Vietnam’s Richest Man Bets $2B to Sell Cars to Americans(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Vietnam’s Richest Man Bets $2B to Sell Cars to Americans
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-09/vietnam-s-richest-man-bets-2-billion-to-sell-cars-to-americans
170 comments
> You know that it literally means 'Noodles From Vietnam'
It's short for (Mi) (Vi)et (Na)m, which is basically Vietnamese Noodles. You can already guess "Mi" is noodles in Vietnamese.
It's short for (Mi) (Vi)et (Na)m, which is basically Vietnamese Noodles. You can already guess "Mi" is noodles in Vietnamese.
Amusingly, Nepal's (only?) billionaire also appears to have taken this route.
https://www.wealthx.com/featured/2015/the-nepalese-billionai...
https://www.wealthx.com/featured/2015/the-nepalese-billionai...
Samsung started off as a small trading store / company and later became a sugar refinery. Lotte (another Korean conglomerate) started off selling gum during wartime. Even Nike initially started off with Phil Knight simply being the importer for Japanese Onitsuka Tiger shoes.
This is why I think it makes total sense for good early stage investors to invest in people and teams (as opposed to the ideas). The category or industry they're operating in today is just a small taste of what they're capable of.
This is why I think it makes total sense for good early stage investors to invest in people and teams (as opposed to the ideas). The category or industry they're operating in today is just a small taste of what they're capable of.
He has one advantage that past failed attempts didn't: electric cars are relatively simple compared to combustion engine cars.
But American consumers will want to see roughly 5 years of reliable quality reviews before they trust the brand. Problems with Yugos and early Hyundai's left a trail of memorable Internet memes.
So, what do you do the first 4 years? That's a lot of years to take a loss in order to gain market share.
Maybe start in the rental markets by loaning the cars out to rental shops. If they are loaned on a short-term basis, then the rental shops won't have to eat quality problems, if they appear.
One thing they have to know: if you foul up quality early, it takes a long time to recover that reputation. Detroit brands are still recovering from the clunkers they made in the 70's and 80's. They are now on par with the Japanese brands, but that's not good enough to get a clean reputation. Hyundai had to include generous extended warranties AND low prices to restore their reputation and market share.
But American consumers will want to see roughly 5 years of reliable quality reviews before they trust the brand. Problems with Yugos and early Hyundai's left a trail of memorable Internet memes.
So, what do you do the first 4 years? That's a lot of years to take a loss in order to gain market share.
Maybe start in the rental markets by loaning the cars out to rental shops. If they are loaned on a short-term basis, then the rental shops won't have to eat quality problems, if they appear.
One thing they have to know: if you foul up quality early, it takes a long time to recover that reputation. Detroit brands are still recovering from the clunkers they made in the 70's and 80's. They are now on par with the Japanese brands, but that's not good enough to get a clean reputation. Hyundai had to include generous extended warranties AND low prices to restore their reputation and market share.
Buy up a few parking lots in a few major metros and let people unlock the cars with an app on their phones as short term rentals.
The vehicles will probably end up as a loss, but it's going to get a lot of press. Then start selling them. Make the parking lots into car dealerships. Put them in college towns where people are just starting to get real jobs and have money to spend, and are also very online.
The vehicles will probably end up as a loss, but it's going to get a lot of press. Then start selling them. Make the parking lots into car dealerships. Put them in college towns where people are just starting to get real jobs and have money to spend, and are also very online.
Do you mean sell the cars to students? It's same problem: they will probably prefer very used cars from known brands over slightly used cars from an unknown brand.
Sell cars to people a few years out of college who are now trying to signal their membership in the middle class.
They're already selling their cars at a loss, according to the article. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would buy a Vietnamese electric car if it was 25-50% less than a Japanese/American/European one. Thats certainly how Korean cars managed to break into the US market.
This is clever, but I think you could get a similar result with fewer dedicated internal staff (better for a company with no US ops) by leasing or selling vehicles to e.g. ZipCar.
Zip car is essentially what I mean. Just adding the additional press bump by trying to draw a comparison to the scooter shares, or docked bicycles.
Detroit never stopped churning out clunkers. My neighbors brand new, $50k Chevy truck’s electrical is completely shot after first year. This is in mild Northern California weather.
Chevrolet ranks 25th in reliability out of 30 mass market vehicle brands.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/11/14/consume...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/11/14/consume...
It so bad, it's a running joke [1] I think low-end Fords (i.e. simple) are the only US car I'd consider and even then, their transmissions are suspect.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSBsq6HBBzw
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSBsq6HBBzw
Whole reason I bought a Ford Fiesta with a stick is because I heard that their transmissions are made out of glass.
Otherwise, decent car.
Otherwise, decent car.
A FiST though :)))
Given the angle of the original Consumer Reports study that the USA Today article is about, it wouldn't appear as simple as your comment suggests.
And here my 4 year old $20k ford is still worth $12k, so maybe not all of Detroit is bad?
I think the broader point to note here is that it's relatively easy to build simple machines. It's hard to build reliable complex machines.
