Indian Firm to Buy Cooper Tire for $2.5 Billion
- Thread starter tenderloin
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
Meh, if Cooper keeps making tires in the U.S. and keeps a U.S presence then I'd still buy them. Employing average U.S. workers is what's most important to me, not where the top office is located.
Now, if they shutter the U.S. production, that's another story. But at this point I don't think there's any indication if they will or won't do that.
+1, Agreed! I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it. The CS4's are excellent imo.
Meh, if Cooper keeps making tires in the U.S. and keeps a U.S presence then I'd still buy them. Employing average U.S. workers is what's most important to me, not where the top office is located.
Now, if they shutter the U.S. production, that's another story. But at this point I don't think there's any indication if they will or won't do that.
+1, Agreed! I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it. The CS4's are excellent imo.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
So, US companies have been buying/investing in companies in other countries for decades, and that was great. But when suddenly those other countries' companies try to buy a US business, all of a sudden it's sacrilege?
The pendulum swings both ways.
I would hazard a strong guess that U.S. companies either exported to other countries or became minority partners. Don't forget that many 3rd World countries would not, and some still do, let foreigners own a majority interest in one of their home grown companies. Case in point the Philippines where a Filipino must own 51% and foreigners cannot own property.
What you are seeing here is a typical double standard playing out. Many times we can't own but we have no such restrictions in our own country. Second, the NYSE just about forces a company to sell itself if a very good offer comes by. The Directors first responsibility is their fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value whether they like it or not. No such responsibility in China or their stock market.
I have kept a list of who in the U.S. sells out if you want to call it that. The list is so I don't forget never to buy from them. Cooper went on that list a few days ago.
So, US companies have been buying/investing in companies in other countries for decades, and that was great. But when suddenly those other countries' companies try to buy a US business, all of a sudden it's sacrilege?
The pendulum swings both ways.
I would hazard a strong guess that U.S. companies either exported to other countries or became minority partners. Don't forget that many 3rd World countries would not, and some still do, let foreigners own a majority interest in one of their home grown companies. Case in point the Philippines where a Filipino must own 51% and foreigners cannot own property.
What you are seeing here is a typical double standard playing out. Many times we can't own but we have no such restrictions in our own country. Second, the NYSE just about forces a company to sell itself if a very good offer comes by. The Directors first responsibility is their fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value whether they like it or not. No such responsibility in China or their stock market.
I have kept a list of who in the U.S. sells out if you want to call it that. The list is so I don't forget never to buy from them. Cooper went on that list a few days ago.
No way in hades would i buy Indian made products or a product owned by an Indian company.
If you think the Chinese are bad for quality these are even worse. They make some of the lowest quality products on earth, real tatty stuff.
It wont take long for Cooper to slide to the bottom of the barrel if they mass around in management or production and IMHO you can etch that in stone.
IMO companies from India and China should be banned from buying any US based company or property in the US.
If you think the Chinese are bad for quality these are even worse. They make some of the lowest quality products on earth, real tatty stuff.
It wont take long for Cooper to slide to the bottom of the barrel if they mass around in management or production and IMHO you can etch that in stone.
IMO companies from India and China should be banned from buying any US based company or property in the US.
I've bought Cooper Tires in the past, not anymore.
Why would an American own a company in the US? So he can be villanized for trying to make a profit? If I was going to start or buy a company the US is the last place on earth I would do it. So many here expect everything to be run as a non-profit charity solely for the benefit of the employees and public.
agreed, done with coopr, mt and **** cepak.
Originally Posted By: pbm
China is buying Smithfield, the big pork producer.
India is buying Cooper tires.
These countries are thinking about business while we worry about 'group rights'....it's sad what's happening to America.
What do you think they will do with the money they make from exporting to us? They're not going to sit on Treasury Note and watch inflation eating it away, so they might as well buy something.
I think the most likely outcome of this deal is to slap the Cooper label on many lower end tires made in India, either for their own internal market or for the even lower end market in the US. Those who are buying Wynstar, Nankang, GT Radial, GeoStar, etc are likely going to get some Cooper ultra low end option from India as well.
China is buying Smithfield, the big pork producer.
India is buying Cooper tires.
These countries are thinking about business while we worry about 'group rights'....it's sad what's happening to America.
What do you think they will do with the money they make from exporting to us? They're not going to sit on Treasury Note and watch inflation eating it away, so they might as well buy something.
