Last week saw the long-awaited return of 'New GM' to the capital markets. As previously mentioned, the timing of its return and that of the drip-fed $600bn stimulus announcement appear - on the surface at least - to demonstrate the US government's willingness to partially stage-manage events to ensure that GM was – and will be implicitly well buoyed.
The post-Chapter 11 process of renewal has seemingly gone 'swimmingly': the speedy restructuring effort witnessing an (incredible $27bn) abolition of creditor rights, a re-alignment of UAW expectations to 'real-world' levels, capacity reduction to suit the peak to trough loss of 6m TIV units (thus profitable at 10.5m production), the shrinkage of the supplier roster to gain volume efficiencies, 4 legendary but poor performing brands/divisions either sold or moth-balled, inventory slashed, dealership numbers cut to promote local profitability, etc etc.
In short, the necessary formulaic strategic and operational business revision required across the board in North America, aspects of which should have taken place in an ordered controlled manner over the preceding years to provide an over-bloated inefficient company with the ability to right-size itself as macro-economic headwinds demanded.
The argument that it was purely the unexpected dramatic loss of sales and loss of access to wholesale credit that felled old GM is far too simplistic. [NB General Dynamic noted the need for US industrial change back in the early 1990s, and though the profitability of the 'SUV era' obviously post-poned the necessary re-structuring shock, the very basic premises of “Who Says Elephants Can't Dance” was always a very basic set-play template for old GM. One it chose to ignore].
However, “the past is another country” as they say – a phrase that is all too prosaic to the average American – and so GM has been re-born into what seems a very different place to that of 3, 5 or 10 years ago, where the US's ability to set the industrial global agenda has been diminished. Yet as a global company, GM obviously operates across all continents and nigh on all nations. Whilst it light-heatedly reports its dominant 85% market share of Kazakhstan's small market it does so to try and highlight its acceptance in EM, EM+ and developing nations; even though such individual successes maybe more accordant to US foreign-policy efforts.
This historical military-backed and capital-markets assisted 'soft-power' that helped GM's rise in the 20th century for nigh on 80 years. However the US is unarguably loosing its dominant grasp across the world as EM(+)(+) economic growth garners independent confidence and such nations use their own political positioning between the US and China for their own ends. Hence without that level of 'direct' previous politically aided dominance, GM will have to fight for its share of mind and market increasingly by its own efforts.
But perhaps not quite yet!
Since the renewed GM gains from additional political leverage in the short and mid-term. A combination of the recent $600bn US QE2 stimulus measure announced will continue to erode the US Dollar – even in the face of momentary reversals caused by volatility in other currencies; as seen with the Euro recently and possibly the S. Korean Won if cross-border hostilities continue.
This in turn of course buoys both US exports and continues the US$'s role as a carry-trade currency (given its near zero percent interest rate) which when 'recycled' in turn provides speculative uplift to the multi-material commodity trading market. Recent days have seen this uplift falter as 'risk-off' activity is swayed by Chinese slowdown concerns, and so provide an excuse for profit taking; but the fact that so many commodity types are both physically and derivatively traded in US$ (given regional $-pegs etc) suggests that the 'risk-on' mode will return.
The drip feed stimulus of course assists all US 'home-players' as they benefit from the $600bn powered expansion of wholesale credit markets for corporate use, and its feed-through into the retail credit market via both captive finance houses (ie Ford and Chrysler) and those 'associated' (ie GM with Ally).
This also provides the Detroit 3 (and GM especially) with global commodity purchasing power, able to counter-act the last few year's trend for primary and secondary sector players (typically miners and processors) to call the pricing shots based on then short-supply materials.
Thus the new Obama package allows the US domestics renewed credit vigour relative to their home market and a type of 'pincer movement' at both ends of the supply chain on the global stage. The aforementioned 'commodities grab', plus critically either the ability to enact a 'pricing-power' fight in ROW regions given the devalued US$, or maintain localised pricing and benefit from an tailwind of FX improved repatriated income from its ROW operations.
Thus GM (and Ford & Chrysler) have in reality little to complain about, whilst their international competitors (and international politicians) very probably see the implicit Washington interventionism for what it explicitly is!
Macro global dynamics demonstrate that the RoW EM regions are on a one-way upward trajectory and have been for a decade, so GM's task is to hold and ideally grow its individual nation market-shares in EM regions as their economies give a rising tide to all credible automotive manufacturers.
Thus, the IPO floatation was almost designed around the fact that all boats will be lifted by continued though slowed EM market growth. Its timing aligned to the stimulus announcement and drip-feed to provide a 'kick off the starting blocks'. This will be readily recognised by leading institutional & SWF investors, and investment-auto-motives believes, was a major reason as to why the natural demand-base of GM stock-buyers switched from being foreign 'long-range' funds and SWFs to primary demand stemming from domestic US institutionals.
[NB Saudi Arabia's 'Kingdom Holding' run by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal well recognising the impetus of Dollar mutuality between its own national resource base and GM's 'kick-start'; hence its $500m holding of GM, representing 1% of the new subscription].
Yet, ultimately important investors will want to see GM master is the ability to not just match, but beat the EM region TIV rise. Done so with competitive new product, hard-line UAW re-negotiations in 2011 (to which it should hopefully continueto accord), new levels of customer service provision etc; so that when combined with a new 'trim' business mentality it can offer rebuoyed global presence, good unit margins and so ideally leading mainstream producer ROIs. Thus an ability to not just out-muscle Detroit's Ford & Chrysler (as it has always done) but critically against the Japanese powerhouses suffering from Yen strength, and the South Korean brands still globally-bound by their high exportation levels. And importantly to try and be seen as a true competitor to Volkswagen given its pre-eminent position in China and South & Central America.
[NB as of 24.11.2010 VW PfD sits at around E119.00, whilst GM Co sits at $33.48. VW benefited from a rocketing ride over the last 12 months, up 108% in a sector that on average saw only a 27% rise. GM Co is up just 48c from its debut price last week, and as stated in previous posts is set to trade flat until the stimulus monies work through the capital markets and starts the GM price lift].
GM has to yet prove it's renewed 'global' ambition is not simply a 'rising all boats' default of inherited regional presence in China, Latin America, SE Asia and the Middle East. Efforts such as the new Cadillac city-car concept seen at the LA show (the Cadillac Urban Luxury Concept) typify the GM 'show-boating' that it has always under-taken on the PR front to present itself as a contemporary brand, but the reality is that presently in its home market it is not even represented in the top 5 of most popular models sold – coming in at number 6 with Malibu: destined to slide as it ages.
With so much expectation abound from the expanded range of stakeholders, new GM cannot let itself simply 'drift' on the back of: 1) the multi-aspect stimulus 'piggy-back' that exploits the supply chain and international markets, and 2) the fat of the EM+ lands.
Presented at $33.00 to the markets, GM Co must prove that it is worth its relative (pricing-metrics) 'super-valuation' to its obvious counter-part Ford and the myriad of other auto-sector players, old and new.
Almost poetically, the GM Co IPO was preceded by BitAuto.com, an NYSE listing of a Chinese-based on-line car dealer-price comparison site, and was followed by Aeroflex Holding Corp which deals in high-value micro-electronics systems. By virtue of their appearance, these two 'neighbours' serendipitously illustrate the importance of GM's own future ability for self-control: to both be master of its higher integral-value product design process, and its handle on what is still a very transparent and price malleable vehicle market-place.
GM has had its enforced 'weight-reduction' regime, and has had its 'push-off-the-blocks'; now it must show its corporate 'muscle-building' potential to all, but especially so those US and foreign entities who have financially backed the General, and by virtue assisted re-couperation of the US economy. The heart of the GM wealth-creation engine is seen throbbing, and the cogs of the financial transmission mechanism meshing, now it needs to prove its previous 'market torque' to show it has a truly bounce-back corporate rubber soul, since many heads of industry, finance and government are looking on after providing record assistance.
Showing posts with label General Motors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Motors. Show all posts
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Thursday, 4 November 2010
Micro Level Trends – American QE2 – How the Federal Reserve's 'Printing Presses' Appears to Underpin GM's Factory Presses
The effect of a continued fragile US economy on public sentiment were well demonstrated this week as the results of the mid-term elections lived-up to forecast expectation. The House and the Senate saw a large swing away from the Democrats toward Republicans on the back of public disillusionment and the outcome of prolific 'Tea Party' campaigning that has managed to give the Republicans a new lease of life.
To the overseas observer these US mid-terms will probably be remembered for the message-delivery method and manner which questioned the innate workings of the American political machine, albeit at a high level so as to convey core themes.
Yet the workings of the nation's political machine and the workings of the nation's economic machine are undoubtedly interwoven, the efforts of the Keynesian 'pump-prime' having saved the country from financial collapse in 2008, now seen to be lack-lustre in its mid-term potency, thereby questioning its impact on the longer-term outlook. The 'bail-out' of the US via QE1 came at a very hefty price, especially so in terms of (inter)national, federal and state debt levels. The incurred indebtedness now weighing very heavy on efforts to properly resuscitate the economic well-being.