I would certainly trust a low end Ford Focus, more so than even a low end VW Golf / Skoda Scala.
As soon as you move into premium models both the American and European manufacturer start to show their weaknesses compared to the Lexus/Acura/Infiniti/etc brands from Japan.
I would certainly trust a low end Ford Focus, more so than even a low end VW Golf / Skoda Scala.
As soon as you move into premium models both the American and European manufacturer start to show their weaknesses compared to the Lexus/Acura/Infiniti/etc brands from Japan.
Tesla is an American brand. I would argue Ford/Lincoln is the best Detroit motor company. GM makes meh cars. Chrysler is no longer American.
> So, what do you do the first 4 years? That's a lot of years to take a loss in order to gain market share.
Hyundai addressed this by offering a ten year warranty. They could do that right out of the gate rather than waiting until they have a bad reputation first.
Another possibility is to start off with a big leasing program. People aren't too concerned about repair costs or resale values for leased vehicles.
Hyundai addressed this by offering a ten year warranty. They could do that right out of the gate rather than waiting until they have a bad reputation first.
Another possibility is to start off with a big leasing program. People aren't too concerned about repair costs or resale values for leased vehicles.
Decent idea but wrong description. Hyundai and Yugo has problems decades before “internet memes” were a thing.
> it takes a long time to recover that reputation. Detroit brands are still recovering from the clunkers they made in the 70's and 80's.
I would say that they are still recovering from the clunkers they made in the 2000s.
Detroit never really got into the quality mindset that the Japanese car makers became famous for. And they didn't get into the driving dynamics mindset of their European counterparts, except maybe a couple of Cadillac models starting with the CTS-V.
I would say that they are still recovering from the clunkers they made in the 2000s.
Detroit never really got into the quality mindset that the Japanese car makers became famous for. And they didn't get into the driving dynamics mindset of their European counterparts, except maybe a couple of Cadillac models starting with the CTS-V.
Never really recovered, did you see the recent article on the coverup over fiesta and focus transmissions at ford. Shit like this is why I don’t buy “American” (Mexican) cars
You can always tell you're in a >5 year old Dodge by the cracked dashboard, over 30 years of same never solved issue :o
It's simple to make one that moves, but hard to make it superior to other brands.
"American consumers will want to see roughly 5 years of reliable quality"
You say that as if it's gospel, but it sounds like "boomer thinking" to me. The demand for electric cars over the next ten years will mostly come form people who have different ways of making purchasing decisions than in decades past. And they've never heard of a Yugo.
You say that as if it's gospel, but it sounds like "boomer thinking" to me. The demand for electric cars over the next ten years will mostly come form people who have different ways of making purchasing decisions than in decades past. And they've never heard of a Yugo.
I don’t think researching a $40k purchase and valuing reliability is “boomer thinking”. It’s a side effect of people getting married, buying homes, and starting families.
Yeah, lol. It's called adult thinking. And it happens once you actually become one. One that is responsible for others, not just yourself and your whims. "Adulting" for an hour a week to pay your bills doesn't count.
The average age of a new car buyer in the US is 53 years old, so maybe you're on to something...
[flagged]
> Only Boomers
Why is this term suddenly popular, especially here?
I'm downvoting comments using it, since it seems to be disparaging at best, if not offensive. It's also used inaccurately. The Yugo wasn't even produced until 1980.
Why is this term suddenly popular, especially here?
I'm downvoting comments using it, since it seems to be disparaging at best, if not offensive. It's also used inaccurately. The Yugo wasn't even produced until 1980.
My sense of it is that most of these are Russian propagandists trying to sow dissent in America, and that's why the popularity of the phrase tends to peak for two months are so and then die off for six months before resurfacing.
>> if not offensive.
It is offensive, 100%. It's grouping and stereotyping people based on age, meaning that for example my parents are subject to it, despite growing up in communist Poland and not getting any economic benefits normally attributed to "boomers". At 28, I'm probably 10x "wealthier" than they were at my age, but of course they are "boomers" by age so fuck them for ruining the economy, right?
It is offensive, 100%. It's grouping and stereotyping people based on age, meaning that for example my parents are subject to it, despite growing up in communist Poland and not getting any economic benefits normally attributed to "boomers". At 28, I'm probably 10x "wealthier" than they were at my age, but of course they are "boomers" by age so fuck them for ruining the economy, right?
[flagged]
It seems to have gained popularity among younger people as an insult against anyone perceived as older. I'm 39 and have been called a boomer by a teen of about 14 or 15 yo. I guess it morphed into an insult for anyone older than 30 nowadays.
Its a mix of 4chan and reddit memes, plus deliberate attempts by bad actors to provoke intra-cultural conflict to shape consensus and rally people to respective voting blocks.
There are strains of truth there -- life ain't grand for the millennial crowd -- but it's more of a meme than anything, IMO.
Also rather incongruous on HN, since there is a much stronger mid-career / older crowd on HN, aka the Slashdot refugees.