I think the most likely outcome of this deal is to slap the Cooper label on many lower end tires made in India, either for their own internal market or for the even lower end market in the US. Those who are buying Wynstar, Nankang, GT Radial, GeoStar, etc are likely going to get some Cooper ultra low end option from India as well.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: tbm3fan
Second, the NYSE just about forces a company to sell itself if a very good offer comes by. The Directors first responsibility is their fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value whether they like it or not. No such responsibility in China or their stock market.
The day the founders of a company bring it public is the day they have sold the company. It is therefore important to make laws if you do not want foreign ownership for whatever reason, instead of blaming NYSE. How would you feel if you own a small business and you are not allowed to sell it to someone from out of state when you retire, and must sell it only to an owner within your county?
Regarding to "responsibility" in China. I'd say their regulation is tighter over what a business must do for profit vs for the society. Warren Buffet withdraw from his oil company deals there because the "social responsibility" clauses force them to sell at a low / below profitable price. Their banking system is also skewed as in they have high profit in interest rate spread, but the banks are required to loan money to local governments' development project no matter how unprofitable or risky they are.
So between the two, I'd still pick the US system over the Chinese. While they are more market economy than say 30 years ago, they are still a big brother system that is very socialist (even communist in some cases).
Second, the NYSE just about forces a company to sell itself if a very good offer comes by. The Directors first responsibility is their fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value whether they like it or not. No such responsibility in China or their stock market.
The day the founders of a company bring it public is the day they have sold the company. It is therefore important to make laws if you do not want foreign ownership for whatever reason, instead of blaming NYSE. How would you feel if you own a small business and you are not allowed to sell it to someone from out of state when you retire, and must sell it only to an owner within your county?
Regarding to "responsibility" in China. I'd say their regulation is tighter over what a business must do for profit vs for the society. Warren Buffet withdraw from his oil company deals there because the "social responsibility" clauses force them to sell at a low / below profitable price. Their banking system is also skewed as in they have high profit in interest rate spread, but the banks are required to loan money to local governments' development project no matter how unprofitable or risky they are.
So between the two, I'd still pick the US system over the Chinese. While they are more market economy than say 30 years ago, they are still a big brother system that is very socialist (even communist in some cases).
Do any of you remember when the word "Japanese" meant cheap, poorly made junk? That has changed!!
Then it was the Mexicans
Then it was the Koreans.
Currently it is the Chinese.
The Indians are next.
Here's the problem as I see it:
It costs less to build a manufacturing facility from the ground up (so called "Greenfield"), then it is to completely refurbish an existing plant. It the case of rubber processing equipment, some machines are so large the equipment is installed first and the building is built around them.
Yes, unions are an issue, but a good management team can work with a union - a poor one can't.
For some reason, the typical American management strategy is short term gains without considering long term losses. A management team would be foolish not to look at low labor cost countries when considering their overall strategy - and this could mean closing a productive plant in the US and opening one somewhere else - ignoring the big picture consequences of the closed plant.
I don't see Apollo as a short termer. I think they are in it for the long haul. They are using strategies similar to the other tire manufacturers - all of whom purchased existing US tire manufacturers to gain entry into the US market.
Then it was the Mexicans
Then it was the Koreans.
Currently it is the Chinese.
The Indians are next.
Here's the problem as I see it:
It costs less to build a manufacturing facility from the ground up (so called "Greenfield"), then it is to completely refurbish an existing plant. It the case of rubber processing equipment, some machines are so large the equipment is installed first and the building is built around them.
Yes, unions are an issue, but a good management team can work with a union - a poor one can't.
For some reason, the typical American management strategy is short term gains without considering long term losses. A management team would be foolish not to look at low labor cost countries when considering their overall strategy - and this could mean closing a productive plant in the US and opening one somewhere else - ignoring the big picture consequences of the closed plant.
I don't see Apollo as a short termer. I think they are in it for the long haul. They are using strategies similar to the other tire manufacturers - all of whom purchased existing US tire manufacturers to gain entry into the US market.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Christopher Hussey
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
We have yet to see what Jaguar's long-term reliability is going to be like under Tata's ownership.
I'm pretty sure it couldn't be any worse than when Ford ran the show.
Oh, I'm sure it could, LOL!
The days of Lucas electrics were long before Ford entered the picture
C'mon, Ford brought Jaguar up by several measures! Did the same thing at Aston Martin. Those companies were in the dark ages before their suitor Ford showed them how to make money and produce "real" cars.
Tata hasn't been involved with Jag long enough to say anything good or bad, too new to tell.
Agreed. Ford's knowledge and $$ helped JLR out tremendously. PAG however was a terrible idea-too much too soon.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Christopher Hussey
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
We have yet to see what Jaguar's long-term reliability is going to be like under Tata's ownership.
