Porsche: The Hedge Fund That Also Made Cars
priceonomics.com
priceonomics.com
Also, I'm sure IKEA avoids local taxes as good as possible as well.
It's the same over here, IKEA flies under the radar very well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway
"In 1962, Warren Buffett began buying stock in Berkshire Hathaway after noticing a pattern in the price direction of its stock whenever the company closed a mill. Eventually, Buffett acknowledged that the textile business was waning and the company's financial situation was not going to improve. In 1964, Stanton made an oral tender offer of $11-1⁄2 per share for the company to buy back Buffett's shares. Buffett agreed to the deal. A few weeks later, Warren Buffett received the tender offer in writing, but the tender offer was for only $11-3⁄8. Buffett later admitted that this lower, undercutting offer made him angry.[7] Instead of selling at the slightly lower price, Buffett decided to buy more of the stock to take control of the company and fire Stanton (which he did). However, this put Buffett in a situation where he was now majority owner of a textile business that was failing."
Eventually (circa '67)he realized it was a lost cause and stopped investing in the mill, instead he used its cash flow to go out and invest in other companies (insurance, etc) which remain there to this day.
-------------------------------
> The domestic textile industry operates in a commodity business, competing in a world market in which substantial excess capacity exists. Much of the trouble we experienced was attributable, both directly and indirectly, to competition from foreign countries whose workers are paid a small fraction of the U.S. minimum wage. But that in no way means that our labor force deserves any blame for our closing. In fact, in comparison with employees of American industry generally, our workers were poorly paid, as has been the case throughout the textile business. In contract negotiations, union leaders and members were sensitive to our disadvantageous cost position and did not push for unrealistic wage increases or unproductive work practices. To the contrary, they tried just as hard as we did to keep us competitive. Even during our liquidation period they performed superbly. (Ironically, we would have been better off financially if our union had behaved unreasonably some years ago; we then would have recognized the impossible future that we faced, promptly closed down, and avoided significant future losses.)
> Over the years, we had the option of making large capital expenditures in the textile operation that would have allowed us to somewhat reduce variable costs. Each proposal to do so looked like an immediate winner. Measured by standard return-on- investment tests, in fact, these proposals usually promised greater economic benefits than would have resulted from comparable expenditures in our highly-profitable candy and newspaper businesses.
> But the promised benefits from these textile investments were illusory. Many of our competitors, both domestic and foreign, were stepping up to the same kind of expenditures and, once enough companies did so, their reduced costs became the baseline for reduced prices industrywide. Viewed individually, each company’s capital investment decision appeared cost- effective and rational; viewed collectively, the decisions neutralized each other and were irrational (just as happens when each person watching a parade decides he can see a little better if he stands on tiptoes). After each round of investment, all the players had more money in the game and returns remained anemic.
> Thus, we faced a miserable choice: huge capital investment would have helped to keep our textile business alive, but would have left us with terrible returns on ever-growing amounts of capital. After the investment, moreover, the foreign competition would still have retained a major, continuing advantage in labor costs. A refusal to invest, however, would make us increasingly non-competitive, even measured against domestic textile manufacturers. I always thought myself in the position described by Woody Allen in one of his movies: “More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”
> Though 1979 was moderately profitable, the business thereafter consumed major amounts of cash. By mid-1985 it became clear, even to me, that this condition was almost sure to continue. Could we have found a buyer who would continue operations, I would have certainly preferred to sell the business rather than liquidate it, even if that meant somewhat lower proceeds for us. But the economics that were finally obvious to me were also obvious to others, and interest was nil.
> I won’t close down businesses of sub-normal profitability merely to add a fraction of a point to our corporate rate of return. However, I also feel it inappropriate for even an exceptionally profitable company to fund an operation once it appears to have unending losses in prospect. Adam Smith would disagree with my first proposition, and Karl Marx would disagree with my second; the middle ground is the only position that leaves me comfortable.
Now the WPP Group has 150,000+ employees, all in advertising. If you thought Google bought up many companies, look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPP_plc#Principal_subsidiaries....
When I visited some months ago, the intranet's today's news was mostly a list of companies they acquired today.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
For those of you who missed the story of Priceonomics' pivot, Techcrunch has a good writeup: http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/26/priceonomics-data-services/
I mean, if you personally played a hand in creating the Audi Quattro (that dominated rallying) and the world's fastest car (Veyron, reviving a dead brand), which everyone deemed impossible, you've got to be in the history books of the automobile world.
Can't wait to see how they compete with electric upstarts and how they evolve their Ducati motorcycle brand.
I have great hopes for their engineering to continue to be excellent. Audi has continued to push the envelope in Le Mans, first with diesel and now with hybrids. They've always done a good job of trickling down race technology to consumer vehicles. (One of my fondest driving memories is driving home in 6 or so inches of snow with pickup trucks and SUVs sliding all around me all while my tiny sedan with quattro didn't slip a wheel applying power once.)
Mostly in German:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?field-keywords=Ferdin...
http://www.amazon.com/Six-Built-Modern-Auto-Industry/dp/B005...
I do wish for a proper English biography, written by someone like Steven Levy or Walter Isaacson.
A terrible time to be part of the bear herd.
2) Porsche's actions were like a hedge fund because they designed a financial situation where they couldn't lose (up until the financial collapse cut off their liquidity). Had the markets not collapsed and Porsche had been able to borrow like it could in 2007 they would've owned VW, the issue is that the markets collapsed and massive lending restrictions were imposed requiring Porsche to payback loans instead of roll them over. In the end they turned to VW to pay back the loan. Had that external event not impacted the lending environment Porsche would've acquired VW and subsidized their cost through financial participants shorting VW stock.
The article also understates the rivalry between Porsche and VW. They're saying it's just Wiedeking behind it since '93, but it's really been going on for a lot longer as far as I know.
And all on one page!
"Das Hedge Fund"
The good news for owners and fans of the cars is that Porsche's doing their best work ever under the Volkswagen AG umbrella.
Just hearsay, so take this with a grain of salt.
This is a good thing. In 1992, it was my job, as a Porsche customer, to find all of those bad parts. :-P These days the factory does a better job catching the problems before they escape the building.