There are strains of truth there -- life ain't grand for the millennial crowd -- but it's more of a meme than anything, IMO.
Also rather incongruous on HN, since there is a much stronger mid-career / older crowd on HN, aka the Slashdot refugees.
[flagged]
Ironic given how baby boomers used the slogan "don't trust anyone over 30" in the 60s.
What a bizarre sentiment. If you can barely afford it you should care more. Get a reliable make and model that there are a lot of so the parts are cheap. Also, I’m not a Boomer and I remember Yugos.
The only thing I know about the Yugo is that it was awful.
You're confused. The topic was generational bias over country of origin, not reliability.
The actual topic is reliability. Country-of-origin is a consideration in reliability. You can't just exclude the context of the original post.
You're trying to argue that "Boomers", which I took in good faith that you were not using as an epithet, are the only ones who would consider country-of-origin. That's, simply put, wrong.
You're trying to argue that "Boomers", which I took in good faith that you were not using as an epithet, are the only ones who would consider country-of-origin. That's, simply put, wrong.
> electric cars are relatively simple compared to combustion engine cars.
It's not really an advantage, though. Established makers have that same advantage, with the addition of having established dealer and service networks, established reputation, and so on.
He's about 10 years late to the EV party
It's not really an advantage, though. Established makers have that same advantage, with the addition of having established dealer and service networks, established reputation, and so on.
He's about 10 years late to the EV party
At least the cars look quite good https://www.vinfast.vn/themes/custom/vinfast/static/images/h...
There are 2.2 million+ Vietnamese Americans so maybe some of those will buy on principle.
There are 2.2 million+ Vietnamese Americans so maybe some of those will buy on principle.
I don't think the Vietnamese American will buy those cars.
They still think all successful business in Vietnam has some ties with the regime (which they hate a lot).
This business is even more problematic to them since the owner is a Northerner, he had started on Eastern Europe, and his father was a military officer.
They still think all successful business in Vietnam has some ties with the regime (which they hate a lot).
This business is even more problematic to them since the owner is a Northerner, he had started on Eastern Europe, and his father was a military officer.
The Vietnamese Americans I know came during the end of the Vietnam war. I don’t see them supporting a car company from that communist country.
Exactly. You’d be hard pressed to find a staunchest bunch of anti-communists out there.
+1
Know a lot of Vietnamese folks around the Washington DC area. Like the Cubans, most of the Vietnamese in the US are here because the NVA military cause them to flee. A lot of them vote Republican and probably aren't crazy about a former NVA officer selling them anything.
Know a lot of Vietnamese folks around the Washington DC area. Like the Cubans, most of the Vietnamese in the US are here because the NVA military cause them to flee. A lot of them vote Republican and probably aren't crazy about a former NVA officer selling them anything.
On the other hand the guy seems pretty capitalist.
Uh do they?
Right one looks a bit like an Alfa Romeo knock off to me. Not necessarily a bad thing ;)
Look its V for Vietnam.
Even if this fails spectacularly, if he really spends $2bn it could have an effect globally on increased demand/manufacturing, and lower prices in $ per kWh for good quality lithium ion batteries.
I may be wrong on this, but as I recall, Vietnam's domestic auto industry exists because they have escalating high tariffs on foreign manufactured cars with certain engine sizes (eg: 35% tariff on foreign made 4 cyl 1.6 L, 40% or more on 2.4L and larger engines, 50% tariff on things with 3.5 to 5L engines). Similar to China.
I may be wrong on this, but as I recall, Vietnam's domestic auto industry exists because they have escalating high tariffs on foreign manufactured cars with certain engine sizes (eg: 35% tariff on foreign made 4 cyl 1.6 L, 40% or more on 2.4L and larger engines, 50% tariff on things with 3.5 to 5L engines). Similar to China.
It isn't just the size of the engine, but also type of car. When you get into the lambo territory, it is 300% markup.
That said, there is so much insane wealth in Vietnam now, it doesn't matter. You see them all over Saigon.
(I've lived in Vietnam going on 4 years now)
That said, there is so much insane wealth in Vietnam now, it doesn't matter. You see them all over Saigon.
(I've lived in Vietnam going on 4 years now)
[deleted]
Currently EVs are not remotely price competitive with ICE cars. You can get a decent new ICE car for $15-20k. But even entry level EVs seem to be $35k+. Until new EVs reach the $20k price point, I do not anticipate them going mainstream. Perhaps a new entrant like VinFast will achieve this.
EVs may well get cheaper than ICE cars.
Battery capacity price in China is already below $100 per kwh.
EVs are simpler to engineer, have lesser parts, and supply chains for them are shorter.
At $5000-6000 per battery pack, the rest of the car will cost around $3000-4000 if you use super duper cheap Chinese steel.
More importantly, switch to electric will facilitate further physical downsizing of cars, and this will further increase the battery/payload mass ratio: EVs don't have to have engine compartment, nor structural tricks to contain heavy wobbly engine block, nor a need to provide a lot of rigidity for heavy mechanical components. A car with less "dead volumes" will of course be cheaper.
