical is. GM is using smoke and mirrors to get more money from goverments. Thats when slide of hand book keeping hurts GM’s reputation. If they were sucking Opel dry preping for a shut down without asking for more government money then it would not matter.

    Reply
  5. No need to be sorry, you’re entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I totally agree that that the real problem is that Opel’s assets aren’t being fully utilized. But it seems like the author is saying that Opel’s situation isn’t as bad as everyone’s making it seem because of these accounting practices.

    Unless I’m misunderstanding, is it your opinion and the other posted guy’s opinion that GM should leave everything that Opel’s accomplished solely for Opel and let Chevy/Buick do all that research over again? If that thought process is acted upon, well heck! GMC can do their own engineering. Chevy can do their own engineering. Buick can do their own engineering. That’s probably not what’s best for GM overall.

    Reply
  6. Makes sense about the factories. But… I didn’t write about manufacturing. I was referring to intellectual property, i.e. software, which, I would think, engineering work would be the equivalent of in the auto industry.

    The more I think about it, I think the author was saying that Opel should be allocated some kind of internal sales revenue from Buick. Having been a CPA at another point in time, I recall that having been an accounting standard. But then again, I’m sure GM has zillions of qualified accountants who have rationalized why they shouldn’t be giving Opel some revenue recognition…

    Reply
    1. It sounded good as I was thinking it lol 🙂

      Reply
  7. Ford may have claimed massive losses from selling Volvo. But if Ford hadn’t taken Vol I chassis designs, there wouldn’t be a Ford today.
    Since Ford owned Volco it has no obligation to pay them a dime or Krone for each vehicle built using their chassis

    Reply
  8. I think people seem to be missing the point here……I’m all for GM acting as one company, pooling all it’s resources and brand technologies for the greater good. But it seems abit one sided when Opel has to foot the bill for the years of development, testing, and engineering costs that go into a modern platform which must run into hundreds of millions of euros. Then Buick cherry pick the finished products without any cash flowing back the other way. Opel has big structural issues…..no doubt, but it seems sometimes that the playing field is far from level.

    Reply
  9. What is a bigger lose, the development cost or the plants that are not producing enough vehicles / lack of demand in Europe?

    Reply
  10. If it’s the development cost GM should just deal with it and put it in the books as development cost.

    Reply
  11. In my opinion I think Buick bet Opel to the Global game. I think GM is going to phase Opel out in the future.

    Reply
  12. Oh I think your right, the ultimate goal will be to phase out Opel given 8 to 10 years….they will position a Chevy model against the Opels in Europe sharing the same platform but undercutting them price wise, u can see it happening with the volt/ampera, zafira/orlando, corsa/sonic etc etc. The only thing stopping them doing it now is market share and the R&D in Russelsheim, but some of that work is even being
    shipped out to GMDAT and GMNA already.
    It’s a shame because Opel has been designing and building some cracking cars at the mo, with handling and looks to rival the best German has to offer.

    Reply
  13. Is Opel a German company ? Is Vaxhall a British company? Is Holden a Australian company? Are they an American corporation ? The answer will be different depending on the country you live in. Does every division need to show a profit? Or just the corporation as a whole.

    Reply
    1. I dont think it should matter, GM bought Holden and Opel over 80 years ago, its sad that, after so much time, the success of GM and Opel/Holden and being considered separately.

      Opel should be GM as much as Chevy is GM.

      Some people are saying thats unfair to Opel, well, I think that whats unfair to Opel is unfair to GM and vice versa. There intimately connected.

      That said, GM could do a better job of allocating development costs just to give some more clarity.

      Reply
  14. I seem to recall that in 09 when Opel was suffering from cash-flow issues that GM was asked to forego payments of license fees from Opel to GM. That tells me that Opel ordinarily pays royalties to GM for IP and R&D. This makes sense. For tax and integration/ efficiency reasons all the corporates that I have insight to keep the costs of such over-heads in the holding company (in this case GM NA or GME) and then allocates the costs to the business units/ divisions that will utilise the end plant or product in their business. So it is highly unlikely GM does not do the same and cover all Delta and Eplilon development costs but then allocates the costs to Opel, Buick and Chevy based on their use of the end plant/ product. Therefore, I very much doubt Opel is burdened by carring all the costs for developing the architectures developed in GM Europe, and that their losses are related to their under-utilised plants and high labour costs. This article strikes me as simplistic and uninformed.

    Reply
    1. Patrick, the fact (claim by the source) is that Opel/GME isn’t getting what it deserves, which is not to say that there are no other issues that need to be fixed (overcapacity, etc.). But the “short changing” surely contributes to the quarterly financial losses we see from the division. Simple? Perhaps… But our job isn’t to make things complicated or simple, it’s to report objectively.