I'm pretty sure it couldn't be any worse than when Ford ran the show.
Oh, I'm sure it could, LOL!
The days of Lucas electrics were long before Ford entered the picture
C'mon, Ford brought Jaguar up by several measures! Did the same thing at Aston Martin. Those companies were in the dark ages before their suitor Ford showed them how to make money and produce "real" cars.
Tata hasn't been involved with Jag long enough to say anything good or bad, too new to tell.
Agreed. Ford's knowledge and $$ helped JLR out tremendously. PAG however was a terrible idea-too much too soon.
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Why would an American own a company in the US? So he can be villanized for trying to make a profit? If I was going to start or buy a company the US is the last place on earth I would do it. So many here expect everything to be run as a non-profit charity solely for the benefit of the employees and public.
There is a difference between running for the benefit of the employees, and treating everyone like a wage slave for the profits of a very select few.
See how the top rated companies, e.g. the "best places to work for" are run, versus most places.
Why would an American own a company in the US? So he can be villanized for trying to make a profit? If I was going to start or buy a company the US is the last place on earth I would do it. So many here expect everything to be run as a non-profit charity solely for the benefit of the employees and public.
There is a difference between running for the benefit of the employees, and treating everyone like a wage slave for the profits of a very select few.
See how the top rated companies, e.g. the "best places to work for" are run, versus most places.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Why would an American own a company in the US? So he can be villanized for trying to make a profit? If I was going to start or buy a company the US is the last place on earth I would do it. So many here expect everything to be run as a non-profit charity solely for the benefit of the employees and public.
There is a difference between running for the benefit of the employees, and treating everyone like a wage slave for the profits of a very select few.
See how the top rated companies, e.g. the "best places to work for" are run, versus most places.
As long as we are pointing out the obvious, I will point out there is also a difference between expecting a fair wage and demanding more than the value your job produces.
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Why would an American own a company in the US? So he can be villanized for trying to make a profit? If I was going to start or buy a company the US is the last place on earth I would do it. So many here expect everything to be run as a non-profit charity solely for the benefit of the employees and public.
There is a difference between running for the benefit of the employees, and treating everyone like a wage slave for the profits of a very select few.
See how the top rated companies, e.g. the "best places to work for" are run, versus most places.
As long as we are pointing out the obvious, I will point out there is also a difference between expecting a fair wage and demanding more than the value your job produces.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Why would an American own a company in the US? So he can be villanized for trying to make a profit? If I was going to start or buy a company the US is the last place on earth I would do it. So many here expect everything to be run as a non-profit charity solely for the benefit of the employees and public.
There is a difference between running for the benefit of the employees, and treating everyone like a wage slave for the profits of a very select few.
See how the top rated companies, e.g. the "best places to work for" are run, versus most places.
As long as we are pointing out the obvious, I will point out there is also a difference between expecting a fair wage and demanding more than the value your job produces.
Since were stating the obvious, it is obvious that equating a wage slave in China/India to one living here with the taxes, healthcare costs, etc. is so apples to oranges it is funny. Yet when those folks get outsourced on some created "value" proposition, somebody still pays their benefits via unemployment, etc. And therein lies the problem. Jobs ARE finite and equating to the third world is treacherous.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Why would an American own a company in the US? So he can be villanized for trying to make a profit? If I was going to start or buy a company the US is the last place on earth I would do it. So many here expect everything to be run as a non-profit charity solely for the benefit of the employees and public.
There is a difference between running for the benefit of the employees, and treating everyone like a wage slave for the profits of a very select few.
See how the top rated companies, e.g. the "best places to work for" are run, versus most places.
As long as we are pointing out the obvious, I will point out there is also a difference between expecting a fair wage and demanding more than the value your job produces.
Since were stating the obvious, it is obvious that equating a wage slave in China/India to one living here with the taxes, healthcare costs, etc. is so apples to oranges it is funny. Yet when those folks get outsourced on some created "value" proposition, somebody still pays their benefits via unemployment, etc. And therein lies the problem. Jobs ARE finite and equating to the third world is treacherous.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Why would an American own a company in the US? So he can be villanized for trying to make a profit? If I was going to start or buy a company the US is the last place on earth I would do it. So many here expect everything to be run as a non-profit charity solely for the benefit of the employees and public.
There is a difference between running for the benefit of the employees, and treating everyone like a wage slave for the profits of a very select few.
See how the top rated companies, e.g. the "best places to work for" are run, versus most places.