Of course at its heart is economic philosophy, and attitude toward the fewer, and less powerful, fiscal and monetary tools left in the Fed's & Treasury's shared tool-box. The primary question for capital markets and the public at large as to whether yet another round of well warned prime-pumping via QE2 will actually provide enough effective benefit that feeds through beyond Wall St to Main St. This round of QE is of a different character, its size of $600bn, $100bn larger than previously expected, but drip-fed from mid 2011 in lots of approximately $75bn per month, depending upon conditions.
As a presentation of a QE approach this then looks sensible, but the broader question is whether in effect the new round of fiscal stimulus actually assists a proper re-orientation of the US economy or whether it maintains what could be argued as an over-valued 'false-floor' to the national economy; from QE1's frenzied liquidity feed to capital markets; especially toward those US corporations that are well exposed to Asian and South American income streams.
investment-auto-motives concurs with the Wall St Journal's 'Heard on the Street' column (2nd Nov), stating that much of the heavy lifting was done by QE1, so to what end QE2 if both equities and bond markets have already strengthened? The real concern is that QE2 has little ultimate trickle-down effect and inadvertently maintains the divide between Wall St and Main St, as the labour-force content of the country's cost-base grinds painfully through its necessary shrinkage, whilst the low cost of capital available makes for a bonanza period in corporate stock buy-backs and M&A activities; something investment-auto-motives expected to naturally occur even before QE2.
No critically observant markets follower has believed the “strong dollar” rhetoric, even after recent gains against the Euro and Pound, with the reality of a long-weakened US$ key to America's need to export its way out of the mire. As ASEAN and Mercosaur regions grew apace over the last year, so US exports ranging from agricultural equipment to specialist factory plant to pharma also benefited, but as the RoW slightly cooled so it seems the US authorities saw a need to re-involve themselves. Thus the Dollar's mid-week tumble immediately after the Fed's QE2 announcement only accords to expectation by both government, the markets and critically foreign investors who will either spy FX value-driven buys at stock and company level for the fundamentally strong, or seek to withdraw from what they view as an increasingly destabalised region, with preference going to still strong BRIC+ countries, safe-havens such as the Hong Kong exchange and expected rebound markets such as the UK.
Even given this apparent negativity, the intrinsic role and remit of QE2 may be far more than the broad exercise in re-assisting the economy presented. It may in effect have been designed to be a type of implicit buoyancy-aid specifically for those domestic and Canadian institutional investors who to date may have had little confidence in the mid-term traction of the re-born General Motors.
GM's general performance both at IPO launch and its critical short & mid-term stock trading dynamic is critical not only for the company itself, but the nation at large. Although a re-invented 'smoke-stack', given its broad up-stream and down-stream value-chain reaches across a myriad of spheres, GM will be seen as a bell-weather for the US economy
Thus for investment-auto-motives, the announcement of QE2 here and now, coming only a few weeks before the price-setting and availability of New GM stock – in its various guises of: new common stock, 3-for-1 exchanges and convertible preferred shares – is very telling indeed.
Perhaps it was well recognised that political and financial collateral damage could well be incurred from previously potentially higher IPO 'investment losses' to the Treasury, Canadian and Ontario Governments, the UAW and to Motors Liquidation Co holders/investors.
Instead the path ordained appears to see GM listed at the higher end of its $26-29 range with the almost implicit assumption that the month on month dispersion of latter-day liquidity will either prop-up any 6-month interim flailing, or otherwise help boost what have been 'flat' or slow-growth GM shares.
At a time when GM should be seen to fully let-go of its mother's apron strings, after 2 quarters of impressive results and the confidence to talk about the very real macro-headwinds it still faces, it seems that the 'Government Motors' nick-name - whilst slowly fading - may take another year or so to fully disappear.
To the overseas observer these US mid-terms will probably be remembered for the message-delivery method and manner which questioned the innate workings of the American political machine, albeit at a high level so as to convey core themes.
Yet the workings of the nation's political machine and the workings of the nation's economic machine are undoubtedly interwoven, the efforts of the Keynesian 'pump-prime' having saved the country from financial collapse in 2008, now seen to be lack-lustre in its mid-term potency, thereby questioning its impact on the longer-term outlook. The 'bail-out' of the US via QE1 came at a very hefty price, especially so in terms of (inter)national, federal and state debt levels. The incurred indebtedness now weighing very heavy on efforts to properly resuscitate the economic well-being.
Of course at its heart is economic philosophy, and attitude toward the fewer, and less powerful, fiscal and monetary tools left in the Fed's & Treasury's shared tool-box. The primary question for capital markets and the public at large as to whether yet another round of well warned prime-pumping via QE2 will actually provide enough effective benefit that feeds through beyond Wall St to Main St. This round of QE is of a different character, its size of $600bn, $100bn larger than previously expected, but drip-fed from mid 2011 in lots of approximately $75bn per month, depending upon conditions.
As a presentation of a QE approach this then looks sensible, but the broader question is whether in effect the new round of fiscal stimulus actually assists a proper re-orientation of the US economy or whether it maintains what could be argued as an over-valued 'false-floor' to the national economy; from QE1's frenzied liquidity feed to capital markets; especially toward those US corporations that are well exposed to Asian and South American income streams.
investment-auto-motives concurs with the Wall St Journal's 'Heard on the Street' column (2nd Nov), stating that much of the heavy lifting was done by QE1, so to what end QE2 if both equities and bond markets have already strengthened? The real concern is that QE2 has little ultimate trickle-down effect and inadvertently maintains the divide between Wall St and Main St, as the labour-force content of the country's cost-base grinds painfully through its necessary shrinkage, whilst the low cost of capital available makes for a bonanza period in corporate stock buy-backs and M&A activities; something investment-auto-motives expected to naturally occur even before QE2.
No critically observant markets follower has believed the “strong dollar” rhetoric, even after recent gains against the Euro and Pound, with the reality of a long-weakened US$ key to America's need to export its way out of the mire. As ASEAN and Mercosaur regions grew apace over the last year, so US exports ranging from agricultural equipment to specialist factory plant to pharma also benefited, but as the RoW slightly cooled so it seems the US authorities saw a need to re-involve themselves. Thus the Dollar's mid-week tumble immediately after the Fed's QE2 announcement only accords to expectation by both government, the markets and critically foreign investors who will either spy FX value-driven buys at stock and company level for the fundamentally strong, or seek to withdraw from what they view as an increasingly destabalised region, with preference going to still strong BRIC+ countries, safe-havens such as the Hong Kong exchange and expected rebound markets such as the UK.
Even given this apparent negativity, the intrinsic role and remit of QE2 may be far more than the broad exercise in re-assisting the economy presented. It may in effect have been designed to be a type of implicit buoyancy-aid specifically for those domestic and Canadian institutional investors who to date may have had little confidence in the mid-term traction of the re-born General Motors.
GM's general performance both at IPO launch and its critical short & mid-term stock trading dynamic is critical not only for the company itself, but the nation at large. Although a re-invented 'smoke-stack', given its broad up-stream and down-stream value-chain reaches across a myriad of spheres, GM will be seen as a bell-weather for the US economy
Thus for investment-auto-motives, the announcement of QE2 here and now, coming only a few weeks before the price-setting and availability of New GM stock – in its various guises of: new common stock, 3-for-1 exchanges and convertible preferred shares – is very telling indeed.
Perhaps it was well recognised that political and financial collateral damage could well be incurred from previously potentially higher IPO 'investment losses' to the Treasury, Canadian and Ontario Governments, the UAW and to Motors Liquidation Co holders/investors.
Instead the path ordained appears to see GM listed at the higher end of its $26-29 range with the almost implicit assumption that the month on month dispersion of latter-day liquidity will either prop-up any 6-month interim flailing, or otherwise help boost what have been 'flat' or slow-growth GM shares.
At a time when GM should be seen to fully let-go of its mother's apron strings, after 2 quarters of impressive results and the confidence to talk about the very real macro-headwinds it still faces, it seems that the 'Government Motors' nick-name - whilst slowly fading - may take another year or so to fully disappear.
Friday, 20 August 2010
Company Focus – GM – Investor Road-Show Prospecting with a Necessarily Low Key “Yippee IPO”
The North American operations of the new General Motors Company has experienced a remarkable ride over the last 12 months or so. Its $60bn+ financial life-line and a politically generated 'fast-track' Chapter 11 restructuring designed to provide it with a lease of new life; so as to play its part in the economic regeneration of the US, and end the domestic value-destruction drag within the company's global empire.
Undoubtedly a radically re-shaped entity. It saw 8 brands slashed to 4: banishing non-performing divisional marques and those out of kilter with prevailing social trends. It saw an essentially cannibalistic dealer-base much contracted*: re-setting showroom catchment areas and enabling pricing power. It saw product specification rationalisation: the resurgent days of “more combinations than stars in the universe” gone. It saw the number of preferred supplier numbers shrunken: to offer contract security in return for discounts driven by economies of scale. It saw product engineering rationalisation: as new vehicle programmes were determined 'global' instead of 'local'. It saw the UAW recognise the scale of the challenge, necessarily altering its historic left-ward stance to rightwards: the reality of the enormous GMNA challenge and government persuasion showing its need to be part of the solution, not the problem. It saw major national support: from the large Energy Department loans from the out-going Bush administration, to the unprecedented Quantitative Easing measures from President Obama, which not only provided the 'bail-out' monies but doubly support the company (and the sector) with”Cash for Clunkers”
[*NB allegations flying back and forth within public web forums that the dealer rationalisation programme was supposedly heavily influenced by the Dem vs Rep campaign donation choices of GM auto-dealers].