This way you may be getting 300km electric ranges even in reasonably cheap EVs in the future.
Battery capacity price in China is already below $100 per kwh.
EVs are simpler to engineer, have lesser parts, and supply chains for them are shorter.
At $5000-6000 per battery pack, the rest of the car will cost around $3000-4000 if you use super duper cheap Chinese steel.
More importantly, switch to electric will facilitate further physical downsizing of cars, and this will further increase the battery/payload mass ratio: EVs don't have to have engine compartment, nor structural tricks to contain heavy wobbly engine block, nor a need to provide a lot of rigidity for heavy mechanical components. A car with less "dead volumes" will of course be cheaper.
This way you may be getting 300km electric ranges even in reasonably cheap EVs in the future.
They may not quite be there on sticker price, but depending on the cost of power and gas, TCO is already solidly in the competitive range. People aren't buying just $15k cars, either - the Toyota Camry is the most popular model in the US, and it runs $25k-$35k new based on configured options.
By comparing to the Camry you're kind of supporting their point, though. The Camry is a mid-size gas car (by length), and its top trim is the same price as a bottom trim Model 3, a compact electric car. The accurate comparison would be to a Corolla, a compact ICE car whose top trim is about $28k.
In other words, current electric vehicles are about 2 price classes above equivalently positioned gas cars, maybe 1.5 price classes if you consider TCO.
In other words, current electric vehicles are about 2 price classes above equivalently positioned gas cars, maybe 1.5 price classes if you consider TCO.
Is there a reason why you're valuing performance at zero? 7.6 seconds 0-60 for that Camray, 8.0 for the Corolla. Surely some fraction of consumers care about that.
A new v6 camry will do 0-60 in 5.8, and once it gets going as much hp as a model 3. But no, most customers do not care about performance[0] otherwise trucks, SUVs, CUVs, etc. wouldn't be dominating American car sales.
[0]Sadly.
[0]Sadly.
Actually performance is exactly why SUVs came to dominate -- they're classified as trucks under CAFE which allows them to have worse fuel economy. Which allows them to have bigger engines.
That advantage mostly fell to hybrids and full electrics, because now you can make a fast car that satisfies the rules, but by that point the ship had already sailed and now people don't feel safe in a sporty little thing next to the neighbor's hausfrauenpanzer so now people want it to be fast and big.
That advantage mostly fell to hybrids and full electrics, because now you can make a fast car that satisfies the rules, but by that point the ship had already sailed and now people don't feel safe in a sporty little thing next to the neighbor's hausfrauenpanzer so now people want it to be fast and big.
I'm pretty sure that the minority of consumers who care about performance is much bigger than the % who are buying electric cars today. There's a lot more to the car market than the most popular thing.
The fraction who care about performance won’t be interested in a Camry or Corolla.
Some certainly do. But not in a basic or mid-level commuter car.
If I'm sitting in traffic 45 min, one way, on my way to work around DC or LA, what's a wicked good 0-60 going to get me?
If I'm sitting in traffic 45 min, one way, on my way to work around DC or LA, what's a wicked good 0-60 going to get me?
[deleted]
Average price of a new car in the US is ~$36,718. Some consumers are taking on 6,7,8 year auto loans to pay $50k-$80k for vehicles.
It is not necessary for EVs to reach the price point you mention for adoption to take off, considering much lower fuel costs (total cost ownership). I know someone putting almost 2500 miles/month on their Model S commuting. The math worked out immediately for them to dump their Chevy SUV.
It is not necessary for EVs to reach the price point you mention for adoption to take off, considering much lower fuel costs (total cost ownership). I know someone putting almost 2500 miles/month on their Model S commuting. The math worked out immediately for them to dump their Chevy SUV.
> Some consumers are taking on 6,7,8 year auto loans to pay $50k-$80k for vehicles
which is absolutely insane in my opinion, to have a shiny quickly depreciating status symbol. the amount of interest paid over the life of a 72-84 month loan is nuts. but people are short sighted and look at the monthly loan payment amount only. dealerships of course know this, and start naive people off in the negotiating with "how much do you want to pay a month?". they'll never show an amortization table.
which is absolutely insane in my opinion, to have a shiny quickly depreciating status symbol. the amount of interest paid over the life of a 72-84 month loan is nuts. but people are short sighted and look at the monthly loan payment amount only. dealerships of course know this, and start naive people off in the negotiating with "how much do you want to pay a month?". they'll never show an amortization table.
What's wrong with taking an 8 year loan for an asset that you will possess and use every day of those 8 years? As long as the interest rate is good (less than 4%, say) it sounds like a prudent decision that frees up cash flow.
A car is not an asset, but a liability. It doesn't generate money, it costs money.
If your 8-year-car is going to make you substantially more money than a cheap car that maybe doesn't require you to take a loan, you have a point. But since cars are about to go from A to B and the status symbol itself doesn't pay for anything, a cheaper car would do.
