Mary Barra and Cathie Wood went into a bar, when they left it was an online store that could snail mail their customers a room temperature rail drink (and sadly went out of business).
2 Likes
Probably will be a sub brand like Range Rover, Wagoneer, mustang. Don’t think they’ll spin up dedicated showrooms like genesis
1 Like
I wouldn’t mind an EV Vette Van. 
1 Like
I am actually pondering buying some ARKK if it gets hammered a bit more. 
I was literally laughing out loud as I read about a strategy that some people are playing around with. They wait to see what Cathie buys and then they short it! Apparently this approach has been making alot of money😆
3 Likes
That has been playing well with the recent downturn of the last year, a strategy of buying when everyone is selling Is not very wise I think. But think most people knocking her haven’t had even a fraction of the success that she’s has playing tech stocks really well.
1 Like
The McKinsey consultants have gone too far… in a way I commend Elon for bringing something new to an industry that has moved away from doing anything bold. Now if others would follow him and create innovative designs and ideas would be awesome
I was going to comment that Chevy had already killed the Corvette. There is only a bit left to destroy.
As someone that knocked her only a few comments above, I agree with this. She did play the tech run-up well and became very successful from it. Interested to see if she can bounce back.
But then she makes a comment about BTC being worth $1MM per coin by 2030 and I wonder if her run-up was sheer luck. Time will tell.
1 Like
If you bought ARKK in March 2020, you have been up 400% and today you are only down 10%. If only you had the foresight to buy into her hype and exit in February 2021…
As for me, I had a check-in with my FP yesterday, and he reminded me that I sold a bunch of SPY in late January 2021 because I was the only client panicked that the top 10 stocks were both over-valued and the index itself was lopsided. The stocks I rotated that money into are slightly up but paid a years worth of dividends. But we all have ups-and-downs, I wash-sold five figures in stock I plan to keep for the duration just to harvest the losses (2022 has been a good year). 20% of my portfolio is tech, but all of the Tech names I own are capable of making money, not just existing when the cost of capital is 0%. I play 100% with my own money, CW plays with a lot of other people’s money, and the last couple years have been a bloodbath.
See also
1 Like
I had the same thought. I think it’s a smart play but that will depend on the product they put out. It’s hard not to associate the brand with an older crowd.
I am not a marketing person, but doesn’t the relatively failure of those 2 sub-brands also have to do w/ market position and product?
I assume spinning off an up-market sub-brand usually works better than the reverse.
Also, aside from the first-gen xB, nothing that Scion produced was particularly noteworthy, no?
As for Prius, the C was supposed to be a stinker, and the V didn’t seem all that diff from the “regular” Prius.
I think Corvette 4-doors and SUV could work just fine, as long as the products are suitably upscale and drive well. See Porsche, Ferrari (maybe), Aston Martin (sort of), Lambo (sort of). I still think Lambo should’ve brought the Estoque into production.
What exactly was the success of FCA turning RAM and SRT into their own brands?
4 Likes
There is a longer answer here but I’ve already said enough. If Buick and Lincoln don’t answer your question: Corvette is a halo car for low end Chevy/GMC buyers, I don’t think commoditizing it translates but I’d want to see market research.
Before Genesis was a brand, Hyundai stores were all stuck with at least one unsellable Equus (aka the Korean Phaeton)…
They sold a bazillon tCs and the FRS which I think Toyota still says (Subaru still sells the BRZ).
The first Prius sub-brand vehicle announced after the G2 Prius was a minivan that never was.
This is one of the biggest issues…sure GM can make some things drive well, but they always fail to do anything completely upscale. GM and their bean counters will never fully commit and go head to head with the materials utilized in actual luxury brands. Take a seat in a Range Rover and take a seat in an Escalade - big difference. Drive them - monumental difference. Arguably, that’s their achilles heel.
The other issue relates to dealer network and service. Nobody in their right mind is going to voluntarily forego German/Italian/English whatever dealership treatment to deal with the GM network. It sounds trivial but when you’re used to a service advisor rolling out the red carpet in a premium dealership and getting nice loaners when your car is in for service, there’s no way you’re going to drive your Corvette SUV in for an oil change, stand in line behind Karen complaining about the oil consumption on her 4cyl Equinox, and snag a cloth seat Blazer for the day.
The commitment is what’s going to make this a success or a flop. If they pull out all the stops and truly invest in this “Corvette” brand with top shelf materials, competitive fit and finish, and top tier dealership treatment that is differentiated from the rest of the GM brand, sure this could be the start of something.
Sadly, however, I’d wager this is going to be another half hearted attempt by GM only to be swatted down by bean counters and ultimately be less than half of what it could, or should, have been.
1 Like
Funny you say that…last night in Costco gas line, lane over sat a brand new candy apple red vette, rumbling up to the pump. Was hoping a hottie would pop out and flip her hair, but no. Old fart in a Polo and jeans, could barely get out and walk to the pump. Slumped over a low car trying to pump gas with a bad back. At least he goes fast on the road!
2 Likes
So is the lesson that spinning off a sub-brand (at least in the automotive space) just doesn’t work, regardless of sales?
Agree. I should’ve clarified my statement that “suitably” meant, “Suitably for a Corvette.” I listed the other brands to make the point that expanding the portfolio didn’t kill those brands (and likely added a ton of $$$ to the bottom line).
I think your reference to the Escalade actually makes part of my point. Buyers presunably flock to the Escalade, even though it’s clearly based on lesser products and doesn’t really match its competitors in any objective way. The bling is what counts there.
So, for the Corvette sub-brand, if it looks racy enough, drives well enough, and has a flashy-enough interior (I’ve not sat in a current gen Corvette, but it’s got a neat looking interior and I imagine fit and finish is comfortably above any other Chevy product), AND if it can play the value card like the Corvette does, I think the sub brands will do well enough.
I know that the C&D article says that an insider says that the Corvette models “share nothing” w/ other GM products, but I can’t imagine that’s the case (esp regarding chassis/battery packaging/etc.). So the other models may not even need to sell that much to justify their existence.
I totally agree w/ you about the service experience, though. Wonder if they will have some sort of concierge service?
1 Like
While I don’t think the Corvette sub-brand is a terrible idea, I think a Camaro and/or Escalade sub-brand is… not good.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42097052/gm-escalade-camaro-brands/
The Corvette sub-brand would work, they trying to compete with luxury super cars that have 2-door/4-door and now SUV
Escalade and Camaro, yeah I don’t see that working lol
I’m willing to bet Cathy owns very little tech stock personally. That’s usually how these charlatans typically operate. They’re all down with OPP when it comes to theirs they’re in cash, real estate, art and wine.
Why not dig deeper into history? Maybe start with a Monza minivan or a Caprice crossover.