Never in the US auto-sector's history has so much change been seen. As a result of that drastic surgeory which spanned major liposuction, cardio-vascular re-routing and skeletal support, the organic element of the company is indisputably different.
However, akin to any over-weight, artery clogged, arthritic patient, the surgeory can only normalise the organic. As important, if not more so, is mental (ie cultural) re-orientation For three reasons: to avoid re-lapse into destructive old habits, to recognise the reality (ie 'new norm') of the surrounding environment (of the global automotive arena, and GMNA's objective place within it) and to set-out a health improvement regime which re-builds understanding, character and innate strength.
This was always was set to be the substantial post-apocalyptic challenge – and it has now arrived.
Yet after so much positive yet painful traction, enabled by 'text-book' actions and oiled by Washington, as the company nears the eve of its IPO – for an expected 20% disposal of the government stake – two events of a macro and micro nature, point to a behind the scenes reality at GM which is marring the bright future previously painted.
1.At the macro-level, the candid description of the all to real re-emerging macro-economic headwinds availing themselves, depicted in the Risks (ie caveat) section of the S-1 document submitted to the SEC yesterday as part of the IPO procedure.
2.At the micro-level, the very surprising departure of Chairman Ed Whitacre, having seen successful emergence from Chapter 11 and offered two quarters of seemingly successful financial results.
Although not privvy to an inside view of the restructuring, investment-auto-motives has long been cautious about the reality behind the all too typical necessary but potentially over-played corporate bravado. In short questioning “what the store really looks like behind the Wall Street directed window-dressing”?
The question that always beset New GM was “in what manner would it approach re-listing onto public capital markets”? Of course much was dependent upon the positive or negative dynamics of those markets themselves, setting the scene for relative economic confidence throughout the economy and especially so the institutional and mom & pop investor. That said, once the market sharply rebounded from its March 2009 low-point, the rapidity of that rise – holding steady after 6 months and sustained for 14 months - essentially set the scene for an early presentation of New GM.
Market dynamics fitted well with the government's need to claw back its 'investment' in the company and so, given the record breaking valuation and size of the eventual full listing, commissioned the full gamut of Wall Street's big name investment banks to both act as book-runners and under-writers.
But since the recent topping-out of western capital markets, thanks to corporate earnings driven by a mixture of tail-end cost-savings and inventory re-building, unsurprisingly the age of what seemed continued, unfettered, but foundationally unproven jubilation has been somewhat scuppered.
This has engendered a 'reality check' amongst both touting corporate executives and their agent bankers. It is a very necessary reaction which in the larger context should help prevent the bursting of a mini-bubble. And crucially at the corporate level instills a conservative atmosphere of reasoned valuation.
Thus GM's change of tack. From a 'full steam ahead' stance to something more cautious. The initial reported intention of an all-out offering of Washington's & Ontario's complete stake, so riding buoyant market sentiment as a switch play from what seemed a bond bubble, has altered dramatically in the cold light of recent market jitters. Equity buys have slowed for even proven 'risk-off' buys such as infrastructure, pharma and sections of consumer retail, so the market acceptance of a large scale GM offering – even a stretch in itself – would have consequently diminished.
This is the reality which GM wisely conveyed in its S-1 filing, that 'risk-off' sentiment detailed by the still lack-lustre recovery in the US, Europe's economic drag and perhaps most importantly the contraction of vehicle demand in China as the PRC seeks to re-align its own economy; given the slowed demand-pull from export regions which by default helps keep the Renminbi tracking slightly lower.
Thus GM's S-1 recognition of a concerning slowed phase in the global economy must be seen to be seen, with GM no doubt an understanding that with slowed Chinese domestic demand hitting commodity imports along with increasing world-wide food-stuff prices, that even rebuoyed South American car demand may suffer as well; so seeing demand deflation across the globe.
But what of Ed Whitacre's untimely departure?
It is unexpected given his stand-by-thee reputation build at AT&T. Of course it was well recognised that he was parachuted into GM specifically to lend gravitas to and managerially underpin the floatation process, that is seemingly his craft. Yet as insightful financial press editorials have stated: the job is far from done, even if the environmental market conditions have changed. As has been reported. the CEO's role has been handed from the charismatic long-serving Wagoner, to the accounts clinical Henderson, to the re-orchestrational Whitacre and now to the more entrepreneurially renowned Dan Akerson.
Most interestingly, Akerson holds an MD position as Buy-Out Head at the private equity firm Carlyle Group.
Ideally Whitacre would have kept to his word of (to paraphrase) “not going anywhere for sometime”, since this would have given a much needed stability to GM mid and senior tier management, who quite frankly must be continually bemuddled even as corporate confidence builds. But the appointment of Akerson highlights perhaps not only greater care to pitch GM properly to the market, but also allow it to fairly value and dispose of its remaining interests in the essentially defunct Motors Liquidation Corporation.
The 'old GM' company - still with creditors in toe - has the remit of off-loading what are essentially reams of 'rust-belt' properties and plant Such asset disposal is typically not the remit or capability of typical auto-executives, their focus better directed in running the active side of the business. So instead, who better than a knowledgeable, value-driven, and deal savvy private equity player to undertake the role?
Brown-field industrial plots here and now seem to be the last asset class on people's minds, but of course it will be Chinese, Indian and SE Asian firms, who whilst cash-rich and enjoying steady income streams will be on the look-out for western acquisition deals throughout North America and Europe. As a way-in to serve the still sizable GM across the range of different vehicles systems: from possibly the likes of TATA in body construction, Bharat Forge in powertrain and suspension castings, Geely affiliated companies in trim and interiors and other Chinese companies in electrical and electronic harnesses and 'black-box'.
Identifying 'fair-value' asset disposal prices will be key, as will a 'simple and clean' no-nonsense agreements to enable quick legal conveyance of the properties and plant. If not as successful as planned in selling to overseas buyers, GM may need to look at the possibility of passing on such redundant land to the government as a part of an equity return deal. This would assist both GM and the government in terms of re-apportioning soft and hard assets to their natural places, GM holding more of its own equity and the state holding more of its own terra firma, but for better mid-term confidence and an improved outcome for long-term national prosperity, the attraction of Eastern FDI cannot be understated.
On paper the production active side of GM's business model has been reset to reach breakeven at an annual market volume (TIV) of 10.5m, given a maintained and projected market-share of approximately 20%.
[NB. Maintaining that 20% will be key, as recent marketing campaigns such as the 5-year/100,000 mile vehicle warranty highlights. Yet the level of competition is still severe, as seen by Hyundai's 7-year warranty, the need for Toyota to reclaim its dominance, Honda, Nissan & Suzuki incursion, aswell as critically the North American growth ambition of VW, Ford's retained hold and the obvious return of Chrysler (and latterly FIAT) as market forces].
GM cannot simply rest on its laurels of a transformation job well done under Whitacre, nor can it expect the capital markets to accept that miraculously all is now well, nor can it expect a windfall from its MLC asset-disposals, nor can it expect the future helping hand of Washington.
As the year-end IPO deadline approaches GM must be seen to be more far more than it has been. It has by Chapter 11 default escaped its image of endemic irresponsibility and mis-management.
But now New GM must present itself to be far more than a possible case of 'fur coat and no knickers'. This viewpoint generated by recent issues such as: partnership with a sub-prime lender to support sales volumes (vis a vis Washington's expectations), concerns regards the proliferation of creditor-warranty and convertible bonds related 'class-B' shares, and the surprisingly large reported pensions drag carried-over: which could not be culled under Chapter 11 given the scale of GM's social legacy.
Yes, GM enters a new phase, one in which it will be undoubtedly tested, but as with any buyer of a car, let alone a car company, it will need to have been 'tried and tested', before fully convincing the capital markets.
Theoretically, having ridden the support wave over the last year,its present $32bn cash pile would allow it to prove itself without the need for immediate new capital injections. If all is truly stable, that would surely be the expectation from investors, and the acid test for GM. Thus avoiding the IPO as effectively an avenue to 'Lemon Aid'. Exactly how it conducts itself throughout this new period of 'stretch' of retracted consumer demand will be testament to its current and future capability.
Whilst Akerson is promoting divestment potential the fundamentals of the IPO's confidence relies upon operational acumen, and drafting a tenable payment schedule from its investment funds to meet its still weighty pensions obligations without having to 'bet the farm' on high risk choices.
These irredoubtable and crucial facts are recognised by the financial press, sector analysts on both side of the buy-sell deal and critically Washington itself. And no doubt by Akersen himself.
Having come so far, no matter how 'lady-like' its appearance, GM cannot afford to 'pull a fast one' on the markets, expecting a latter case of a rising tide lifting all boats. This IPO registration process is vitally important for the corporation and the country. Certain quarters of the press have already hinted that "Dan Akerson's number should be up", but we can only allow investor 'registration numbers' to tell the ultimate tale. Black versus Red labels are all to easy to affix before the event. Yes it may be a strenuous hill-climb yet, but that all important S-1 document at least highlights the bumps in the road ahead, even if the possibility of black-ice is not overtly mentioned.
