Who is the guy in the video? Now I understand some people don't want the factory to be privatized. But they really need to come up with solid arguments as to why it shouldn't be privatized. Currently all they are doing is using emotional arguments.
They question this moves with arguments such as: "what we supposedly aren't able to do, the Qatari's will be able to do?"
Arguments like this isn't a good argument at all and here is why. Tank palet fabrikasi is a company that already has the knowhow and machinery etc. In other words, the investors that would wish to buy this company don't have to even be in the sector for them to manage the company properly if they were to buy it.
In other words, for example if I had the money, even I could buy the company despite me not know a thing about it. All I have to be good at is knowing how to efficiently run a company/business, and hire the necessary people with the right know how, but in this case I wouldn't even have to do that, as they are already at the company.
And we see this all over the world, companies being bought up by investment and private equity firms and they actually perform better, or worse in some cases. But that is how business works.
The reason for to rent the company away for 20 years is because of efficiency and effectivity as it states in the resmigazete:
http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2018/12/20181220-2.pdf
Especially this part is important:
View attachment 529075
So what I would recommend the leadership at tank palet fabrikasi, is to actually come up with counter arguments to what is written here. Especially the 'yeni is/uretim imkanlari' part, if they can come up with an argument and roadmap for 'yeni is/uretim imkanlari', then they have a good counter-argument.
And how I personally feel about this privatization? I don't really care either way with a slight lean towards privatization, because I have a bias towards privatizing companies, even though both public and private have their own positives and negatives. But in either case it will be our company so I don't mind either way.
The Karasu factory is not cancelled, according to Ismail Demir, from an interview in october (it's on some one of the previous pages). BMC's Karasu plant isn't solely planned as a factory for tanks, it's also planned to build high speed trains (hizli tren, not yuksek hizli tren). So even if they find a different venue for developing tanks, they will still have to build the factory in Karasu in order to produce the trains.
SSB has the know how, and BMC will work in direction and command of SSB (Which was also the case with Otokar, btw).
Otokar and FNSS would've had the same problems when it comes to factory. No company in the world has free space just sitting there, that would mean inefficiency which means money loss. All these companies need to wait for confirmation in order to make a new factory, or otherwise free up space in their existing factories. And it wouldn't be wise to make large investments like that if the deal isn't finalized yet.
One could argue that Otokar has the space for tanks, as they developed the prototypes. But I don't know, developing prototypes require less space then full on serial production.
So?
The first 250 tanks are going to be a foreign engine, which was know from the very start of the project a decade ago.
You already know the answer as you already answered it, even though you don't agree with it.
But BMC deserves the benefit of the doubt, Why? The answer to this is simple. Just analyze the strategy and medium to long term goals of the company and you have your answer. BMC is in every tender and consistently offers the lowest offers in many of these tenders, they also expand into varying new sectors including engine development, tank development, trains, among others. Which suggests that they want to become a multi-faceted company, like a Hitachi or something.
BMC has adopted an aggressive strategy of expanding and are taking many risks as a company. Because expanding into various sectors and taking on many tenders, can pay out big, but is also highly risky. If it turns south, it could even bankrupt the company (risk istahi yuksek bir stratejisi var). Offering the lowest in tenders, means you have to be more efficient than your competition. Otherwise, even though you do more business then your competitors, your returns/margins are lower. Which doesn't help BMC, unless they are willing to take the hit for other reason like brand awareness, or gathering know how for the company if the know-how or some other reason.
FNSS and Otokar don't have an aggressive strategy or aren't going into different sectors. Otokar doesn't really have to as it's parent company is already in different sectors. And both Otokar and FNSS are doing business in foreign countries, so I understand if they aren't willing to take on a more aggressive approach, for now at least.
None of these strategies are wrong in any way. It's all about how much risk a company is willing to take and their short, medium and long term goals. So all these strategies that are adopted by these companies are good in their own right.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Goverment is holy and innocent as always
