2006 Chrysler Sebring Gtc on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Stellantis sees vehicle loan durations extended amid banking turmoil

Stellantis is seeing clients seeking longer-term financing and leasing deals for their vehicles as a consequence of higher global interest rates, the carmaker's head for the business said. Chief Affiliates Officer Philippe de Rovira said loans which normally had a three-year maturity were now increasingly moved to four years. "This allows customers to get a car for a monthly instalment that is similar to that they had before," he said. The world's third largest carmaker by sales on Tuesday announced it had completed a plan announced in late 2021 to reshuffle and simplify its leasing and financing operations in Europe. Under its terms, Stellantis created a 50-50 single long term multi-brand leasing company named Leasys with Credit Agricole Consumer Finance. It also set up local joint ventures in European countries for its new Stellantis Financial Services unit, formerly Banque PSA Finance, with BNP Paribas Personal Finance and Santander Consumer Finance. "These banks have always had better funding conditions than those we can have as an automaker," de Rovira said. Benefits of the plan included cutting the number of financing and leasing entities the group runs in each country and the number of IT systems it uses, with expected savings exceeding 30% in this particular area, he added. De Rovira said the group had a huge portfolio of orders it had not yet delivered due to supply chain shortages impacting production. "Demand is not our main issue. The issue is to deliver as fast as we can cars that are in our order portfolio, which is still at record levels," he said. The group aims to expand its corporate leased vehicle fleet to more than one million units in 2026 and to double net income from its so-called banking activities to 5.8 billion euros ($6.3 billion) by 2030. De Rovira said Stellantis was not seeing a downward trend in vehicle pricing. "Probably the significant price increases we have seen in 2021 and 2022 will not be repeated because the context is changing, but for the moment we don't see decreases, we see stabilisation". ($1 = 0.9188 euros) (Reporting by Giulio Piovaccari and Gilles Guillaume; Editing by Jan Harvey) Earnings/Financials Plants/Manufacturing Alfa Romeo Chrysler Dodge Jeep RAM

10 years later, a look back at U.S. auto industry’s near-death experience

The U.S. auto industry this month marks a grim and harrowing milestone: A decade ago, the entire industry was staring into the abyss of total collapse. By 2009, of course, the broader economy was teetering on the brink, with mortgage default rates and foreclosures spiraling and the real estate market in the tank. Both Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns had collapsed, President George W. Bush had signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, infusing $700 billion of taxpayer money to stabilize Wall Street, and Insurer AIG, stung by huge losses on subprime mortgages, won a federal bailout. Virtually the entire decade had been particularly unkind to the Detroit Three automakers, which were over-reliant on gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs as gasoline prices crept toward the $4 mark, and whose labor costs — especially for health care and retiree pension obligations — were dragging them billions into the red. It was a dreadful, frightening time in Detroit, especially, with reports of plant closures and mass layoffs appearing with alarming regularity. Seeing the federal government's largess with Wall Street, General Motors and Chrysler both went calling for government assistance for themselves. (Ford managed to avoid following suit only by mortgaging all of its assets, including its very brand, years earlier in exchange for billions of dollars in loans.) Yet instead of giving them the "bridge loans" they sought, the incoming Obama administration instead pushed back against GM and Chrysler, eventually guiding them into bankruptcy protection, as the Detroit Free Press recalls in a multimedia story recounting the industry's tumultuous and perilous recent past. The piece uses images of the newspaper's front pages from those days, splashed with what former newsroom colleagues and I would often refer to as "Pearl Harbor font" headlines ("NO DEAL" read the Freep's Dec. 12, 2008, edition). There are also timelines, interactive graphics and snippets of video interviews with two insiders: freshman U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens of Michigan, who served as chief of staff for President Obama's auto task force; and U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, the wife of the late longtime U.S. Rep. and industry ally John Dingell, who was then an executive at GM.

Fiat brand chief reassigned then resigns amid flagging sales

Jason Stoicevich was replaced as head of the Fiat brand in North America just the other day. He was immediately reassigned to another job within Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. But according to Automotive News, Stoicevich quit the new job – and the company altogether – the very next day. The development comes amidst flagging sales for the Fiat brand in America. The introduction of the awkward-looking 500L multi-purpose vehicle has been largely regarded as a sales disaster in the US. Despite having just introduced the new 500X into the growing crossover market, and an overall upward trend across FCA group sales, the Fiat brand's figures have been dropping all year. While the Italian brand's volume has fluctuated from month to month compared to last year's sales, the number of cars its dealers sells on an average day has been firmly in decline. Fiat's downward trend reflects a general tendency in the market towards larger vehicles at the expense of smaller ones. However, the powers that be in Auburn Hills evidently felt that a change of leadership was in order, so it placed Dodge chief Tim Kuniskis in charge of all the company's mass-market passenger-car brands – namely Dodge, Chrysler, and Fiat – and moved Stoicevich to running the group's fleet and small-business operations. Stoicevich remained in charge of the company's California Business Center, but it seems as though he was as dissatisfied with the switch as his superiors were with the performance of the brand over which he presided, and so he apparently elected to step down and leave the company.