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.
At a time of year when luxury car ATP usually rises.
Sales decreased 5.6 percent to 16,670 units during the first ten months of 2024.
Specifically critical minerals supply chain development.
Scheduled for a Spring 2025 launch.
View Comments
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.
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.
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
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. :-)
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.
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.
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...
It sounded good as I was thinking it lol :-)
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
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.
What is a bigger lose, the development cost or the plants that are not producing enough vehicles / lack of demand in Europe?
If it's the development cost GM should just deal with it and put it in the books as development cost.