If your 8-year-car is going to make you substantially more money than a cheap car that maybe doesn't require you to take a loan, you have a point. But since cars are about to go from A to B and the status symbol itself doesn't pay for anything, a cheaper car would do.
Unless you consider the status utility worth paying for. Some people think it is. I think they're wrong, but who am I to say how they spend their money?
Why do people by expensive clothes that are no better than clothes a fraction of the cost?
Why do people by expensive clothes that are no better than clothes a fraction of the cost?
There’s evidence that people make decisions about others based on their clothing, even when directly informed not to during studies, so it appears there might be some utility in more expensive clothing.
The appearance of status might beget more status.
http://wws.princeton.edu/news-and-events/news/item/split-sec...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21751445
The appearance of status might beget more status.
http://wws.princeton.edu/news-and-events/news/item/split-sec...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21751445
I'm with you. I bought my first car last year and while I had moved some money into my checking account and even got a few checks for the first time for the down payment, they offered me 0 down with 2.9% interest which I took without hesitation. At that rate, they are barely beating inflation and I just moved my money back into vanguard ETFs.
Most of them won't keep the car for 8 years, they will roll the loan over in a couple of years for the newest shiny object.
No no, you’re right. I’m just demonstrating that $35k for a new car isn’t crazy, comparatively speaking.
Eh, I think I'll keep my old Ford. Costs me about $500/year in maintenance/repairs. No comprehensive insurance. Car tabs are cheap because the state considers it worthless. I never worry about parking it on the street / at the airport.
A legitimate path, but 17 million new cars are sold a year in the US alone.
I haven't bought a new car since 1987 :-)
What model car was that out of curiosity?
The problem with this strategy is that if you ever get in a crash, you're probably going to be dead. Newer cars are much, much safer than older cars.
The math already worked out for them to get a Camry. One without a massive powertrain component replacement looming after 10 years.
but they didn't want a camry. they wanted a tesla so that's what they got
Yeah, they also wanted a status symbol, so win win.
Why do we assume that they wanted a status symbol?
I know the person in my anecdote and their motivations. It might’ve not been clear from the thread, so my apologies.
With subsidies it’s possible to get new electric cars for $20k-25k: that’s how much a Nissan Leaf will end up being for me.
that's about the same price as a well equipped toyota prius or hyundai ioniq
the subsidies are all but gone now.
and with the current political climate in the US, I don't think they'll get revived for a while if ever.
and with the current political climate in the US, I don't think they'll get revived for a while if ever.
The subsidies are per-manufacturer, for the first 200k units sold. As of June, only Tesla and GM have hit the phase-out threshold. Everyone else still has the full $7.5k credit available.
https://evadoption.com/ev-sales/federal-ev-tax-credit-phase-...
https://evadoption.com/ev-sales/federal-ev-tax-credit-phase-...
It's interesting to see Tesla outselling every other manufacturer combined by so much…
What's "mainstream" even mean? I suspect you'll find that it's a circular reference, and that people who can afford a $35k car think that it's a mainstream purchase.
Fancy for them means 70k+ Euro imports
Even better if they can hit no-brainer prices for a second family car for local trips.
If anything, it seems like there are already too many automakers.
For various reason I believe FCA, Nissan, Mitsubishi and Ford are going to fail.
I can't imagine any upstart without any compelling unfair advantage/killer product is going to fair well in an imploding auto market.
If he started this endeavor 8-10 years ago, he'd have an advantage. Now nearly every car maker is either producing or on the verge of producing at least one EV model.
For various reason I believe FCA, Nissan, Mitsubishi and Ford are going to fail.
I can't imagine any upstart without any compelling unfair advantage/killer product is going to fair well in an imploding auto market.
If he started this endeavor 8-10 years ago, he'd have an advantage. Now nearly every car maker is either producing or on the verge of producing at least one EV model.
They are probably more likely to merge than outright fail, barring a bigger-than-normal recession.
Good riddance to FCA and Ford, though I honestly have a hard time seeing Ford fail completely given the success of their trucks in the US.
I'd be sad to see Nissan go.
I have no idea how Mitsubishi hangs on; they're just too small a player now. What they really should do is get out of the car business, and jump into the airliner business. The market is screaming for alternatives to Boeing and Airbus. Boeing has proven itself untrustworthy, and Airbus just doesn't have the production capacity to handle increased orders. On top of that, I'm sure ANA and JAL would love to buy domestically-made airliners if they could.
I'd be sad to see Nissan go.
I have no idea how Mitsubishi hangs on; they're just too small a player now. What they really should do is get out of the car business, and jump into the airliner business. The market is screaming for alternatives to Boeing and Airbus. Boeing has proven itself untrustworthy, and Airbus just doesn't have the production capacity to handle increased orders. On top of that, I'm sure ANA and JAL would love to buy domestically-made airliners if they could.
Swap Ford with GM and you're right on the money
I think you meant add GM.
