Wow. Now the Brits just need to buy Tata.
Or invade India. Don't be so 20th century, Tim. Back to the future.
My way is better: send pounds over the border, not soldiers.
YEAH, POUNDS OF MOLTEN LEAD!
1. I don't think they're interested. They're rich enough they don't need to invest in companies of questionable quality. If Tata can turn LR or Jaguar around, they can be bought back; or, if Tata fails, they can be bought at an even bigger discount.
5: People like you were responsible for the crumbling of the Empire.
They're rich enough they don't need to invest in companies of questionable quality.
Word. Jaguars are shit.
I think you'll find it was people like you who were responsible. And Germans, of course.
7: note that the Brits did bother to buy back Aston-Martin, and they still own Lotus. But they let TVR go.
If Tata fails, the Chinese will buy it.
Has the Economist opined on this yet? Because this seems to be one of those interesting test cases where their editorial shiboleths are in tension, if not outright conflict.
I can imagine with equal plausibility six different leaders.
1. International portfolio investment is a Good Thing, sale of former British company by U.S. multinational shows how the two Anglo-Saxon economies have the most sensible attitudes, the French and Germans need to get over their national champion fixations, right after they liberalize their labor markets.
2. This investment is a further example of industrializing nations investing in the automobile sector in the foolhardy belief that auto manufacturing is somehow more important than other sectors. Anyway, the most important thing is for India to reduce red tape and liberalize its labor market.
3. Here we see the economic limitations of the family enterprise model, which has certain advantages in countries with weak institutions and shallow capital markets, but is ultimately poorly suited for competition on the global stage. Management is investing in a prestige object, and is likely to destroy shareholder capital that could have been invested more profitably in other ventures. Their reluctance to do so is nearly as frustrating as the failure of Western European nations to liberalize their labor markets.
4. Opponents of free trade should look at this deal and see how foolish they are. The imperative of portfolio diversification means that profits earned in developing countries will be invested disproportionately in rich economies, securing jobs and promoting innovation. That is, they would if Western European countries would cut social benefits and liberalize their labor markets already.
5. The acquisition of these luxury auto brand heralds the emergence of mass affluence in India. Even though only a small fraction of the population is rich by Western standards, there are still more potential customers for a Jaguar in India than in Belgium and Switzerland combined [N.B. I just pulled that out of my ass, but that's the kind of thing they would say]. None of this will change until Western Europe liberalizes its labor markets.
6. The Tatas have made a mistake by investing in a luxury automotive brand rather than the capacity to build mid-range models that will soon be in reach of tens of millions of Indians. The product and manufacturing technology from these companies is irrelevant to the challenges of most of the growth in automotive demand over the next 20 years. Also, Western European countries need to cut social spending and liberalize their labor markets.
11 is a bit clueless IMO. Tatas have cars in the mid and low range (and the capacity). Ever heard of the Nano?
5 is plain patronizing.
11 is a bit clueless IMO. Tatas have cars in the mid and low range (and the capacity). Ever heard of the Nano?
Observant readers may have deduced from the mutual contradictions in these six arguments that they were not intended to be in my voice, but in the notional voice of the Economist.
I am aware that Tata Group manufactures passenger cars. The argument in (6), which, to repeat, I was not making sincerely, but to illustrate a point, is that it would have added more value to the group's existing car business to acquire a company with either product technology or manufacturing technology that reinforces the existing line, rather than a company whose major asset is two luxury brands.
[This comment cross-posted on Standpipe's blog.]
I was always amazed at how Ford somehow managed to make Jaguars look ugly. At least that's one thing the original company could do right, with amazing consistency for the industry.
After that, they were doomed to both look and run like mediocre american cars. Maybe this will turn them around.
14,
Sorry, I did not read very carefully. My bad and apologies.
What I didn't know was that Tata also owns Tetley tea.
Will Tata someday release a car named after a seabird?
Economical. Fun. Sleek. The Tata Boobie.
Now with the Funbag personal entertainment and airbag system.
Conversions available for the dairy industry.
Thanks, Chopper. I was just waiting for someone to make that joke, hoping it didn't have to be me.
Lowest common denominator copywriting, at your service.
Economical. Fun. Sleek. The Tata Boobie.
This reminds me that one of the Tata companies won a landmark arbitration ruling from the World Intellectual Property Rights Organization over the rights to the URL "www.bodacious-tatas.com". Tata charged that the URL appropriated their trademark. The defendant, the proprietor of a website devoted (amazingly enough!) to women with large breasts, did not contest the allegations. Apparently the arbitration panel was unaware that "tatas" could connote breasts.
I'm just curious if they'll get around to fixing the Lucas Electrical system.
"The three-position Lucas switch -- SMOKE, SMOLDER, and IGNITE."
27: Everything you imply about Lucas electrical components is true*, but Jaguar has sourced its switches from elsewhere for quite some time (Lucas got out of the automotive electronics business, some would say not a moment too soon).
* at least in my experience as an owner of a mis-70's vintage MG.