So, from the basic operational and balance sheet out-look, investment-auto-motives is yet to be convinced of GM's fully-recovered return. But that declaration of horizon risk indicates an renewed atmosphere of prudence at GM which should be welcomed, even if investor breath must still be cautiously held whilst fully assessing the floatation worthiness of the GM vehicle itself.
Undoubtedly a radically re-shaped entity. It saw 8 brands slashed to 4: banishing non-performing divisional marques and those out of kilter with prevailing social trends. It saw an essentially cannibalistic dealer-base much contracted*: re-setting showroom catchment areas and enabling pricing power. It saw product specification rationalisation: the resurgent days of “more combinations than stars in the universe” gone. It saw the number of preferred supplier numbers shrunken: to offer contract security in return for discounts driven by economies of scale. It saw product engineering rationalisation: as new vehicle programmes were determined 'global' instead of 'local'. It saw the UAW recognise the scale of the challenge, necessarily altering its historic left-ward stance to rightwards: the reality of the enormous GMNA challenge and government persuasion showing its need to be part of the solution, not the problem. It saw major national support: from the large Energy Department loans from the out-going Bush administration, to the unprecedented Quantitative Easing measures from President Obama, which not only provided the 'bail-out' monies but doubly support the company (and the sector) with”Cash for Clunkers”
[*NB allegations flying back and forth within public web forums that the dealer rationalisation programme was supposedly heavily influenced by the Dem vs Rep campaign donation choices of GM auto-dealers].
Never in the US auto-sector's history has so much change been seen. As a result of that drastic surgeory which spanned major liposuction, cardio-vascular re-routing and skeletal support, the organic element of the company is indisputably different.
However, akin to any over-weight, artery clogged, arthritic patient, the surgeory can only normalise the organic. As important, if not more so, is mental (ie cultural) re-orientation For three reasons: to avoid re-lapse into destructive old habits, to recognise the reality (ie 'new norm') of the surrounding environment (of the global automotive arena, and GMNA's objective place within it) and to set-out a health improvement regime which re-builds understanding, character and innate strength.
This was always was set to be the substantial post-apocalyptic challenge – and it has now arrived.
Yet after so much positive yet painful traction, enabled by 'text-book' actions and oiled by Washington, as the company nears the eve of its IPO – for an expected 20% disposal of the government stake – two events of a macro and micro nature, point to a behind the scenes reality at GM which is marring the bright future previously painted.
1.At the macro-level, the candid description of the all to real re-emerging macro-economic headwinds availing themselves, depicted in the Risks (ie caveat) section of the S-1 document submitted to the SEC yesterday as part of the IPO procedure.
2.At the micro-level, the very surprising departure of Chairman Ed Whitacre, having seen successful emergence from Chapter 11 and offered two quarters of seemingly successful financial results.
Although not privvy to an inside view of the restructuring, investment-auto-motives has long been cautious about the reality behind the all too typical necessary but potentially over-played corporate bravado. In short questioning “what the store really looks like behind the Wall Street directed window-dressing”?
The question that always beset New GM was “in what manner would it approach re-listing onto public capital markets”? Of course much was dependent upon the positive or negative dynamics of those markets themselves, setting the scene for relative economic confidence throughout the economy and especially so the institutional and mom & pop investor. That said, once the market sharply rebounded from its March 2009 low-point, the rapidity of that rise – holding steady after 6 months and sustained for 14 months - essentially set the scene for an early presentation of New GM.
Market dynamics fitted well with the government's need to claw back its 'investment' in the company and so, given the record breaking valuation and size of the eventual full listing, commissioned the full gamut of Wall Street's big name investment banks to both act as book-runners and under-writers.
But since the recent topping-out of western capital markets, thanks to corporate earnings driven by a mixture of tail-end cost-savings and inventory re-building, unsurprisingly the age of what seemed continued, unfettered, but foundationally unproven jubilation has been somewhat scuppered.
This has engendered a 'reality check' amongst both touting corporate executives and their agent bankers. It is a very necessary reaction which in the larger context should help prevent the bursting of a mini-bubble. And crucially at the corporate level instills a conservative atmosphere of reasoned valuation.
Thus GM's change of tack. From a 'full steam ahead' stance to something more cautious. The initial reported intention of an all-out offering of Washington's & Ontario's complete stake, so riding buoyant market sentiment as a switch play from what seemed a bond bubble, has altered dramatically in the cold light of recent market jitters. Equity buys have slowed for even proven 'risk-off' buys such as infrastructure, pharma and sections of consumer retail, so the market acceptance of a large scale GM offering – even a stretch in itself – would have consequently diminished.
This is the reality which GM wisely conveyed in its S-1 filing, that 'risk-off' sentiment detailed by the still lack-lustre recovery in the US, Europe's economic drag and perhaps most importantly the contraction of vehicle demand in China as the PRC seeks to re-align its own economy; given the slowed demand-pull from export regions which by default helps keep the Renminbi tracking slightly lower.
Thus GM's S-1 recognition of a concerning slowed phase in the global economy must be seen to be seen, with GM no doubt an understanding that with slowed Chinese domestic demand hitting commodity imports along with increasing world-wide food-stuff prices, that even rebuoyed South American car demand may suffer as well; so seeing demand deflation across the globe.
But what of Ed Whitacre's untimely departure?
It is unexpected given his stand-by-thee reputation build at AT&T. Of course it was well recognised that he was parachuted into GM specifically to lend gravitas to and managerially underpin the floatation process, that is seemingly his craft. Yet as insightful financial press editorials have stated: the job is far from done, even if the environmental market conditions have changed. As has been reported. the CEO's role has been handed from the charismatic long-serving Wagoner, to the accounts clinical Henderson, to the re-orchestrational Whitacre and now to the more entrepreneurially renowned Dan Akerson.
Most interestingly, Akerson holds an MD position as Buy-Out Head at the private equity firm Carlyle Group.
Ideally Whitacre would have kept to his word of (to paraphrase) “not going anywhere for sometime”, since this would have given a much needed stability to GM mid and senior tier management, who quite frankly must be continually bemuddled even as corporate confidence builds. But the appointment of Akerson highlights perhaps not only greater care to pitch GM properly to the market, but also allow it to fairly value and dispose of its remaining interests in the essentially defunct Motors Liquidation Corporation.
The 'old GM' company - still with creditors in toe - has the remit of off-loading what are essentially reams of 'rust-belt' properties and plant Such asset disposal is typically not the remit or capability of typical auto-executives, their focus better directed in running the active side of the business. So instead, who better than a knowledgeable, value-driven, and deal savvy private equity player to undertake the role?
Brown-field industrial plots here and now seem to be the last asset class on people's minds, but of course it will be Chinese, Indian and SE Asian firms, who whilst cash-rich and enjoying steady income streams will be on the look-out for western acquisition deals throughout North America and Europe. As a way-in to serve the still sizable GM across the range of different vehicles systems: from possibly the likes of TATA in body construction, Bharat Forge in powertrain and suspension castings, Geely affiliated companies in trim and interiors and other Chinese companies in electrical and electronic harnesses and 'black-box'.
Identifying 'fair-value' asset disposal prices will be key, as will a 'simple and clean' no-nonsense agreements to enable quick legal conveyance of the properties and plant. If not as successful as planned in selling to overseas buyers, GM may need to look at the possibility of passing on such redundant land to the government as a part of an equity return deal. This would assist both GM and the government in terms of re-apportioning soft and hard assets to their natural places, GM holding more of its own equity and the state holding more of its own terra firma, but for better mid-term confidence and an improved outcome for long-term national prosperity, the attraction of Eastern FDI cannot be understated.
On paper the production active side of GM's business model has been reset to reach breakeven at an annual market volume (TIV) of 10.5m, given a maintained and projected market-share of approximately 20%.
[NB. Maintaining that 20% will be key, as recent marketing campaigns such as the 5-year/100,000 mile vehicle warranty highlights. Yet the level of competition is still severe, as seen by Hyundai's 7-year warranty, the need for Toyota to reclaim its dominance, Honda, Nissan & Suzuki incursion, aswell as critically the North American growth ambition of VW, Ford's retained hold and the obvious return of Chrysler (and latterly FIAT) as market forces].
GM cannot simply rest on its laurels of a transformation job well done under Whitacre, nor can it expect the capital markets to accept that miraculously all is now well, nor can it expect a windfall from its MLC asset-disposals, nor can it expect the future helping hand of Washington.
As the year-end IPO deadline approaches GM must be seen to be more far more than it has been. It has by Chapter 11 default escaped its image of endemic irresponsibility and mis-management.
But now New GM must present itself to be far more than a possible case of 'fur coat and no knickers'. This viewpoint generated by recent issues such as: partnership with a sub-prime lender to support sales volumes (vis a vis Washington's expectations), concerns regards the proliferation of creditor-warranty and convertible bonds related 'class-B' shares, and the surprisingly large reported pensions drag carried-over: which could not be culled under Chapter 11 given the scale of GM's social legacy.