Of course, the US may sail in and prop those two up. Kind of a "Too political to fail" type thing. But on their own, absent help like that, yeah, I don't really see how they make it without some sort of market event. Failure, fire sale merger, etc.
Of course, the US may sail in and prop those two up. Kind of a "Too political to fail" type thing. But on their own, absent help like that, yeah, I don't really see how they make it without some sort of market event. Failure, fire sale merger, etc.
>I can't imagine any upstart without any compelling unfair advantage/killer product is going to fair well
Vietnam doesn't really care too much about WTO rules, so they provide not only enormous resources to their firms through the back door, but also slap enormous tariffs on foreign auto dealers at the front door.
So yeah, what we may term unfair advantage, they call command capitalism.
Vietnam doesn't really care too much about WTO rules, so they provide not only enormous resources to their firms through the back door, but also slap enormous tariffs on foreign auto dealers at the front door.
So yeah, what we may term unfair advantage, they call command capitalism.
The timing could be better, but you have to understand, it's hard to find anything to do with massive wealth in Vietnam. You either start a car company or you blow it on black market Rhino horn for your hangovers.
Somewhat relevant:
>Bayerische Rundfunk reports that Ocean Lotus (also known as APT32), a hacking group associated with the government of Vietnam, has been detected in the networks of BMW and Hyundai. Engadget calls it cyberespionage.
>Bayerische Rundfunk reports that Ocean Lotus (also known as APT32), a hacking group associated with the government of Vietnam, has been detected in the networks of BMW and Hyundai. Engadget calls it cyberespionage.
What differentiates 1 electric car manufacturer from another? Superior driving dynamics? Superior ride? Superior batteries? Superior motors?
What differentiates one ICE car manufacturer from another? Already they're using the same basic engine design (and often the same engine) between brands. With ICE cars it comes down to aesthetics, passenger features, and marketing. No different than EV makers.
Interiors and reliability
All of the above? Plus a lot of other things like styling, interior, infotainment, soundscape and sound dampening, dealership/repair network, and so on...
There’s nothing magical about electric cars that takes away all the hard parts of building a car. Look at all the maintenance issues Teslas have with falcon wing doors and so on to see the potential issues that can turn customers away even on an electric car. Just because you have an electric motor instead of an engine doesn’t mean you don’t have all the other parts of a car to deal with and tweak.
There’s nothing magical about electric cars that takes away all the hard parts of building a car. Look at all the maintenance issues Teslas have with falcon wing doors and so on to see the potential issues that can turn customers away even on an electric car. Just because you have an electric motor instead of an engine doesn’t mean you don’t have all the other parts of a car to deal with and tweak.
Electric cars typically have 1% the moving parts of an internal combustion engine vehicle. If the chassis is built well, you just need to swap out the motor and battery as needed, and flush the coolant every 5 years. There's no belts, chains, pumps etc for the most part to maintain or replace. The model X is pretty complex but if you look at the model 3 it's just a bunch of plug and play parts like a PC.
You could pretty much say the same thing about an ICE car though - plug and play standardized parts, ever since the Model T. I’ve owned my ICE for almost a decade and never needed to service the engine other than routine oil and filter changes.
There’s plenty of room for differentiation between electric cars, even the ones that already exist are plenty different. (Just like my ICE vehicle is different from other ICEs in many, many ways besides the engine)
There’s plenty of room for differentiation between electric cars, even the ones that already exist are plenty different. (Just like my ICE vehicle is different from other ICEs in many, many ways besides the engine)
The Model 3 has this: https://jalopnik.com/the-tesla-model-3s-superbottle-easter-e...
That's astonishingly less than a car's cooling systems (radiator, A/C, oil pump, etc.) It'll be fun to see what other EV makers come up with.
That's astonishingly less than a car's cooling systems (radiator, A/C, oil pump, etc.) It'll be fun to see what other EV makers come up with.
The interior is too hard to swap out and it’s not worth it.
I guess it depends on if we are talking about enthusiasts or the average consumer? If we are talking about the average consumer I would assume in order of importance; Reliability, vehicle range, charging time, ride quality, available technology, interior quality.
For the average "enthusiasts" seen in the comments section of Car and Driver's facebook page it would be more along the lines of; 0 to 60mph time, nurburgring lap times, 0 to 100mph times, quarter mile times, looks. But for actual enthusiasts who have an interest in Electric Vehicles i would say all the things you mentioned are fairly important. But really, to the average consumer who purchases something like a Camry or Accord, I feel as if reliability/range/technology (by that i mean things like apple car play, lane assist, and other QoL technologies) and value are really what the average person is looking for.
For the average "enthusiasts" seen in the comments section of Car and Driver's facebook page it would be more along the lines of; 0 to 60mph time, nurburgring lap times, 0 to 100mph times, quarter mile times, looks. But for actual enthusiasts who have an interest in Electric Vehicles i would say all the things you mentioned are fairly important. But really, to the average consumer who purchases something like a Camry or Accord, I feel as if reliability/range/technology (by that i mean things like apple car play, lane assist, and other QoL technologies) and value are really what the average person is looking for.
