Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

06/22/1954

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16

    Comment


    • #17
      Bump

      Hi

      Any comments or questions that need clarification?

      An irony that just occurred to me is that two years and three days later, 6-25-1956, the last Detroit-built Packard ever came off the Connor Avenue assembly line. It was a solid dark blue '56 Patrician 5682-4775 shipped to Atlanta, GA and into oblivion.

      Steve
      Last edited by 56H-Y6; 07-10-2012, 08:45 AM. Reason: Noted irony.

      Comment


      • #18
        http://ssrn.com/abstract=721481
        Beatty, M., Furlong, P. (1984). Studebaker: Less Than They Promised. Indianapolis: And Books.
        Bonsall, T.E. (2000). More Than They Promised: The Studebaker Story. Stanford, California:Stanford University Press.
        Foster, P. (2008). Studebaker: The Complete History. Minneapolis:Motorbooks.
        Hall, A. (1986, October). 1947-58 Studebaker: The Turning Points. Collectible Automobile. 50-69.
        Langworth, R.M. (1984, September). Triumph and Tragedy: The Last Real Packards. Collectible Automobile. 6-19.
        Langworth, R.M. (1984, September). Plans for 1957: The Packards that Never Were. Collectible Automobile. 20-25.
        Langworth, R.M. (1989, April). 1957-58 “Packardbaker”: America’s First Replicar. Collectible Automobile. 8-20.
        Langworth, R.M. (1993). Studebaker 1946-1966: The Classic Postwar Years. Osceola, Wisconsin: Motorbooks International.
        Roll, R. (1986). The Hubris Hypothesis of Corporate Takeovers. Journal of Business. 197-216.
        Scott Rodgers
        Los Angeles
        SDC Member since 1989
        \'60 Lark HT
        \'63 Wagonaire
        \'66 Frankenbaker

        Comment


        • #19
          Hi Scott

          I would be interested in reading your paper, sent your a personal note.

          Steve

          Comment


          • #20
            Cliff McMillan (sp?) was the retired Studebaker Official who may have been quoting someone else in the 1984 "Studebaker - Less Than They Promised" Documentary when he mentioned that the S-P Merger was "like two drunks helping each other across the street".

            I didn't have the patience to sit through any more classes to get my M.B.A. Instead, I went to work after I got married and worked like a dog to help my wife get her Masters in Education. I'm not sure a M.B.A. would have helped me given my geographic preference anyway. So, I'm stuck with my Business and Econ B.S. (how appropriate), and prove it often by skipping to the Executive Summary with bullet point statements like this: (Please don't take offense, I respect anyone that did pursue and complete a M.B.A.)

            1) The S-P Merger was a "shotgun wedding" arranged by investment bankers to try and save slightly profitable Packard, which did not have the resources to start it's own body plant, without floating them the cash to start said body plant. They saw Studebaker with excess capacity and Packard needing bodies. How could a finance guy look at that and be wrong?

            2) Wall Street did everything they could to make it look like profitable Packard was in the driver's seat. What was presented to the public about the merger at the time of the merger was more for show and to "calm nerves" than anything else. Just like Jurgen Schrempp 40 years later would say Robert Eaton was his Equal in the DaimlerChrysler debacle!

            3) Packard's low volume and high quality ways were not compatable with the volume required and the production methods at Studebaker. I've heard the deal was done before anyone even realized Packard's 1955-56 model bodies wouldn't even fit through tight spots in the Studebaker production buildings.

            4) Without financing for a body plant, Packard would have disappeared in 1956 if the merger had not happened. Packard's heritage as the last of the true, independent luxury makes and the fact ALL top end luxury manufacturers of that era relied on outside body firms to do that part of the cars for them sealed Packard's fate.

            5) Did the merger harm Studebaker? I don't think Studebaker ever saw any windfall from Packard. I'll say it was a draw for both sides, but I'll leave that for others to debate.

            6) The volume needed at Studebaker to stay afloat and the larger mass of Studebaker was what made Studebaker the dominant party in the merger.

            Overall, I'd say little was learned by the industry from what happened in 1954-55. Mergers continue to take place with the false hope that BOTH parties will benefit. What George Romney did at the freshly merged AMC by focusing on the neutral Rambler and doing away with Nash, Hudson, etc. is really the best way to move forward after a merger. Trying to keep everything around is just fooling the company and it's customers. One company ALWAYS ends up dominating. Just the way it is.
            Last edited by 556063; 07-10-2012, 05:31 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              It never ceases to amaze me that so many of our members have retained so much knowledge of our marque. Thanks so much, and keep it coming.
              Stu Chapman

              Comment


              • #22
                Steve,

                Message sent.
                Scott Rodgers
                Los Angeles
                SDC Member since 1989
                \'60 Lark HT
                \'63 Wagonaire
                \'66 Frankenbaker

                Comment


                • #23
                  Found it! I have the transcript from the 6/22/54 press conference on the merger. I thought I had an electronic copy but I only have a paper copy. I received it from the the Harry S Truman library for my MBA paper - the library has possession of Paul Hoffman's papers. If people are interested, I can scan a copy and post it at some point. I don't think there would be any copyright issues with a 58-year old transcript of a news conference but if any one thinks there is, let me know.
                  Scott Rodgers
                  Los Angeles
                  SDC Member since 1989
                  \'60 Lark HT
                  \'63 Wagonaire
                  \'66 Frankenbaker

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Stu Chapman View Post
                    It never ceases to amaze me that so many of our members have retained so much knowledge of our marque. Thanks so much, and keep it coming.
                    Stu Chapman
                    If this was a nomination I would second it. Well said Stu and well put Steve and Scott.
                    Thanks.
                    sigpic
                    55 President Deluxe
                    64 Commander
                    66 Cruiser

                    37 Oldsmobile F37 4 Door

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X