Yes, GM enters a new phase, one in which it will be undoubtedly tested, but as with any buyer of a car, let alone a car company, it will need to have been 'tried and tested', before fully convincing the capital markets.
Theoretically, having ridden the support wave over the last year,its present $32bn cash pile would allow it to prove itself without the need for immediate new capital injections. If all is truly stable, that would surely be the expectation from investors, and the acid test for GM. Thus avoiding the IPO as effectively an avenue to 'Lemon Aid'. Exactly how it conducts itself throughout this new period of 'stretch' of retracted consumer demand will be testament to its current and future capability.
Whilst Akerson is promoting divestment potential the fundamentals of the IPO's confidence relies upon operational acumen, and drafting a tenable payment schedule from its investment funds to meet its still weighty pensions obligations without having to 'bet the farm' on high risk choices.
These irredoubtable and crucial facts are recognised by the financial press, sector analysts on both side of the buy-sell deal and critically Washington itself. And no doubt by Akersen himself.
Having come so far, no matter how 'lady-like' its appearance, GM cannot afford to 'pull a fast one' on the markets, expecting a latter case of a rising tide lifting all boats. This IPO registration process is vitally important for the corporation and the country. Certain quarters of the press have already hinted that "Dan Akerson's number should be up", but we can only allow investor 'registration numbers' to tell the ultimate tale. Black versus Red labels are all to easy to affix before the event. Yes it may be a strenuous hill-climb yet, but that all important S-1 document at least highlights the bumps in the road ahead, even if the possibility of black-ice is not overtly mentioned.
So, from the basic operational and balance sheet out-look, investment-auto-motives is yet to be convinced of GM's fully-recovered return. But that declaration of horizon risk indicates an renewed atmosphere of prudence at GM which should be welcomed, even if investor breath must still be cautiously held whilst fully assessing the floatation worthiness of the GM vehicle itself.
Saturday, 24 July 2010
Micro Level Trends - New GM & AmeriCredit – Scuppering Hard Won Investor Credibility.
Having given GM the benefit of the doubt, by ranking it higher than FIAT in the Western 8 company commentaries, investment-auto-motives revisits the New GM story given recent events.
Since its emergence from fast-track Chapter 11, the intention was that General Motors could demonstrate itself as a very different beast. Value-creation versus previous value destruction.
Yet a year on having enjoyed the clunkers stimulus mini-boom that saw it post first time promised profits, the enterprise's purchase of AmeriCredit – the finance company – for $3.5bn shows a return to its old ways of boosting sales volume via the attraction of sub-prime credit rated buyers.
Yes the cost is only one-tenth of its buoyant cash reserves, and it is the norm for an auto-player to exercise captive finance capabilities, and the ability to access ever wider-opening B2B and B2C credit windows would be typically expected of a large VM. But given New GM's position as the 'prodigal son' in what are still far from normal – indeed 'new norm' conditions – is it not scuppering its own supposed success story, even if the deal does provide avenues to Canadian and Lease markets?
There has been recent mention that only 4% of current US vehicle sales are to sub-prime buyers, no doubt reflecting the reality of 2008/9 when credit availability to all but the best rated was very limited. Yet there has also been industry rumour that even well positioned, nominally reputable Honda sells 21% of its vehicles in N.A to poorly rated customers. That press quoted figure may well have been relative prior to the credit-crunch.
Yet the mid-point of these two capital market condition extremes suggests that - as today - with easier flowing credit up to 15% of the vehicle market consists of less reputable customers.
[NB the recent up-tick in Harley Davidson sales will have been influenced by such amenable credit availability].
That said, just over an eighth of the TIV is a large slice, and something which would undoubtedly provide additional boost to The New General, but given that GM seeks to float by year-end it's P&L and Balance Sheet should be proving itself to investors. This done so without cash-flows and bottom lines being partially propped up by fringe sales which in the not so distant past have proven to be the thin end of a problematic wedge generated by negative feedback loops regards vehicle residual values. The production and inventory levels are seismically shifted downward, but the inadvertent process of 'pulling the rug from under itself' still stands up to scrutiny.
As the much publicised IPO deadline date approaches New GM will be trying every trick in the book to boost sales – including Ed Whitacre's efforts to have its NomAds and Book-Runners agree to purchase GM vehicles as part of their business terms. This is understandable as a demonstration of inter-company unity between client and service provider, and obviously provides higher profile ownership demographics for GM. But metaphorically scrapping the 'bottom of the barrel' so soon after 're-birth' might be judged by many an investor (institutional and individuals) as something to query if indeed that 15% is needed to provide demonstrable margin above the operating overhead.
The view might be that Washington is recouping part of its bail-out expenditure by in effect passing the still largely unproven auto-parcel to not only investors, but GM customers themselves who are literally buying back into the company with good faith under the belief that the old ways are gone and GM is part of the new American economic era.
Of course the counter-point argument to such tabled negativity is that given the recent poor H1 reporting fortunes of much of the financial sector, the ability to acquire a fully fledged, legally enabled captive finance house here and now is a good move. And in so much investment-auto-motives would not disagree. Presuming the avoidance of any double-dip recession, given the historical precedent and believing in slow but stable economic traction, then building-up renewed captive finance capabilities that extend customer reach and can be exploited to cross-sell vis a vis Alley (with its Bank status) undoubtedly makes complete sense.
But what must be clearly highlighted to the world at large, especially so in the IPO count-down, is the Q3 & Q4 sales mix by customer credit rating. At the very least to demonstrate that AmeriCredit truly 'only' truly represents that reported fringe 4%. Only by doing so and convincingly demonstrating that sub-prime accounts for a very small percentage of financing deals will New GM maintain any form of very necessary credibility.
But in the desire to exploit the new captive finance ability the temptation to super-charge sales through massaged deals may prove very tempting. Especially so if it can prompt poor rated buyers to use Ally (itself under pressure to lend) for access to smaller sized upfront deposit sums for AmeriCredit. In effect on the books of the 2 companies themselves, cross-balancing the vehicle purchase deal; akin to an accumulator.
But, at the broader level, investment-auto-motives poses the question that begs “ to what extent has the AmeriCredit purchase been politically generated?” - given that it only provides a supposed 4% sales boost.
This period of renewed US economic unease would undoubtedly be exacerbated if the folks on Main Street were to retract even the limited current spend behavior which is keeping the economy ticking over; albeit at a much reduced rate. The feel good factor is all important, and it is well known that during times of economic strain it is the far more positively elastic consumptive patterns of society's lower ranks that maintains the consumptive flow. Where the middle-classes pull in their horns, others with less of a responsible stake-holder mentality seize the moment: as demonstrated by a portion of 'cash for clunkers' beneficiaries.
Thus could the AmeriCredit purchase by GM – which the name in itself smacks of the country's (delusional) liquidity well-being – have been fully condoned by Washington? Or even prompted by it, given its (and Canada's) desire to monetise and partially exit their combined 72% equity hold in New GM?
It all my look good in the short-term for GM, AmeriCredit, (Ally) and Washington D.C., but is there not a danger that instead it will be consumers and business that are left 'holding a possibly crying baby' in the short to medium term?
In which case, the desperate desire to re-inflate the economy on sound principles, stays little more than circular rhetoric. Investors – that bedrock of the economy – need convincing, and so in this case there must be a reversal of the old GM adage.
Today, what is good for the American economy must set the precedent for the ongoing transformation of New GM (as seen with www.gmreinvention.com). Not to recognise this truism and the measures required that underpin it would be a disservice to investors, the company and public alike.
Since its emergence from fast-track Chapter 11, the intention was that General Motors could demonstrate itself as a very different beast. Value-creation versus previous value destruction.
Yet a year on having enjoyed the clunkers stimulus mini-boom that saw it post first time promised profits, the enterprise's purchase of AmeriCredit – the finance company – for $3.5bn shows a return to its old ways of boosting sales volume via the attraction of sub-prime credit rated buyers.
Yes the cost is only one-tenth of its buoyant cash reserves, and it is the norm for an auto-player to exercise captive finance capabilities, and the ability to access ever wider-opening B2B and B2C credit windows would be typically expected of a large VM. But given New GM's position as the 'prodigal son' in what are still far from normal – indeed 'new norm' conditions – is it not scuppering its own supposed success story, even if the deal does provide avenues to Canadian and Lease markets?
There has been recent mention that only 4% of current US vehicle sales are to sub-prime buyers, no doubt reflecting the reality of 2008/9 when credit availability to all but the best rated was very limited. Yet there has also been industry rumour that even well positioned, nominally reputable Honda sells 21% of its vehicles in N.A to poorly rated customers. That press quoted figure may well have been relative prior to the credit-crunch.
Yet the mid-point of these two capital market condition extremes suggests that - as today - with easier flowing credit up to 15% of the vehicle market consists of less reputable customers.
[NB the recent up-tick in Harley Davidson sales will have been influenced by such amenable credit availability].
That said, just over an eighth of the TIV is a large slice, and something which would undoubtedly provide additional boost to The New General, but given that GM seeks to float by year-end it's P&L and Balance Sheet should be proving itself to investors. This done so without cash-flows and bottom lines being partially propped up by fringe sales which in the not so distant past have proven to be the thin end of a problematic wedge generated by negative feedback loops regards vehicle residual values. The production and inventory levels are seismically shifted downward, but the inadvertent process of 'pulling the rug from under itself' still stands up to scrutiny.