As long as we are pointing out the obvious, I will point out there is also a difference between expecting a fair wage and demanding more than the value your job produces.
Since were stating the obvious, it is obvious that equating a wage slave in China/India to one living here with the taxes, healthcare costs, etc. is so apples to oranges it is funny. Yet when those folks get outsourced on some created "value" proposition, somebody still pays their benefits via unemployment, etc. And therein lies the problem. Jobs ARE finite and equating to the third world is treacherous.
You do understand we're talking about foreign interests buying American companies and not American companies moving overseas right? Following your line of reasoning, wouldn't the new owners be "outsourcing" if they left the jobs in the US instead of moving them to their home country?
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Why would an American own a company in the US? So he can be villanized for trying to make a profit? If I was going to start or buy a company the US is the last place on earth I would do it. So many here expect everything to be run as a non-profit charity solely for the benefit of the employees and public.
There is a difference between running for the benefit of the employees, and treating everyone like a wage slave for the profits of a very select few.
See how the top rated companies, e.g. the "best places to work for" are run, versus most places.
As long as we are pointing out the obvious, I will point out there is also a difference between expecting a fair wage and demanding more than the value your job produces.
Since were stating the obvious, it is obvious that equating a wage slave in China/India to one living here with the taxes, healthcare costs, etc. is so apples to oranges it is funny. Yet when those folks get outsourced on some created "value" proposition, somebody still pays their benefits via unemployment, etc. And therein lies the problem. Jobs ARE finite and equating to the third world is treacherous.
You do understand we're talking about foreign interests buying American companies and not American companies moving overseas right? Following your line of reasoning, wouldn't the new owners be "outsourcing" if they left the jobs in the US instead of moving them to their home country?
I wonder whether Indian companies will have the same respect for its employees and customers here as they do in their own country...recent events suggest there's a sense of discounting and disrespecting their own people THERE, yet admiration and begrudging respect for OTHER cultures/countries, (whether warranted or not)...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: KitaCam
I wonder whether Indian companies will have the same respect for its employees and customers here as they do in their own country...recent events suggest there's a sense of discounting and disrespecting their own people THERE, yet admiration and begrudging respect for OTHER cultures/countries, (whether warranted or not)...
It is possible, but depends on the management.
Japanese and Korean companies here (i.e. Panasonic and Samsung) once expected their American branch and employees to work ridiculous hours (i.e. 8am-10pm) daily while giving higher than market salary, and asked them to participate those "team building" morning exercise routine like their home countries' employee are expected to do since elementary school.
It doesn't work out and they scrap those stupid practices (no self respecting 40 year old American worker would do elementary school kids exercise in a court yard 8am every morning shouting company slogan).
I'd imagine other than bringing in their culture of penny pinching and "[censored] the way into stealing credit of who actually do the jobs" into the US operation, which American companies are also expert in, the new Indian headquarter won't change much.
I wonder whether Indian companies will have the same respect for its employees and customers here as they do in their own country...recent events suggest there's a sense of discounting and disrespecting their own people THERE, yet admiration and begrudging respect for OTHER cultures/countries, (whether warranted or not)...
It is possible, but depends on the management.
Japanese and Korean companies here (i.e. Panasonic and Samsung) once expected their American branch and employees to work ridiculous hours (i.e. 8am-10pm) daily while giving higher than market salary, and asked them to participate those "team building" morning exercise routine like their home countries' employee are expected to do since elementary school.
It doesn't work out and they scrap those stupid practices (no self respecting 40 year old American worker would do elementary school kids exercise in a court yard 8am every morning shouting company slogan).
I'd imagine other than bringing in their culture of penny pinching and "[censored] the way into stealing credit of who actually do the jobs" into the US operation, which American companies are also expert in, the new Indian headquarter won't change much.
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
As long as we are pointing out the obvious, I will point out there is also a difference between expecting a fair wage and demanding more than the value your job produces.
Since were stating the obvious, it is obvious that equating a wage slave in China/India to one living here with the taxes, healthcare costs, etc. is so apples to oranges it is funny. Yet when those folks get outsourced on some created "value" proposition, somebody still pays their benefits via unemployment, etc. And therein lies the problem. Jobs ARE finite and equating to the third world is treacherous.
You do understand we're talking about foreign interests buying American companies and not American companies moving overseas right? Following your line of reasoning, wouldn't the new owners be "outsourcing" if they left the jobs in the US instead of moving them to their home country?
