The article is from the public number: a> , of: Li Yifan.

Brand cars look similar.

This picture is a mockery of Holden by my Australian friends a few years ago.

All pictures are Holden cars. Familiar?

As far as Vauxhall is concerned, it is even more universal for purebred decks.

So even though GM has a huge brand line, Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Saturn, Cadillac, Holden, Daewoo, Chevrolet, Saab, Opel, Hummer, Osmoby, Vauxhall … Most of them have more than enough ribs, and the differentiation is not enough.

Second, diversified operations lead to a lot of capital waste and liabilities .

On the way to the acquisition, there is also a rising debt ratio.

In 1981, GM’s debt ratio was only 40%; ten years later, this number had risen to 82.2%. Then in the late 1990s, it entered a period of debt crisis that pervaded the entire United States.

GM, which is under increasing financial pressure, has not achieved its expected return on investment.

In contrast, the high operating costs of a large number of subsidiaries and joint ventures, coupled with investments in areas not related to the automobile, have diversified GM’s focus and attention. While the automotive business has gradually lost its characteristics, surrounding industries have not been able to grasp it.

EDS Electronics, Hughes Aircraft, Passenger Transport Company, etc. mentioned earlier were all sold off by GM in order to improve their balance sheets in the late 1990s.

The waste of capital and interest caused by this is immeasurable. Especially with the advent of the US debt crisis, the auto industry has gradually entered the cost competition track initiated by Japanese cars, and the cost pressure has instantly become a huge burden on GM.

All of these have caused GM to gradually lose its competitiveness at the beginning of the 21st century.

2000, GeneralNot only has the market share in the United States fallen by 1.3%, it has also fallen by 0.5% worldwide. This year, GM opened the door to cold winters.

From 2004 to 2005, the farce that gave up the acquisition with Fiat let the world see the beginning of GM’s downfall. In 2009, GM finally fell into bankruptcy protection. After experiencing a series of meat-cutting actions such as asset sales, downsizing, substantial layoffs, and abandonment of dealers, the resurrected GM dropped four brands-Hummer and Pontiac , Saturn and Saab.

The situation is only worse for Ford.

It is different from GM’s business strategy, and it simply implements “Bring Doctrine” directly from the acquisition project. This is even better than nothing in its role in global technology integration and integration promotion.

So the rout of Ford’s acquisition strategy is more thorough.

In 2007, Aston Martin was sold to a joint venture between Kuwait and the United Kingdom; in 2008, Jaguar and Land Rover were sold to Tata, and 26.8% of Mazda’s shares were also sold off; in 2010, only the remaining Volvo was sold to Geely. In the past five menacing brands, Ford failed to stay.

Since then, Ford has proposed the “ONE Ford” global reform plan, refocusing resources allocation on the Ford brand.

In 2014, the third-ranked American car company Chrysler Group announced that it would be renamed Fiat-Chrysler Automobile Group. Since then, the “Big Three” of American cars made up of GM, Ford, and Chrysler has virtually ceased to exist.

Also, it is especially difficult to make a transition.

When the homogeneous consumption period ends and consumption enters the era of individuality, their products no longer adapt to the market, and the huge and complex production process of automobiles determines that it cannot be transformed as fast as consumer goods companies, just like Nike Adi We are also experiencing transition pains, but GM Ford doesn’t even have e-commerce to rely on.

Do new people draw old shapes?

With the arrival of 2020, another wave of GM sales has brought to an end the old American trust era that lasted nearly 40 years.

The new trust is here.

As the automotive industry moves towards deeper maturity and competition, on the one hand, controlling costs and reducing expenses are becoming more and more important for asset-heavy auto companies; on the other hand, rapid technological development makes no one Car companies dare to successfully vote for the research and development at hand. Facing the uncertainty of the future, they are increasingly choosing to share the high technology research and development costs in the form of joint research and development, reduce risks and increase profit margins.

So we see that as soon as we enter the 21st century, the integration of car resources has gradually opened, and it has intensified in the past two years.

From Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance, Fiat-Chrysler merger, FCA and PSA merger, Ford and Volkswagen jointly develop self-driving technology and electric cars, BMW and Daimler invest 1 billion euros to develop mobile mobility technology, Honda Investing in GM to work together in the driverless field … A new round of mergers and cooperation is coming.

Li Shufu once judged: “In the future, only 2-3 car companies will survive the fierce competition.”

We can almost conclude that In the new decade led by 2020, mergers and acquisitions, joint research and development and personnel optimization in the automotive industry will only occur more frequently.

The difference is that the protagonist is no longer an American car.

Behind the flow of funds is the will of consumers and the wheels of the times. It will ruthlessly crush all anachronistic stories, and it will come with a new air.

After several rounds of ups and downs, no one will look back at the heroes washed away by the waves.

Are newcomers not going the same way? Will the future “trust” really look good to consumers in a more ugly form?

I have reservations.

The article is from the public account: , author: Li Yifan