As the much publicised IPO deadline date approaches New GM will be trying every trick in the book to boost sales – including Ed Whitacre's efforts to have its NomAds and Book-Runners agree to purchase GM vehicles as part of their business terms. This is understandable as a demonstration of inter-company unity between client and service provider, and obviously provides higher profile ownership demographics for GM. But metaphorically scrapping the 'bottom of the barrel' so soon after 're-birth' might be judged by many an investor (institutional and individuals) as something to query if indeed that 15% is needed to provide demonstrable margin above the operating overhead.
The view might be that Washington is recouping part of its bail-out expenditure by in effect passing the still largely unproven auto-parcel to not only investors, but GM customers themselves who are literally buying back into the company with good faith under the belief that the old ways are gone and GM is part of the new American economic era.
Of course the counter-point argument to such tabled negativity is that given the recent poor H1 reporting fortunes of much of the financial sector, the ability to acquire a fully fledged, legally enabled captive finance house here and now is a good move. And in so much investment-auto-motives would not disagree. Presuming the avoidance of any double-dip recession, given the historical precedent and believing in slow but stable economic traction, then building-up renewed captive finance capabilities that extend customer reach and can be exploited to cross-sell vis a vis Alley (with its Bank status) undoubtedly makes complete sense.
But what must be clearly highlighted to the world at large, especially so in the IPO count-down, is the Q3 & Q4 sales mix by customer credit rating. At the very least to demonstrate that AmeriCredit truly 'only' truly represents that reported fringe 4%. Only by doing so and convincingly demonstrating that sub-prime accounts for a very small percentage of financing deals will New GM maintain any form of very necessary credibility.
But in the desire to exploit the new captive finance ability the temptation to super-charge sales through massaged deals may prove very tempting. Especially so if it can prompt poor rated buyers to use Ally (itself under pressure to lend) for access to smaller sized upfront deposit sums for AmeriCredit. In effect on the books of the 2 companies themselves, cross-balancing the vehicle purchase deal; akin to an accumulator.
But, at the broader level, investment-auto-motives poses the question that begs “ to what extent has the AmeriCredit purchase been politically generated?” - given that it only provides a supposed 4% sales boost.
This period of renewed US economic unease would undoubtedly be exacerbated if the folks on Main Street were to retract even the limited current spend behavior which is keeping the economy ticking over; albeit at a much reduced rate. The feel good factor is all important, and it is well known that during times of economic strain it is the far more positively elastic consumptive patterns of society's lower ranks that maintains the consumptive flow. Where the middle-classes pull in their horns, others with less of a responsible stake-holder mentality seize the moment: as demonstrated by a portion of 'cash for clunkers' beneficiaries.
Thus could the AmeriCredit purchase by GM – which the name in itself smacks of the country's (delusional) liquidity well-being – have been fully condoned by Washington? Or even prompted by it, given its (and Canada's) desire to monetise and partially exit their combined 72% equity hold in New GM?
It all my look good in the short-term for GM, AmeriCredit, (Ally) and Washington D.C., but is there not a danger that instead it will be consumers and business that are left 'holding a possibly crying baby' in the short to medium term?
In which case, the desperate desire to re-inflate the economy on sound principles, stays little more than circular rhetoric. Investors – that bedrock of the economy – need convincing, and so in this case there must be a reversal of the old GM adage.
Today, what is good for the American economy must set the precedent for the ongoing transformation of New GM (as seen with www.gmreinvention.com). Not to recognise this truism and the measures required that underpin it would be a disservice to investors, the company and public alike.
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Companies Focus – The Western 8 - General Motors Co LLC : IPO Dressing with 'The General's New Clothes'? Given the Benefit of the Doubt.
Having previously reviewed the 4 western auto companies that are 'in shape' to better face the near and mid terms (ie 'in the light' as depicted by the accompanying graphic) investment-auto-motives continues to survey the remaining 4, arguably less well positioned. In a renewed yet hopefully temporary time of new angst, industrial structure, regional market reliance, political attitudes, credit tightening and a more cautious consumer all add headwinds to the fortunes of large EU centric players.
Thus positioned incrementally 'in the twilight' are typically those that whilst enjoying boosted sales from 2009's governmental stimulus spending, must now face a new round of partial re-structuring to create more efficient, powerful and cost vs income relative: R&D initiatives, product development procedures, supply chain linkages, manufacturing bases, marketing platforms, retail channels, and of course pertinent product.
Relieved of many of its legacy problems after Chapter 11 re-birth, New GM sits in the shadows of an independent Ford, yet theoretically ahead of Chrysler. Whilst all 3 have either directly shown or announce from internal accounting methods a Q1 profitability, given the lack of true transparency regards GM and Chrysler relative to their 'umbrella protection' by Washington and FIAT respectively, the investment community will obviously be trying to assess both's true bottom-line contribution beyond the PR rhetoric.
New GM, now devoid of the 'bad baggage' hived into Motors Liquidation Co, faces the world with optimism citing its renewed product range, renewed North American customer attraction, Chinese market history/penetration and the renewed efforts of global reach and value-car pertinence of its Chevrolet brand.
Thus GM once again seemingly prides itself on what it sees as a largely right-sized, globally relevant, re-invigorated US multi-national, with a business model designed to muster both region-specific relevance and the ability for inter-regional demand off-setting. This was always the historical intent set out by Alfred P Sloane in another age. Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the $65bn state aid package provided the catch-all to initiate contraction of GMNA's operational obesity, protecting NA jobs at more competitive labour rates and re-balancing the worldwide business platform from which it could seize the EM high-growth opportunity and re-orientate itself to new Triad market product demand trends.
' Flight of the Phoenix' is the obvious cinematic metaphor - a semantic sub-text used by the IR team through the inclusion of 'phx' at the beginning of the web address for the Q1 presentation. Thus New GM is a new lightweight corporate structure created from the broken old, but in the film the newly created vehicle performed an impressive but short lives hop skip and jump to the nearest oasis. That cannot be the case for GM, none should see the intended IPO as the final stop oasis, even if it be a destination of choice for Washington and perhaps certain executives.
Instead it must credibly demonstrate that IPO is simply an enabling milestone towards a tenable future, and not a finish line unto its own ends given parental pressures to redress the balance of the the US national debt. The parental governmental protection is ideally given to both act as a safety net and offer enough guidance over the appropriate time-frame to ensure the entities long-term contribution to shareholders, employees and society at large.
[NB the recent UAW convention (miraculously) indicates that union leaders and staff see GM as healthy, a new era of union-building and demand-setting will begin, ahead of the 2011 contract talks. This seeming militancy can only be damaging to NA's operational flexibility and cost-bases, and so employee's futures].
Q1 2010 Performance -
Growing global car demand from Q309 to Q1 2010 saw an increase in GM's global deliveries reaching 1,998,000 units from 1,972,000 units two quarters earlier, but market share if the TIV slipped to 11.2% from 11.8%. (Likewise across the three quarters GMNA deliveries slipped to 563,000 in Q1 2010 from 690,000 in Q309, a 37,000 drop in core brand vehicles of Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac & GMC, whilst the run-out brands of Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer & SAAB slipped from 102,000 to 12,000 over the period, so helping to decrease over-capacity issues).
Having risen impressively from Q309 to Q409, the Group's Q1 Net Revenue (via GAAP) remained nonetheless strong in Q1 2010 at $31.5bn, which was $800m down on the previous peak quarter. Q1 Operating Income climbed out of the red, reaching $1.2bn, allotting $0.9bn to primarily government stockholders, rated at $1.66 per share.
GMNA market share peaked in Q409 at 19.3%, with at a similar Q4 high of 20.2% for US market share, the 4 core brands representing 18.6%. But Q1 2010 saw a respective slip to 17.8% GMNA share and 18.1 regards the core brand market share. However, incentive sums steadily reduced in Q1 from $3,150 per unit in January to $2,800 by March – before unfortunately climbing above $3,000 in April. Across the year, only in March 2010 did GM managed to fractionally beat the industry average incentivisation package figure, the general monthly figures showing extreme volatility/reactivity which no doubt reflect the end-of-month 'shift deals' undoing the pricing stability achieved previously. And now with the incentives cost creeping back upwards it looks like that March was an historic anomaly. Q1 GMNA Net Revenue increased over the last three quarters thanks seemingly largely to speedy QoQ dealer inventory reduction and re-stocking, reaching $19.3bn from Q4's $18.3bn and Q3's $14.6bn. Through the effects of lesser sales volume with improved unit margins and gained re-structure cost savings this fed through to a GMNA Q1 EBIT of $1.2bn, having seen losses of $-3.4bn and $-1.4bn in the preceding quarters.
