Re: Mercedes still may profit from Chrysler

"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:eoWdndW7taDPHeHanZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <bxpde393upv1$.o9ycvcms3agu.dlg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Comments4u 
> wrote:
>
>> Also often unrecognized is that Mercedes still owns 19.1% of
>> Chrysler, so if Chrysler eventually becomes profitable and
>> valuable, Mercedes' remaining stake might be sold for real money.
>> This would be in contrast to the Cerberus deal, where Mercedes
>> claimed it received money for Chrysler, but in actuality paid
>> Cerberus to take 79.9% of Chrysler.
>
>> The year end Mercedes news conference proved less than
>> enlightening in most respects.  While Mercedes spokesman Heinreich
>> Tungensheek expressed disappointment over Chrysler discontinuing
>> the reskinned SLK it sold as the Crossfire, he refused to comment
>> on a question of whether retention of 19.1% of Chrysler was an
>> astute business move.  The implication of the question was that
>> the only reason Mercedes still had a stake is Chrysler is because
>> it couldn't afford to give Cerberus any more money to take the
>> remainder.
>
> They should have paid me to assume owner****p of chrysler... I 
> wouldn't
> mind having my own car company.

But at least when they paid Cerbus to take it, they have the 
possibility that the 19.1% they still own might one day be valuable. 
If they paid you to take it,...well one can only imagine.

Ed