Volkswagen cheatd on diesel emissions, faces $ 18 billion fine

[Zanza]

If it doesn't work during normal driving, giving both the expected performance and fuel efficiency on the one hand and emissions that pass regulatory muster on the other, it doesn't work "as specified".

I expect this argument to be front and centre in the plethora of class actions being filed as we type. 

Expected and specified performance and fuel efficiency are not the same thing. Will be interesting if it can be shown they tricked their customers. The figures on the paper could all be true and they still disabled the system during driving to get a better experience for their customers. So the customers might have gotten more than they were entitled to as per specification.

[Zanza]

  I am not sure what you guys think what I do, but my employer certainly wouldn't give a fuck if I invested all my money into Volkswagen stock.

[Barrister]

I wonder if I should buy some VW stocks now.

Does your employer allow that or would it be conflict of interest?

Buying or selling stock in the opposition is rarely, if ever, a conflict of interest.

It's buying stock of your own company (or a company you have inside knowledge of) that causes problems.

[Malthus]

I wonder if I should buy some VW stocks now.

Does your employer allow that or would it be conflict of interest?

Buying or selling stock in the opposition is rarely, if ever, a conflict of interest.

It's buying stock of your own company (or a company you have inside knowledge of) that causes problems.

Not to mention shorting stock in companies where you happen to know of their internal legal troubles ...   

[alfred russel]

Buying or selling stock in the opposition is rarely, if ever, a conflict of interest.

It's buying stock of your own company (or a company you have inside knowledge of) that causes problems.

I've always been prohibited from holding stock in a competitor. 

There is a conflict of interest. Who wants their employees hoping the competition does well?

But there is also the risk of insider trading (or maybe just advantage): someone having inside information in Company A will likely know non public information that impacts Company B stock price. If whopper sales are having a blow out quarter, that probably means quarter pounder sales at McDonalds are too, absent any unusual promotions or news. Its why stock prices of companies are usually affected by earnings releases their competitors. Does that legally meet the threshold for insider trading? I don't know, but I can see why a company wouldn't want its employees getting rich that way, and then seeing that in the paper--most would consider it unethical.

[Pedrito]

Nobody noticed the almost perfect, although not voluntary, tribute to Tim in my OP: spelling error in the title, "wall of quote" and one-liner at the end.

BTW, I own a WV with a 2.0 Tdi diesel engine 

Does anyone else here own one of those engines?

L.

[Zanza]

I've always been prohibited from holding stock in a competitor. 

There is a conflict of interest. Who wants their employees hoping the competition does well?

In Germany, the small-scale consumer-level investments are irrelevant. It's only relevant if you have enough stock to have an influence on the business decisions of a competitor. As it happens, I will never own enough of Volkswagen to matter in their decision making. Especially considering that 88% of their stock isn't even free-floating but held by three big investors.

[dps]

Flashing the software of a car is done easily and cheaply. If that's all it takes for the recall, Volkswagen won't care much about this particular bit of their obligations. However what's in it for the owners? A free software downgrade of your engine? Why should you want that? To make your car worse and less valuable? 

The motive for the owners who are going to keep their cars is less clear, but not patching will kill the value of the car for resale, since it will likely be illegal to sell the car without the patch.

I'm dubious of this.  And even in jurisdictions where it might be the case, why not just wait until you're ready to sell the car to patch it?

[Malthus]

This is an unusual case - in most cases, recalls and the like are for products that will harm the consumer, not for products which, because of an intentional defect, the consumer will harm others (via the environment). Why should the consumer (who is presumably, en mass at least, a self-interested beast  ) bring their car in for "fixing"?

I suspect the answer will be "to collect the class action pay-out". That is, as class action settlements must be approved by the courts, who tend to at least attempt to take the moral high road (as do plaintiff side class action counsel - at least, in paying lip service  ), no doubt it will be a condition of any settlement that each car owner "patch" his or her car, to get their mitts on the settlement money.

[The Brain]

Will the cars be street legal without the fix?

[The Larch]

BTW, I own a WV with a 2.0 Tdi diesel engine 

Does anyone else here own one of those engines?

L.

I also own a VW Golf with a diesel engine, but I'll be damned if I remember the specifications. It has passed all the official tests in the last few years, including emissions tests, though.

[Hamilcar]

The tin foilers over at Zerohedge diagnose Volkswagen's problem: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-22/dear-volkswagen-was-your-biggest-mistake

[Syt]

If you guys own WVs you've been ripped off by the care salesman. Did he also sell MBWs?

[frunk]

If you guys own WVs you've been ripped off by the care salesman. Did he also sell MBWs?

Sold by car people for car people.

[The Larch]

If you guys own WVs you've been ripped off by the care salesman. Did he also sell MBWs?

The dealership I got mine from also sells Audis.