> If we are talking about the average consumer I would assume in order of importance; Reliability, vehicle range, charging time, ride quality, available technology, interior quality.
You forgot the most important thing: price.
You forgot the most important thing: price.
You're paying for the support, trust, goodwill and culture of the brand and the particular product. PR is the conveyor belt/crafter of those ideas, it's up to how they treat you that matters.
And, if you have a problem with a new or used vehicle, call Steve Lehto, a hilarious Lemon Law lawyer I watch on YT.
https://www.youtube.com/SteveLehto
And, if you have a problem with a new or used vehicle, call Steve Lehto, a hilarious Lemon Law lawyer I watch on YT.
https://www.youtube.com/SteveLehto
The software.
I want to turn my car on over the internet from my phone and heat it up 15 min before I leave the office two blocks away. Then I want to put it in autopilot for the mind-numbing straightforward freeway traffic on my commute.
I don't care what other car manufacturers have to offer if they can't do the above. And as long as it's under $60k I don't care what the price is either.
I want to turn my car on over the internet from my phone and heat it up 15 min before I leave the office two blocks away. Then I want to put it in autopilot for the mind-numbing straightforward freeway traffic on my commute.
I don't care what other car manufacturers have to offer if they can't do the above. And as long as it's under $60k I don't care what the price is either.
You can try to figure out why the current market leader in various markets is preferred: Tesla (high end), Leaf (lower end non-China), and whoever is leading in China.
If you go by HN discussions, you'll quickly find out that Tesla makes terrible cars and has no special technology, so you might want to try a non-HN source of data :-D
If you go by HN discussions, you'll quickly find out that Tesla makes terrible cars and has no special technology, so you might want to try a non-HN source of data :-D
Safety, reliability, service, fit and finish, range.
Superior marketing
Meh, everyone knows how to do marketing. But differentiation itself is an important part of successful marketing in a crowded market. So the better answer may be, brands differentiate themselves in exterior and interior design and not much else.
I got to wonder how well these guys understand the us market. Low end us consumer are so deep underwater in their old car that you would need to buy them out to even allow them to switch brands.
I think if you are breaking into the car market at the low end you have to offer a total lifestyle package. Maybe a very long term lease with full maintenance program package or some other Mechanism that allows people that have no spare cash to continue operating a vehicle for a long time and build a reputation for reliability. That being said the low end is kind of a trap because you get stuck as a low end brand (Hyundai) and in the USA you need a dealer network but a low end dealer won’t be able to sell high end due to bad dealership environment.
I think if you are breaking into the car market at the low end you have to offer a total lifestyle package. Maybe a very long term lease with full maintenance program package or some other Mechanism that allows people that have no spare cash to continue operating a vehicle for a long time and build a reputation for reliability. That being said the low end is kind of a trap because you get stuck as a low end brand (Hyundai) and in the USA you need a dealer network but a low end dealer won’t be able to sell high end due to bad dealership environment.
US low end consumers lease 15 year old clunkers with GPS tracker from shadier one day late repossessing Buy here pay here outfits.
[deleted]
As a Vietnamese, if you care about the performance of the car. Think twice, maybe more.
1000 bucks. I will buy one
Vietnamese billionaire? I thought Vietnam was a communist country?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Vietnam
“Since the mid-1980s, through the Doi Moi reform period Vietnam has made a shift from a highly centralized command economy to a mixed economy that uses both directive and indicative planning through five-year plans.”
“Since the mid-1980s, through the Doi Moi reform period Vietnam has made a shift from a highly centralized command economy to a mixed economy that uses both directive and indicative planning through five-year plans.”
Just like Romania? Or Cuba?
Romania has moved over from communism to a crime centric country - the culture and everything is dominated by it, so the only “billionaires” are dodgy people with a shady past. Went from communism to kleptocracy, rather than democracy.
We have a new government, same German president, and most "powerful" politican is in prison
I know, i am from the country. Came back after years of living abroad only to find a big fat deception, a culture of crime and corruption, cheap nationalism, conspiracy theories in every aspect of life, pseudo sciences, incompetence at all levels and lame “pride”. Naturally there is a handful of great people but too few to make a difference. I for one cant wait to get out of here. Oh and that german president apparently has a criminal history of buying properties illegally (he apparently lost a case in this regard), but is better than the other candidate.
[deleted]
Well, I'd only say, what you know about communist isn't true anymore in Vietnam and China (I guess, in every communist countries in the world).
Vietnam has already shifted out of the communist styl e(goverment-managed-everything) since 1986 https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/vietnams-political-ec...
Vietnam has already shifted out of the communist styl e(goverment-managed-everything) since 1986 https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/vietnams-political-ec...
[deleted]
I’m a little curious about how that works
I’m sure you can take a look at China for examples.
Really it comes down to Big-C "Communist" vs little-c "communist". Soviet Russia was little-c "communist" in that you weren't allowed to make much money and if you made a lot you weren't allowed to spend it, so everyone had exactly the same things and quality of things.
More modern "communist" countries are Big-C Communist, more correctly titled Capitalist Authoritarianism. You can have as much of anything as you want, as long as you're loyal to the government and agree that the government can take everything you own any time they want. Including your business or your billions of dollars.
China has hundreds of billionaires even though they're "Communist" because they're not actually communist, they're Authoritarian Capitalist.
More modern "communist" countries are Big-C Communist, more correctly titled Capitalist Authoritarianism. You can have as much of anything as you want, as long as you're loyal to the government and agree that the government can take everything you own any time they want. Including your business or your billions of dollars.
China has hundreds of billionaires even though they're "Communist" because they're not actually communist, they're Authoritarian Capitalist.
They just use communism as a disguise. Under the hood, everything is capitalism. So is China.
I always view the so-called communism in China and Vietnam is a modernization of Confucianism.
I always view the so-called communism in China and Vietnam is a modernization of Confucianism.
It's pretty disappointing. The Vietnamese communist party defends the Doi Moi reforms as using capitalism controlled by the people's state as a phase to increase production in the economy. This is something understandable as socialism can't be built on an insufficient industrial base and capitalism provides individual incentives to jump start it and a door for foreign investment from capitalist countries. However, other leftists critique this as revisionist and a failure of existing Marxist-Leninist models* which do not appear to incorporate true worker control of the economy.
Once you introduce capitalism without proper checks on the bureaucracy, it takes on a life of its own as the newly created capitalist class begins to advocate for itself at the expense of the people and the bureaucrats begin to see themselves as the rightful heirs of private wealth. This is one analysis I read of what happened in China.
I'm not sure who to believe, but introducing elements of capitalism is on its face a dangerous move for the Vietnamese revolution. Honestly, I'm shocked that they've let it go so far they have a billionaire. I hope they have things actually under control because they fought and bled for decades to eject imperial influences from France and America and to ensure the people control their own fate.
I'm sure a politically active Vietnamese person would have a different take than me (and certainly a multitude of takes), given they understand their circumstances better than a dabbler foreigner like myself.
* I say existing because the Soviet Union briefly attained this, but the leadership shut down the workers councils (which many saw as a betrayal). So this idea isn't necessarily inimical to Marxism-Leninism, but in practice only a sparse number of examples have been realized.
Once you introduce capitalism without proper checks on the bureaucracy, it takes on a life of its own as the newly created capitalist class begins to advocate for itself at the expense of the people and the bureaucrats begin to see themselves as the rightful heirs of private wealth. This is one analysis I read of what happened in China.
I'm not sure who to believe, but introducing elements of capitalism is on its face a dangerous move for the Vietnamese revolution. Honestly, I'm shocked that they've let it go so far they have a billionaire. I hope they have things actually under control because they fought and bled for decades to eject imperial influences from France and America and to ensure the people control their own fate.
I'm sure a politically active Vietnamese person would have a different take than me (and certainly a multitude of takes), given they understand their circumstances better than a dabbler foreigner like myself.
* I say existing because the Soviet Union briefly attained this, but the leadership shut down the workers councils (which many saw as a betrayal). So this idea isn't necessarily inimical to Marxism-Leninism, but in practice only a sparse number of examples have been realized.
Wow, this is a $2B mistake. Funny thing about very wealthy people, they think because they had success in one area that it will translate to success in another. Most likely their timing and luck were perfect early in their career. I don't think timing is on his side here.
Those are the exact same comments as people had on Tesla roughly 8 years back. There even was a whole website dedicated on the Tesla 'death clock', predicting when they would go bankrupt.
Only time will tell.
Only time will tell.
Jury is still out in Tesla, I suspect they will still go BK at some point and that’s probably the best thing that could happen to the car imo. They could take the best stuff and shed some of the debt and musk issues
This guy is not an ordinary walthy people who think he can success in one area so he can translate it to another. He actually succeed in way a lot area before jumping to auto making. I can't predict the result of this move but I'd say, he not that type of wealthy people.
Vingroup is a classic Asian conglomerate that is already varyingly successful in half a dozen fields ranging from retail to real estate and hospitals. The key challenge is whether they can make money outside their home market of Vietnam.
First, it is good PR.
Second, the Vietnam government probably subsidizes the company for exporting, even they just claim to do so.
Second, the Vietnam government probably subsidizes the company for exporting, even they just claim to do so.
Communism at its best.
Mivina instant noodles were a staple food for me as a kid. It was a very Ukrainian brand to me. I was telling my Vietnamese friend about these glorious noodles, and she told me "You know that it literally means 'Noodles From Vietnam' in Vietnamese, right?".
Turns out, Mivina is a brand of Phạm Nhật Vượng's, which grew out of his (not too successful) restaurant.
He grew the Mivina business instead, and eventually sold it to Nestle for $150M - and then 10X'd that with a resort/real estate business in Vietnam.
A pity he didn't stay in Kharkiv, I say.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph%E1%BA%A1m_Nh%E1%BA%ADt_V%C6...