In Vendita: FCA's Magneti Marelli Could Be Sold, Not Spun Off

Matthew Guy
by Matthew Guy

In a story that’s been developing for some time now, Fiat Chrysler is inching closer to shedding its component supplier, Magneti Marelli.

According to a report, a private equity firm is reportedly in talks with the automaker to buy the parts business. This is a shift in direction for FCA which, in the past, was seemingly focused on spinning off Magneti Marelli rather than completing an outright sale.

The Wall Street Journal reports that an American buyout firm called KKR & Co. is in talks with FCA. The parts biz is estimated to be worth anywhere between $3.5 billion and $6.0 billion, depending on which analyst you ask. Whatever the sale price, it would be a large infusion of cash into the company’s coffers.

Mention of Calsonic was also uncovered by the WSJ during its research into KKR. Sound familiar? It should. Calsonic Kansei Corporation is a Japanese automotive parts company that has 58 manufacturing centers around the globe. The purchase of Magneti Marelli would create an auto parts giant and would likely lead to, erm, consolidation both from production and design considerations as there would be a measure of overlap with which to deal.

Sergio Marchionne was well-known for boldly stating his desire for alliance in the auto industry, as anyone with even the shortest of short-term memories will recall. Three years ago, he made major overtures to complete an FCA-GM merger, citing the ruinous financial wastage thanks to the duplication of models, technology, and R & D. The man had a point.

Sans Magneti Marelli, FCA would be an easier pitch, not unlike when a homeowner who is trying to sell their house tears down a handy but expensive-to-keep shed that was scaring away all potential buyers. Sure, the shed was useful but its additional maintenance costs made the entire package less attractive.

At this year’s Capital Markets Day, the company spelled out a five-year plan (one of many over the years) that appeared to blatantly ignore some of its brands while putting others to the fore. Any potential suitor for FCA would undoubtedly be taking it on for the crown jewel, Jeep. The absence of Magneti Marelli may be seen as a plus by some prospective purchasers.

Who would want to buy the joint? Speculation ranges from the PSA Group to Korean interests. A tie-up with PSA would give that company, which hopes to regain a foothold in America, an instant dealer network and all manner of local inroads. As for the Koreans, access to FCA’s successful crossover and SUV portfolio would do wonders to bolster their offerings in those segments.

Magneti Marelli manufactures numerous automotive components, from lighting to powertrain parts to electronics, and employs roughly 43,000 workers in 19 countries. Dozens of manufacturing plants exist under its umbrella. Started as a joint venture between Fiat and Ercole Marelli in 1919, the company officially became a Fiat subsidiary in 1967.

Matthew Guy
Matthew Guy

Matthew buys, sells, fixes, & races cars. As a human index of auto & auction knowledge, he is fond of making money and offering loud opinions.

More by Matthew Guy

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 10 comments
  • Fred Fred on Aug 23, 2018

    Maybe because I'm familiar with Lucas electrics, but the few times I've helped work on Fiats their system was a confusing mess. Of course that was old cars from the 50s thru 70s, so maybe they aren't that bad anymore.

    • JimZ JimZ on Aug 24, 2018

      er, of course they're not that bad anymore. back then a lot of wiring was point-to-point, assembled by hand with simple unsealed push on spade connectors.

  • Tstag Tstag on Aug 26, 2018

    Personally speaking I think a tie up with PSA would make huge sense. Instant volume in Europe meets instant instant volume in the US. The other suitor other than Hyundai for FCA might be Tata. Land Rover and Jeep have obvious synergies, as do Alfa and Jaguar. Tata brings volume in Asia plus a heavy truck business. Jaguar also brings electrification.....

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next