GME market share has generally eroded since the slow-down and stoppage of EU government led eco-product credit availability, yet it did picked-up in Q1 thanks to the new compact product launch of Astra, basic EU share latterly at 8.5%. share slides in Germany of 1.2% over 6 months doesn't bode well, probably as a result of GME's begging bowl requests, but a return to nearly 12% in the UK looks promising. The only problem investment-auto-motives envisages is the credit-worthiness (and so future default possibility) of some of its sales base demographic, many purchasers often state employed by a contracting government or equally prone in government affiliated private sector employment. However, Q1 EU deliveries were up 405,000 nearly touching the Q309 high of 409,000 thanks largely to what was an eased retail credit environment. GME Net Revenue fell for the third quarter, reaching $5.5bn, this possibly due to reliance on what could have been limited vehicle availability of the severely contracted previous quarter production. [NB to provide a better picture GM should set Q1 EBIT against Q4 production figures, not Q1 production figures to provide a more relevant cross-comparison of the actual cars produced/sold and accordant revenue].
However, the massive Q2 ramp-up of 90,000 additional units should cure availability issues, and boost Q2 revenues, as long as demand meets supply. Overall Q1 EBIT was negative at $-0.5bn, though improved upon Q409's $-0.8 and apparently heading back toward's Q309's breakeven.
GMIO (International Ops) markedly grew Q1 deliveries in the rest of the world, primarily due to China's rise to 623,000 units from 478,000 units six months previously; whilst remaining Asia-Pacific, Latin America and African sales effectively staid flat at 395k / 403k / 407K units over the preceding 6 months. Market share in China and Brazil staid flat over preceding quarters even if sales were lifted by the 'rising tide', with India showing market share improvement at 4.2% from 3.1% half year earlier, this thanks to its well positioned broad line-up of small, compact and 'high-ride' Chevrolet vehicles. However the additional sales to maintain market share come at the cost of Net Revenue, GMIO down to $8.1bn from Q409's $9.1bn, that quarter's income boosted by China's temporary reduction on small car purchase taxation. However EBIT continued to grow impressively reaching $1.2bn in Q1(of which $0.4bn was equity driven) from $0.7bn and $0.5bn in previous quarters.
Strategic -
Although obviously under the GM conglomerate umbrella, since early 2009 management has tried to perception ally distance its marques from the parent so that they might be divorced from any immediate cross-contamination. Yet in truth, especially for non NA public, the parent and off-spring brands are synonymous.
However, whilst efforts are made to keep North American momentum and China, Asia-Pacific and Latin American regions happily 'bubble', the real operational issue is of course GM Europe. Namely, the manner by which the RenCen can gain additional free/low-cost funding and other corporate benefits from its European host nations, specifically from Germany for Opel, as part of its $3.7bn regional restructure.
[NB investment-auto-motives was always a keen proponent of Opel/Vauxhall's partial or possibly full divestment of its manufacturing base within the GM empire. Then ideally freed from present obligations and hyper-competition, and put under a strict business rational by co-owners or new owners. So as to create a globally cost-competitive, large contract manufacturing base that could serve EU clients such as the remaining commercial shell of New GM Europe, and others including Daimler, FIAT, Renault etc; a model more adept for Europe's new seemingly long-term sales ceiling. This done to create a world class, technology led and well funded B/C-segment industrial base, thereby introducing the much needed horizontal supply model, as opposed to the vertical supply model of the 20th century industrial archetype which still is being run, resuscitated, and run today; as we see with GM].
It is the remit of he GM Board to maximise its cost-benefit of all its divisions, in GME's case by way of externally lenient short-term funding arrangements for what it sees as the precious technical centre of the empire. GM recognises that maintaining its A, B & C-segment technology contacts with Germany's supplier-base is critical to access world class engineering R&D and integration . Hence its attitudinal turnabout regards Opel's release at a time when across the EU injections of sizable state aid were being offered. However, economic and political times move quickly, and Nick Reilly (head of GM Europe) will have known that the receipt of the previous bridging loan guarantee (made largely available to keep the CDU party in power given voter attitudes to Opel), would in all probability not be followed up by any further central funding guarantee of the E1.1bn requested as part of GME's $3.7bn re-structuring plan. Now instead relying on the German provinces to offer 25% of the sum and presumably negotiating the remaining E825m value by way of additional fiscal benefits.
Of course since provision of the bridging loan, another high impact event has come to pass - the European Debt Crisis came into being and keeps rumbling even after the E750m backstop. Its demands spot-light all EU governments' debt levels and constrain future 'savior' expenditure. Now that financial back-stops must be put in place to save the Eurozone from shattering, industry – especially if owned by supposedly 'back on track' companies – has a comparatively empty case.
Reilly and the Board must now be considering what options are left regards the possibility of a self-sustaining GM Europe, something that must take a very different guise if it is not to fall back into the old ways of being internally supported by GM's more profitable NA & EM divisions.
One probable preferential option may be to formulate a deal similar to the NA turnaround model, by way convincing the unions that the conversion of pension debt into equity and so working capital is a good solution for all stakeholders. Alternatively re-visit past suitors as co-owners. Thus to Marchionne's satisfaction re-negotiate the tabled deal with FIAT....or possibly a rekindled deal with Magna International (given the Canadian company's acquisition of certain ex-GM US assets)....or one that sees an extended GM-Avtovaz Russian relationship (in accordance with Merkel's German-Ruso philosophy but a bitter pill for Washington). A PE re-emergence from the likes of RHJ International now seems slim given such tight liquidity access and desire for short-term exit horizons. Singularly, combined or including other new party interests, the ownership and operational shape of a future Opel/Vauxhall remains to be seen – but it must alter to suit the 'new norm' if it is to prosper.
Lastly a topic that sits on the side-lines and is still of curiosity to investors. The devolved 'toxic' side of the old company, Motors Liquidation Co sits quietly in the shadows; its stock being traded over the counter with pink slips that portends reminiscence of the bygone 1920s era which echoes the origins of MLC's asset base of tracts of real estate. Beyond the physical assets which are presently split between mid-valued plant and low-valued ground, interim managers endeavor to seek buyers for the corralled brands of: Pontiac, Saturn & SAAB. As well reported, SAAB has been sold to Spyker Cars and its owners, itself forming SAAB-Spyker Automobiles. Saturn has been destined to to be sold to Roger Penske, but negotiating hurdles emerged regards product supply and dealer contracts. Pontiac, like HUMMER, remains effectively dormant.
[NB HUMMER was not transferred to MLC, retained by GM, and is now 'retired' given the previously failed acquisition agreement by China's Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co, due to disapproval by the PRC's Ministry of Commerce. Allied and other PE interests emerged from Western China via and the US, but issues of credibility and credit access from the buyer perspective and GM's use of valuable executive resource on increasingly marginal prospects scuppered deal momentum ].
Operational -
GM must be concerned that the the tail-off of CARS (with no CARS 2 forthcoming) may mean a consequential drop-off in sales, especially as the econometric indicators of non-farm payroll and productivity reports, and EU contagion fears, highlight the still fragile state of the US nation.
As Automotive News reports, May sales saw GM's market share drop by 0.4% whilst its per unit sales incentives cost it an additional $61. This contrasts the respective incremental gains by Nissan, Ford, Hyundai-Kia and even Chrysler at 0.3%, 0.4%, 0.5% and 1% respectively, with reduced incentives costs.
In the shadow of reduced sales impetus, renewed focus is being put onto input costs, especially in vehicle systems areas where cost can be more easily abated. With steel contract prices re-set at high levels (+30% or so) after the recent round of iron ore miner vs steel processor talks, it was inevitable that automakers targeted non-engineering critical plastic components as the area to make cost savings. Maintaining showroom activity is of course corrolaristic to pursuing profits. Thus it came of little surprise to investment-auto-motives when - as part of all manufacturer's efforts to maintain consumer credibility via vehicle recalls - GM recently announced a low-safety-critical recall for approximately 1.5 million vehicles dating from 2006 to 2009 to have a “heater washer fluid module” replaced. Originating from 5 instances of low-threat under-hood fires, GM will now replace the possibly faulty unit with an all new item, and offer $100 disruption compensation.
Of course not all owners will return their vehicles, but this event – as with all recalls – promotes the chances of the owners of older vehicles to tour the refreshed 2011 model year showroom, tempting them into replacement deals and so avoiding customer loss to other manufacturers. The typical re-call rate on low-safety items is about 35%, so expecting 500,000 or so people to peruse new product will theoretically cost $50,000,000, but could generate a 50% new buyer conversion rate so securing 250,000 additional new car sales, without the required large incentive packages needed for conquest customers. This follows a previous March recall for steering system faults on Pontiac compact & medium cars that would have pulled otherwise 'promiscuous' customers back into the GM fold.
Chevrolet:
Chevrolet US sales in May grew by 31% YoY, highlighting eased economic concerns and critically available credit.
GM's intent with Chevrolet has been as the globally rolled-out vanguard that would create a worldwide foundation-stone for the distribution, retail and latterly production of its sibling upmarket brands. After what has been decades of fragmented efforts by the individual divisions to do likewise, and constant emphasis on Buick in China, it seems that albeit painfully GM is growing its foothold in EM & RoW markets thanks to the tenacity of Chevrolet. Gradual success has come in most markets, but problems persist in Europe, where presence and brand positioning has not as successful as originally envisaged given the brands use of below quality GMDAT sourced vehicles and the stiff competition from the likes of Hyundai, Kia, Skoda and Dacia which offer better small product or similarly priced larger vehicles.