      Reply
  15. The real problem is not Opel, but GM. In this company Opel acts only as a
    brand, the parent company can rotate the numbers just the way they
    want. So they can leave Opel´s development centre work for free for
    Chevrolet, but the engineers are still paid by Opel -> loss. In some
    countries Opel cars are sold and built as Buicks or Chevrolets, without
    that Opel earn money thus or at least get cash payments by licensed. The
    foreign markets buy these cars for a significantly below manufacturing
    costs, but at Opel run at the full cost-> loss. In addition, of
    course it is clear that the Western European market is too small to be
    really profitable. Most of VW brands are expanding their business in
    other regions, where they can compensate the costs. Due to the
    limitation by GM that Opel cannot sell itself in most boom countries
    like China or India, the number of units under the Opel brand are too
    low -> loss. (In truth, GM is building more Opel cars around the
    world than Opel is selling in Europe. For example, take all the sales of
    Opel models sold under the Chevy brand in Brasil to Opel, so then you
    see the whole quiet different. I gues, most of you forget that Opel is
    an operating company, even as a GM subsidiary! GM gives Opel hard
    conditions, so that an export does not pay in reality.

    Reply
  16. Very true. GM moves the numbers around to make itself look good in the eyes of the American consumer and government. How do you think GM went from $50 billion in the red and losing money hand over fist to all of a sudden making money? By milking it’s overseas operations. Charging it for things used from the GM warehouse of parts and products and by not paying those overseas operations (in this case Opel) for use of it’s products and development. GM is just another big American firm screwing things up by thinking bigger is better. It is going to do the same to Opel as it did to Saab. Let the company be hollowed out until there is nothing left, then say the company did not fulfill its potential and that there is not market for it’s cars and then refuse to sell it to someone who is willing to make a go of it, because GM is afraid some of it’s (ie Opel’s) tech will fall into a rivals hands.
    Come on GM , if you really want to be the biggest and best you’d let Opel sell it’s products in China and other emerging markets, I’ll bet you anything they will outsell Buick and your other US branded cars. I think GM still has not gotten the fact that the world does not hold American cars in high regards in terms of quality or driving experience. There is a reason why people the world over pay a premium for European and especially German cars. If GM thinks it can replace Opel with Chevrolet or Buick it is going to alienate a very large portion of buyers.

    Reply
  17. An article from the German Welt Online website, which was published in in 2010: I remember than GM people came from Detroit to Rüsselsheim, and said that they want all your developments, patents, all the Know-How right now. Most of our patents are at GM now, and for each car we build we have to pay fees to them.
    Should I mention that Opel has never seen a cent for it´s own patents? The same applies to the design drawings of our cars. Dimensions, tolerances, materials,… . This is more important than a patent, it is an major development effort. But GM does not care. With the construction plans of our Insignia GM is building a Buick, a Chevrolet and a Holden. Everything with our construction, all with our Know-How. How do you find it? Alone last year we have transferred to GM 650 million Euros. For what? Only for fees of our own patents. In 1992 GM started with the globalization. At some point, the Technical Development Center of Opel in Ruesselsheim became the International Technical Development Center (ITDC). Only the U.S., we make ourselves, “said GM. That has not worked. But we must say, from GM’s point of view it was an excellent decision. GM build factories in China and Korea, where they reproduce our cars or engines. But the hardest thing was : GM has decreed that the people of Daewoo (GM Korea) are allowed to use our developments, that´s the reason why they can build great cars such as the new Chevy Cruze. You give them everything they want, “said GM. We were horrified. But with the plans alone you can´t just copy Know-How. For years, GM managers forced us into a false model policy. But the worst thing were the quality problems of our cars. That was horrible. What we have been ashamed. Awful. One day, people came from GM and they told us what they understood of quality. Rusty beams in the Astra for example. “So what?”, They said, “but the car moves.” The German management clenched their fists in their pockets. Brand new Astra, with rust in the beams, because of a few cents cavity sealing! Complete madness. GM don´t understand the European market. They will never get it. The laugh themselves to death , if they hearing that an Astra costs 25,000 Euros ($30,000). Qualitatively we have now got further than VW, but i am still impressed about their love for Details and engeneering. Recent downsizing technology, lots of power, torque from just 1.4 liters of displacement. This dwarf can replace a six-cylinder engine. But where does it come from? It comes from OPEL! GM use our technologies to save themselves on the American market! It is these people who have plundered Opel. It is these people who have imposed us to their model policy.

    Reply
    1. Why would GM pay Opel for anything they own the company lock stock and barrel. That means “developments, patents, all the Know-How”. I am not defending GM’s miss management of Opel and I never will. If GM keeps this up they are going to lose all the Good people at Opel and that is very sad 🙁 maybe JD and shine some light on the matter.

      Reply
  18. Understanding how things work would be the first step to understanding how things work.

    Reply
    1. Hmmm well there’s an enigma. 🙂

      Reply
  19. To those that do not understand. It Simply means educate yourself.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel