Spyker cuts its losses as it eyes London listing

Losses at Dutch car maker Spyker narrowed last year despite a “perfect storm” in the automotive industry.

By Graham Ruddick, City Reporter (Automotive)
Published: 9:15PM GMT 26 Mar 2010

Spyker C8 Aileron Spyder - Spyker cuts its losses as it eyes London listing

Spyker C8 Aileron Spyder – Spyker cuts its losses as it eyes London listing Photo: GETTY

The company, which has bought far larger Swedish rival Saab for around $74m (£50m), is eyeing a stock market listing in London and has moved production to Coventry.

Spyker produces luxury sports cars by hand and sold just 36 cars last year, compared to 37 in 2008. This translated to sales of €6.6m (£5.9m), down 15pc, and net losses of €22.9m, compared to €23.8m.

Victor Muller, chief executive, said: “In March last year, I could not imagine what the world would look like today. In 2009 the global automotive industry continued to suffer severely from the economic downturn and liquidations, governmental bail-outs and scrap car measures were common practice in many countries.”

The unprecedented conditions allowed Spyker to make an acquisition which “under normal market circumstances would have been unthinkable”, Mr Muller added.

Spyker, which employs 85 people, has faced serious questions about whether it can turn Saab into a viable business. The Swedish company was consistently loss-making after General Motors secured 100pc control in 2000 and dwarfs Spyker in size, producing around 100,000 cars a year.

Mr Muller is aiming to make Saab profitable by 2012, insisting that it did not lose money in all its years under GM because “many of its profitable divisions were not consolidated in Saab, but directly in GM”.

He added: “When one would reconstruct and clean up Saab’s historic figures, a completely different picture appears.

“Saab’s business plan, reviewed by many experts in the industry, clearly demonstrates that at very realistic production levels – not higher than those achieved as recent as 2007 [120,000 units] – Saab can be profitable.”

Scrappage scheme: success or failure?

Car manufacturers were right in the firing line when the global financial crisis struck. That was until they persuaded the Government to step in. We look at the impact of the scheme, which ends next week

By David Williams
Published: 11:15AM GMT 27 Mar 2010

Scrappage scheme: success or failure?

Another one bites the dust: Scrapped car being crushed Photo: STEVE BELL / REX FEATURES

Britain’s big experiment with state-subsidised car buying officially ends next week, 10 months, 12 days and £400 million worth of taxpayers’ money since it began
last May.

Scrappage has sent consumers flooding back to struggling showrooms, triggered the sale of 396,000 new cars and pulled the motor industry back from the brink of crisis.

But how successful has the scheme truly been and what will its long-lasting effects be? To fully appreciate the impact scrappage has had – and the Herculean task now facing carmakers trying to survive following its demise – we need to go back to November 2008.

Nothing looked certain when motor industry chiefs went cap in hand to ministers with plans for a government-funded “cash for scrap” rescue plan, against a backdrop of plunging sales.

“Officials were guffawing at first,” admitted Paul Everitt, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT). “You could say the initial stages were an uphill battle.”

Sales at the volume end of the market were in freefall and – as bankers at some of the City’s biggest institutions were ordered to clear their desks – luxury carmakers were being dragged down too.

New car registrations in November 2008 plummeted nearly 37 per cent on November 2007 figures. Some luxury marques slumped more than 60 per cent.

By December, car sales had suffered their worst year-on-year fall since 1980. “We were looking at the prospect of tens of thousands out of work,” Everitt said.

Those Government officials aren’t guffawing now. Scrappage has been hailed a success by motorists, the industry and the Government. Thousands who would have lost their jobs in manufacturing, distribution and retail are still employed, still paying taxes, not drawing benefits.

Last month, British car sales were up 26.4 per cent compared with February last year, resulting in eight consecutive months of growth – thanks to scrappage. Car production was up 62.7 per cent in February, the fourth successive monthly rise.

Latest figures show that scrappage accounted for one fifth (20.4 per cent) of all new car registrations since the scheme started on May 19 2009, offering £2,000 off a new car – split 50/50 between Government and manufacturer – if the owner’s old one was scrapped.

The injection of new cars onto our roads – all bristling with the latest engine and safety technology – will improve our pollution and our casualty statistics. Cars bought through scrappage had average CO2 emissions of 132.7g/km.

That’s nearly 10 per cent lower than the average for all new cars registered over the same period – and a hefty 27 per cent lower than the average CO2 of all scrapped cars.

CO2 isn’t the only evil being scrubbed out. “There are other tailpipe emissions to take into account,” Everitt says. “We’re going to see the benefits of these extra new cars affect road accident statistics and the health of us all for years.”

And scrappage has been at least revenue-neutral for the Government, which cashed in on the flow of VAT paid on new cars.

In the fourth quarter of 2009, scrappage accounted for 0.1 per cent of GDP.

Consumers have benefited enormously, too. The scheme encouraged motorists who would never normally buy “new” to visit showrooms, chequebook in hand. They drove off in models for the same money that previously they would have had to spend on a good used example.

In the manufacturer battle, Hyundai has emerged the outright winner, Telegraph Motoring figures show, with 38,870 scrappage sales (70 per cent of its total sales) up to the end of February.

Entry-level Hyundai i10 Classic before scrappage? £7,200. During? £4,995. Or £85 per month on Personal Contract Purchase (PCP), not much more than you can spend on a mobile phone contract.

Hyundai sales rose a massive 102 per cent from February 2008 to February 2009. Kia, too, saw the scheme account for 70 per cent of its registrations, with 33,764 scrappage sales. Other winners were Ford, Fiat, Toyota and Skoda.

“But,” warns Dr Peter Wells, of the Centre for Automotive Industry Research, Cardiff, “incentives are a dangerous drug. The problem facing industry now is how to wean buyers off again, when we don’t know how strong economic recovery – or demand for new cars – will be.”

Demand will now switch from discounted new cars to quality £4,000-£6,000 used models, according to carsite.co.uk.

Reflecting this, trade values for popular models have recently risen by nearly £200. In February, a 2007 Vauxhall Corsa rose £180, a 2007 Kia Picanto £130, a 2007 Hyundai Getz £100.

The entry-level price of models such as the Picanto and Hyundai i10 during scrappage? About £5,000. Now, this will rise to nearly £6,500. Expect a “sudden increase in demand for better-equipped, better-value second-hand models,” Carsite states.

The SMMT says the outlook for 2010 is subdued, with an expected decline in sales of almost 10 per cent to 1.82 million. And private buyers – who led the sales growth last month – could be driven from showrooms by savage VED rises planned for April (see Mr Money, page 13).

“Scrappage gave the industry a stay of execution,” Wells says. “Now that it’s over, senior management, perhaps for the first time, will seriously be earning their money.

“They must strengthen their brands while restoring profit margins – at the same time as digging themselves out of the incentive trap. There is a very rocky road ahead indeed.”

Video Games Linked To Poor Relationships With Friends, Family

ScienceDaily (Jan. 25, 2009) — A new study connects young adults’ use of video games to poorer relationships with friends and family – and the student co-author expresses disappointment at his own findings.

Brigham Young University undergrad Alex Jensen and his faculty mentor, Laura Walker, publish their results Jan. 23 in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence.

The research is based on information collected from 813 college students around the country. As the amount of time playing video games went up, the quality of relationships with peers and parents went down.

“It may be that young adults remove themselves from important social settings to play video games, or that people who already struggle with relationships are trying to find other ways to spend their time,” Walker said. “My guess is that it’s some of both and becomes circular.”

For the record, Walker did not stand in the way of her family’s wish for a Nintendo Wii. Jensen had hoped to find some positive results as justification for playing Madden NFL.

Study participants reported how often they play video games. They also answered a battery of questions measuring relationship quality, including how much time, trust, support and affection they share with friends and parents.

But the researchers say video games do not themselves mean “game over” for a relationship because the connection they found is modest.

“Relationship quality is one of a cluster of things that we found to be modestly associated with video games,” Walker said. “The most striking part is that everything we found clustered around video game use is negative.”

Statistical analyses also revealed that the more young adults play video games, the more frequent their involvement in risky behaviors like drinking and drug abuse. Young adults who played video games daily reported smoking pot almost twice as often as occasional players, and three times as often as those who never play.

For young women, self-worth was low if their video game time was high.

And despite heavy involvement with the research, Jensen does not admit the results to his own family. For now he holds out hope that future research will exonerate consoles or games designed for multiple players.

He’s also curious how video games may affect young couples. Nearly three-fourths of college-aged men in the study played video games regularly. By comparison, just 17 percent of their female counterparts played more than once a month.

“The gender imbalance begs the question of whether chasing a new high score beats spending quality time with a girlfriend or wife,” Jensen said.

Walker teaches in BYU’s School of Family Life. Her colleagues Larry Nelson and Jason Carroll are co-authors on the study.

Sir Fred Goodwin's banker Matthew Greenburgh quits the City

Matthew Greenburgh, who famously advised the disgraced former Royal Bank of Scotland chief Sir Fred Goodwin on his disastrous takeover of ABN Amro, is retiring from Bank of America Merrill Lynch to pursue other interests.

By Philip Aldrick, Banking Editor
Published: 7:44PM GMT 26 Mar 2010

Merrill Lynch bull - Sir Fred Goodwin's banker Matthew Greenburgh quits the City

Merrill Lynch bull – Sir Fred Goodwin’s banker Matthew Greenburgh quits the City

Friends said he does not intend to work in business and may turn his hand to academia.

The inveterate dealmaker’s final big deal was the £22.5bn recapitalisation of Lloyds Banking Group last year, which included what was then the largest rights issue in UK history. By helping the lender secure private sector backing, the taxpayer’s exposure to Lloyds was reduced by billions of pounds.

Despite working on hundreds of deals in his 28-year City career, Mr Greenburgh will be most remembered for the two that went wrong. As well as advising Sir Fred on the ABN takeover, he was the banker to Lloyds on its acquisition of HBOS.

Lloyds shares have collapsed due to HBOS’s bad lending, causing the bank to write off tens of billions of pounds. Treasury sources say, though, that the deal probably rescued the country’s largest mortgage lender from full nationalisation. RBS is now 84pc owned by the taxpayer and Lloyds 41pc after £65.5bn of state bail-outs.

Mr Greenburgh, 49, shot to prominence advising Sir Fred on RBS’s takeover of Natwest in 2000. The deal sealed both their reputations and was considered one of the best of the decade. Mr Greenburgh subsequently became Sir Fred’s most trusted adviser on a string of other deals culminating in the ABN calamity in 2007.

He later became close to Eric Daniels, Lloyds chief executive. The two memorably went on a dove-shooting trip to Argentina together last year.

At his peak, Mr Greenburgh was one of the City kingmakers – rising to chairman of the financial institutions group at BoA Merrill Lynch and taking home annual bonuses in excess of £10m. He polarised opinion in the City, with as many objecting to his arrogance as respected his achievements.

He reported to Andrea Orcel, the $30m-a-year banker who heads up BoA Merrill Lynch’s global banking & markets practice. Mr Orcel and Henrietta Baldock, European head of the financial institutions group at BoA Merrill Lynch, will take over Mr Greenburgh’s remaining clients, which include Lloyds, Royal & Sun Alliance and Standard Life.

Among his other deals was the defence of the London Stock Exchange against multiple bids, and the flotations of Standard Life and Friends Provident.

Emma Thompson reveals how she was caught up in a love triangle with Kate Winslet

Emma Thompson has revealed how she nearly lost out to her fellow actress Kate Winslet in a love triangle with Thompson’s husband, Greg Wise.

By Roya Nikkhah
Published: 9:30AM GMT 27 Mar 2010

1 of 2 Images
Emma thompson and Kate Winslet starring in Sense and Sensibility in 1995

Emma thompson and Kate Winslet starring in Sense and Sensibility in 1995 Photo: REX
Emma Thompson and Greg Wise

Emma Thompson and Greg Wise Photo: REX

The three actors were filming an adaptation of Jane Austen’s novel, Sense and Sensibility, sixteen years ago, when Mr Wise, who was then 28, was told by a fortune teller that he would meet his future wife on set.

At the time, Thompson, who is eight years Wise’s senior, was still married to Kenneth Branagh, and proceeded to watch as Wise pursued the 19-year-old Winslet, before eventually realising that his attraction was actually to Thompson.

Speaking on BBC One’s Tonight with Jonathan Ross show, Thompson, 50, said: “He courted Kate for weeks. He took her to Glastonbury. She didn’t take to it because she’s a mod and he’s a hippy.”

Thompson won an Oscar for her screenplay adaptation of Austen’s novel, and starred in the film as Elinor Dashwood, a spinster who ends up marrying her true love.

Winslet played her beautiful but flighty younger sister, Marianne, while Wise played the roguish character of John Willoughby.

Following Thompson’s divorce from Branagh in 1995, Winslet was instrumental in helping her get together with Wise.

Thompson and Wise, who remain close friends with Winslet, have been together for 15 years and married seven years ago.

They have a 10-year-old daughter, Gaia, and an adopted son, Tindyebawa Agaba, 22, from Rwanda.

Winslet met her second husband, the director Sam Mendes, through Thompson, but the couple announced their separation earlier this month.

Uma Thurman's new film seen by just one person on opening day

Uma Thurman’s latest film is set to be one of the biggest box office flops ever after just one ticket was sold for the movie on its opening day.

By Roya Nikkhah
Published: 8:44AM GMT 27 Mar 2010

1 of 2 Images
Uma Thurman starring in film Motherhood

Uma Thurman starring in film Motherhood Photo: REX
Thurman's new film has flopped

Uma Thurman’s new film Motherhood took just £88 at the British box office Photo: GETTY IMAGES

Over its opening weekend at the beginning of March, only around a dozen people went to see Motherhood, a semi-autobiographical account of parenting in New York written and directed by Katherine Dieckmann.

The film took just £88 at the British box office on its opening weekend.

On its debut Sunday, takings at the box office were just £9 – the price of a ticket for one person.

Only one British cinema was given permission to launch the film earlier this month, with the film’s producers hoping that exclusivity would generate a buzz and lead to box office success by word of mouth.

Instead, cinema goers stayed away from the Apollo West End in record numbers in a move that will be embarrassing for Thurman, the star of Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill who divides her time between London and New York.

Motherhood, which also stars Jodie Foster and Minnie Driver, is thought to have made only £40,000 when it opened in America last year, despite costing around £3.4 million to make.

The spectacular failure of the film to find an audience has resulted in a row between producers and Metronome, the company responsible for marketing the film in the UK.

When Jana Edelbaum, one of the producers, was told how badly it had fared at the British box office, she said: “You’re kidding? We must have broken a new record for grosses.”

But she defended the film, insisting that Metronome was to blame and that she would demand a full explanation.

She said: “Think how much crap succeeds at the cinema. Motherhood is not bad. I’ve seen movies that are not half as good.”

Barry Norman, the film critic, said: “I have never heard of anything like this before. This is not some small, independent movie. It’s astonishing that only about 11 people could be bothered to go and see Uma Thurman.

“The reviews were very poor indeed, but that alone isn’t enough to explain this. It’s a reasonable assumption that there was a marketing and advertising catastrophe, and people didn’t know it was showing.

“But Apollo cinemas aren’t in tucked-away places. They’re all prominently located.”

The Apollo chain has put on further screenings for the film in Burnley, Fareham, Redditch, Stroud and Altringham.

A spokesman for Metronome, said: “Over the course of the week leading up to Mother’s Day we also released the film on DVD, video on demand and pay per view so customers could choose how to watch the film.

“Inevitably some films will work better on some platforms than others. In this case, the DVD was stronger than the theatrical result.”

The carbon credits scheme would make WWF and its partners much richer, but with no lowering of overall CO2 emissions, writes Christopher Booker .

By Christopher Booker
Published: 4:53PM GMT 20 Mar 2010


Tumucumaque in northern Brazil has been designated a 'carbon sink'

Tumucumaque in northern Brazil has been designated a ‘carbon sink’

If the world’s largest, richest environmental campaigning group, the WWF – formerly the World Wildlife Fund – announced that it was playing a leading role in a scheme to preserve an area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of Switzerland, many people might applaud, thinking this was just the kind of cause the WWF was set up to promote. Amazonia has long been near the top of the list of the world’s environmental cconcerns, not just because it includes easily the largest and most bio-diverse area of rainforest on the planet, but because its billions of trees contain the world’s largest land-based store of CO2 – so any serious threat to the forest can be portrayed as a major contributor to global warming.

If it then emerged, however, that a hidden agenda of the scheme to preserve this chunk of the forest was to allow the WWF and its partners to share the selling of carbon credits worth $60 billion, to enable firms in the industrial world to carry on emitting CO2 just as before, more than a few eyebrows might be raised. The idea is that credits representing the CO2 locked into this particular area of jungle – so remote that it is not under any threat – should be sold on the international market, allowing thousands of companies in the developed world to buy their way out of having to restrict their carbon emissions. The net effect would simply be to make the WWF and its partners much richer while making no contribution to lowering overall CO2 emissions.

WWF, which already earns £400 million yearly, much of it contributed by governments and taxpayers, has long been at the centre of efforts to talk up the threat to the Amazon rainforest – as shown recently by the furore over a much-publicised passage in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s claim that 40 per cent of the forest is threatened by global warming, it turned out, was not based on any scientific evidence, but simply on WWF propaganda, which had wholly distorted the findings of an earlier study on the threat posed to the forest, not by climate change but by logging.

This curious saga goes back to 1997, when the UN’s Kyoto treaty set up what is known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). This allowed businesses in the developing world that could claim to have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions to make billions of pounds by selling their resulting carbon credits to those firms in the developed world which, under the treaty, would be obliged to cut their emissions. In 2001 the parties to Kyoto agreed in principle that trees in the southern hemisphere could be counted as “carbon sinks” for the benefit of CO2 emitting firms in the northern hemisphere. In 2002, after lengthy negotiations with WWF and other NGOs, the Brazilian government set up its Amazon Region Protected Areas (Arpa) project, supported by nearly $80 million of funding. Of this, $18 million was given to the WWF by the US’s Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, $18 million to its Brazilian NGO partner by the Brazilian government, plus $30 million from the World Bank.

The aim was that the NGOs, led by the WWF, should administer chunks of the Brazilian rainforest to ensure either that they were left alone or managed “sustainably”. Added to them, as the largest area of all, was 31,000 square miles on Brazil’s all but inaccessible northern frontier; half designated as the Tumucumaque National Park, the world’s largest nature reserve, the other half to be left largely untouched but allowing for sustainable development. This is remote from any part of the Amazonian forest likely to be damaged by loggers, mining or agriculture.

So far all this might have seemed admirably idealistic. Despite the international agreement that forests could be counted as carbon sinks, there was as yet no system in place whereby the CO2 thus “saved” could be turned into a saleable commodity. In 2007, however, the WWF and its allies in the World Bank launched the Global Forest Alliance, with start-up funding of $250 million from the Bank, to work for what they called “avoided deforestation”. A conference in Bali, under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which administers the CDM, agreed to a scheme called REDD (reducing emissions for deforestation in developing countries). Hailed as “the big new idea to save the planet from runaway climate change”, this set up a global fund to save vast areas of rainforest from the deforestation which accounts for nearly a fifth of all man-made CO2 emissions.

But still there was no mechanism for turning all this “saved” CO2 into a money-making commodity. The WWF now, however, found a key ally in the Woods Hole Research Center, based in Massachusetts. Not to be confused with the nearby Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, a bona fide scientific body, this is in fact a global warming advocacy group, headed by a board which includes fund managers responsible for billions of dollars of private investments.

In 2008, funded by $7 million from the Moore Foundation and working in partnership with the WWF on the Tumucumaque project, Woods Hole came up with the formula required: a way of valuing all that carbon stored in Brazil’s protected rainforests, so that it could be traded under the CDM. The CO2 to be “saved” by the Arpa programme, it calculated, amounted to 5.1 billion tons. Based on the UNFCCC’s valuation of CO2 at $12.50 per ton, this valued the trees in Brazil’s protected areas at over $60 billion. Endorsed by the World Bank, this projection was presented to the UNFCCC.

But two more obstacles had still to be overcome. The first was that the scheme needed to be adopted as part of REDD by the UNFCCC’s 2009 Copenhagen conference, which was supposed to agree a new global treaty to follow Kyoto. This would allow all that “saved” Brazilian CO2 to be turned into hard cash under the CDM scheme.

The other was that the US should adopt a “cap and trade” scheme, imposing severe curbs on the CO2 emitted by US industry. This would boost the international carbon market, sending the price soaring as US firms flocked to buy the credits that would allow them to continue emitting the CO2 they needed to survive.

As we know, the story hasn’t turned out as planned. Amid the shambles at Copenhagen in December, all that could be saved of the REDD proposals was an agreement in principle, with the hope of reaching detailed agreement in Mexico later this year. Also lost in the scramble to save something from the wreckage was the small print that guaranteed the rights of indigenous peoples in rainforests, whose way of life – to the concern of groups such as Survival International and the Forest Peoples Programme – has already been severely damaged by REDD-inspired schemes elsewhere, such as in Kenya and Papua New Guinea.

Just as alarming to the WWF and its allies, who were hoping to make billions from Brazilian forests, has been the failure of the US Senate to approve the cap and trade bill championed by President Obama. Since the EU has excluded the rainforests from its own cap and trade scheme, bringing the US into the net is vital for the WWF’s hopes of finding “money growing on trees”. The price of carbon on the Chicago Climate Exchange has just plummeted to its lowest-ever level, 10 cents a ton.

The WWF’s dream has been thwarted – but the revelation that it could even be party to such a scheme may have considerable influence on the way this richest of all environmental campaigning groups is viewed by the world at large.

  • Further details and sources can be found at www.eureferendum.blogspot.com.
  • ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster’ by Christopher Booker and Richard North is published by Continuum (£16.99)
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.