You dont think that the US plants will be "outsourced" (insourced) to the land of the owners and the far cheaper labor? Then "Cooper" (Apollo) will have higher margins, the dopes here will keep buying and selling themselves out to save a buck, and US money will be flowing to India, while the producers here still have to foot the bill for the newly unemployed.
The US is the biggest market, what is so hard to understand? World stock markets toppled over Greece - an economy the size of INDIANA. The third world will buy and turn for trade anything that they can, while we sell ourselves out with our consumption habits. Call it outsourcing or whatever you like, the reality is that it is forsaking workers here while giving jobs to workers elsewhere because they are "cheaper".
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
As long as we are pointing out the obvious, I will point out there is also a difference between expecting a fair wage and demanding more than the value your job produces.
Since were stating the obvious, it is obvious that equating a wage slave in China/India to one living here with the taxes, healthcare costs, etc. is so apples to oranges it is funny. Yet when those folks get outsourced on some created "value" proposition, somebody still pays their benefits via unemployment, etc. And therein lies the problem. Jobs ARE finite and equating to the third world is treacherous.
You do understand we're talking about foreign interests buying American companies and not American companies moving overseas right? Following your line of reasoning, wouldn't the new owners be "outsourcing" if they left the jobs in the US instead of moving them to their home country?
You dont think that the US plants will be "outsourced" (insourced) to the land of the owners and the far cheaper labor? Then "Cooper" (Apollo) will have higher margins, the dopes here will keep buying and selling themselves out to save a buck, and US money will be flowing to India, while the producers here still have to foot the bill for the newly unemployed.
The US is the biggest market, what is so hard to understand? World stock markets toppled over Greece - an economy the size of INDIANA. The third world will buy and turn for trade anything that they can, while we sell ourselves out with our consumption habits. Call it outsourcing or whatever you like, the reality is that it is forsaking workers here while giving jobs to workers elsewhere because they are "cheaper".
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
As long as we are pointing out the obvious, I will point out there is also a difference between expecting a fair wage and demanding more than the value your job produces.
Since were stating the obvious, it is obvious that equating a wage slave in China/India to one living here with the taxes, healthcare costs, etc. is so apples to oranges it is funny. Yet when those folks get outsourced on some created "value" proposition, somebody still pays their benefits via unemployment, etc. And therein lies the problem. Jobs ARE finite and equating to the third world is treacherous.
You do understand we're talking about foreign interests buying American companies and not American companies moving overseas right? Following your line of reasoning, wouldn't the new owners be "outsourcing" if they left the jobs in the US instead of moving them to their home country?
You dont think that the US plants will be "outsourced" (insourced) to the land of the owners and the far cheaper labor? Then "Cooper" (Apollo) will have higher margins, the dopes here will keep buying and selling themselves out to save a buck, and US money will be flowing to India, while the producers here still have to foot the bill for the newly unemployed.
The US is the biggest market, what is so hard to understand? World stock markets toppled over Greece - an economy the size of INDIANA. The third world will buy and turn for trade anything that they can, while we sell ourselves out with our consumption habits. Call it outsourcing or whatever you like, the reality is that it is forsaking workers here while giving jobs to workers elsewhere because they are "cheaper".
Failed logic here-
Cooper is much bigger than Apollo.....
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
As long as we are pointing out the obvious, I will point out there is also a difference between expecting a fair wage and demanding more than the value your job produces.
Since were stating the obvious, it is obvious that equating a wage slave in China/India to one living here with the taxes, healthcare costs, etc. is so apples to oranges it is funny. Yet when those folks get outsourced on some created "value" proposition, somebody still pays their benefits via unemployment, etc. And therein lies the problem. Jobs ARE finite and equating to the third world is treacherous.
You do understand we're talking about foreign interests buying American companies and not American companies moving overseas right? Following your line of reasoning, wouldn't the new owners be "outsourcing" if they left the jobs in the US instead of moving them to their home country?
You dont think that the US plants will be "outsourced" (insourced) to the land of the owners and the far cheaper labor? Then "Cooper" (Apollo) will have higher margins, the dopes here will keep buying and selling themselves out to save a buck, and US money will be flowing to India, while the producers here still have to foot the bill for the newly unemployed.
The US is the biggest market, what is so hard to understand? World stock markets toppled over Greece - an economy the size of INDIANA. The third world will buy and turn for trade anything that they can, while we sell ourselves out with our consumption habits. Call it outsourcing or whatever you like, the reality is that it is forsaking workers here while giving jobs to workers elsewhere because they are "cheaper".
Failed logic here-
Cooper is much bigger than Apollo.....
- Status