This incursion by the Korean and E. European players will only continue to persist on an ever broadening world stage, so Chevrolet must properly define itself globally.
Furthermore, GM fears an image degradation problem (and so profitability) with Chevrolet: specifically use of the term 'Chevy' - given its blue-collar heartland & pick-up truck connotations within the US. Thus – not for the first time – a memo was put out to employees that the supposed image cheapening 'Chevy' nickname should be avoided. Unsurprisingly an internal and public backlash emerged defending the emotionally charged shortened title, given that it is engrained in American popular culture.
[NB This issue is also of importance in international markets, a special case in point is that Indian customers enjoy vocalising and emphasising “Chevy”, since it demonstrates their familiarity with aspirant and 'hip' US culture; and so a reason to maintain and create further cultural currency from “Chevy”.].
The remainder of the 2010 product pipeline includes release of the 2011 model year Cruze compact sedan in GMNA, and the launch of the long-awaited, Volt. In truth the Cruze is of far more importance to GMNA's bottom line than the heavily publicised, but in all probability limited availability Volt, given its high production costs and still broadly untested sophisticated technology in volume real-world customer conditions. Investment-auto-motives expects Volt to be essentially a spiritual successor to the EV1, more practical from package and powertrain stand-points but still far too exotic and expensive a proposition for mass adoption. The Orlando MPV is presented by GME, whilst GMIO continues the roll-out of Spark small hatchback and continues the Sail (rebranded from Buick).
Buick:
Buick's US sales in May was up 37% YoY, showing that new product and easier financing availability underpinned demand.
As is evident, Buick has been regenerated as a core marque, a consequence of its early availability and popularity in China, with this 'Chinese capacity pull' the rationale for its effective re-invention back in the US. The model range has been seemingly sporadic over previous years as the result of a transition from GMNA's typical badge-engineering policy across many models to instead greater brand-relative product focus.
The ambition is to exploit lower cost Chinese manufacture and the higher margins available from near luxury positioning. However its seems very likely that Buick will continue to introduce smaller vehicles into its range sourced from China and elsewhere in Asia, this GMNA Asian import business model created by the soon to be launched 'baby LaCrosse'
GMIO gains the new 2011 Excelle, which is expected in itself to be superseded by the aforementioned compact.
Buick must of course 'find itself' and its raison d'etre amongst a Pan-Pacific audience. Its offering of near-luxury is in tune with the times and regional demand – as seen 2010MY LaCrosse's reception - yet this may prove harder to secure given that Buick is still offering 'all things to all men', including large sedans, compact sedans, compact hatches, SUVs and 4WD. GM has reviewed the USPs of its separate competitors and apparently tries to fight across all strengths by dipping into the extensive GM tech & parts bin.. This then follows in the footsteps of Cadillac and Lincoln, which have yet to prove that such a catch-all approach is successful against far stronger competitive product and competitor organisations.
Buick's recent product history has been patchy, now it must properly explain its identity and relevance moving beyond the upscale yet unlasting formulas of yesteryear Oldsmobile & LaSalle..
Cadillac:
Cadillac's US sales in May was up over 53%, showing renewed near-luxury vigour and the depth of the previous May 2009 low
Since its early glory days Cadillac's re-invention as a serious luxury brand has been GM's ambition so as to gain the advantages of scale cost efficiencies and market pricing leverage. As GM shrunk decade on decade it was able to exploit its SUV products to ensure good margins, but as SUV demand withered and the very size of the manufacturing capacity base necessarily withered, so there has been raised pressure to make Cadillac perform. Present margins come from an aged and presumably tooling amortised product range, with expansion into smaller sedan territory via the ATS model using the Epsilon 2 platform (EU only BLS) in mid 2011. With mid-size CTS presently on the Sigma 2 platform but moving onto new Alpha base, and the platform merging of STS and DTS onto the Super Epsilon 2 base.
However, even with ongoing technical rationalisation, accordant cost savings and the geographic expansion of the smaller car. Cadillac's main concern is its lack of meaningful psychological connectivity to worldwide customers, replacement product after replacement product consistently poorer than German, Japanese and British rivals.
GMC:
GMC's US sales in May grew by 26%, demonstrating the effect of new SUV product, pertinent to the brand, and slow, specific re-growth in the commercial vehicle arena.
The historical machismo of the GMC brand in commercial trucks, buses, large pick-ups & latterly SUVs echoes meaningfully with the North American spirit. As such it became the #2 GM brand after Chevrolet, and continues as a somewhat uniquely placed division within the GM empire, with perhaps more room for exploration and exploitation that its sibling divisions.
Economic recovery in the US and Canada will bode well for GMC commercials and America's GMC should play into the hands of GMC's value pricing of generally older product compared to Daimler's Freightliner or Navistar Int. Corp.
Note -
Thus having established Chevrolet as its global platform, GM now must 'weave in' Buick, Cadillac and possibly GMC, a task made harder by FIAT's ability to leverage FIAT geographical coverage for Chrysler and Jeep.
Opel/Vauxhall:
As previously stated the machinations over GME's future continue with CEO Nick Reilly now approaching the 4 German states for financial aid assistance, aswell as no doubt continued efforts targeted at the UK and other less fiscally strained nations – ie exempting Spain etc. Given the UK's relative buoyancy for GM versus other EU nations, sales and marketing efforts will undoubtedly be directed here.
Regards new product, new Meriva launches with its 'theatre doors' (also known as clap-hand or suicide doors), that should entertain families given that the only other cars with such apertures are the Rolls-Royce Phantom & Ghost and RX-8. Unlike these 3 cars though Meriva still has an obvious structural B-post which demonstrates style over substance, still nonetheless a USP very much in the innovative Opel tradition after Flex7 seating in Zafira and pull-out bike rack on Corsa. Old Meriva is apparently being 'run-out' but given the large higher price differential compared to new Meriva, investment-auto-motives suspects that in reality it is simply a marketing ploy to demonstrate the suppose value of the replacement car. (A similar pitch for old vs new Astra, but listed at the same presumably to enable dealers in face to face negotiations to heavily discount the old car yet maintaining the price floor on the newer car). Otherwise the line-up remains as is, with discounting envisaged for most models given the level of 'talk-down' available from French and Italian competitors.
Holden:
This division continues to fight for its place in the GM empire, trying to balance domestic manufacture and consumption with the export of large car (sedans and coupes).
Domestic consumption consists of primarily GM imported small and medium cars, with ever decreasing purchase numbers of its home assembles large cars thanks to a mix of higher oil/petrol prices and product substitution from MPVs and 1-ton pick-up and chassis-cab trucks.
Exports were/are sold under other GM nameplates; primarily in the Middle East (largest market), USA, China, South Korea, Brazil and other smaller markets . That has been the modus operandi since 1998 with its peak between 2003 and 2007, but the demand for large car exports flailed with Pontiac's discontinuance in the US and GM's ability to assemble the Buick Park Avenue in China
Thus the business model has been under severe strain over the last few years and Holden must seek volume growth in regions with low petrol prices and taste for 'affordable eclectic personal cars'. However, this will continue to prove increasingly problematic give n the squeeze between globally extending near luxury players like Nissan's Infiniti and Hyundai's Genesis and the entrenched luxury players such as Mercedes, BMW, Audi etc.
Traditionally the business model has relied upon relatively low cost labour and the higher pricing afforded by differentiated & tailored large car products and fleet sales by nationalised enterprise, but with labour costs rising as a consequence of the general Asian demand wage-spiral and domestic consumption of specialised product falling so Holden finds itself in a business model squeeze; one in which government assistance is unlikely to be forthcoming as it once was.
It seems into the future it will be required to expand its operations as a prime GM Asian engineering centre, with possible continuation of the Zeta and Super Epsilon 2 platforms development and other R&D ambitions, aswell as export continuance of partially and fully dressed engines.
Delphi*:
Though not seen as an integral division as such, Delphi has played an increasingly important role in GM, both in terms of component supply and previously creditor for some years. Originally spun-out of GM to diversify its own customer base through the 1990s, GM has recognised that integration of portions of Delphi would be beneficial so as to better control supply chain costs and speed NPD. Thus it took over 4 of Delphi US plants and its global steering business.
GMAC / Ally Finance Inc*:
In 2006, prior to GM's restructuring, it sold GMAC off which latterly coined the name 'Ally' and suffered through its exposure to sub-prime mortgage lending, only to be part nationalised with 56% government ownership. Ally has historically large exposure to the sub-prime lending market, a customer-base that makes up 16-20% of NA sales (so Experian reports). For some months GM has increasingly hinted that it should like to regain a sizable captive finance ability so as to once again tap into sub-prime buyers, which it feels is required to maintain sales levels.
GM recognises the problems of creating from scratch its own finance division, especially given the potential political opposition, so seeks to acquire one. Extending the present arms' length relationship with Ally so as to give it the power of lending arbitration obviously makes most sense,but understandably Ally executives are far from convinced having had its figures burnt previously in mortgages. Though they'll admit that car loan defaults were lower than that of housing at the peak of the toxic asset crisis, they also know that these are different times and default danger still exists given the fragile economy and the willingness of less than wholesome car buyers willing to 'arbitrage' such credit availability for a new car, even if towed away at a later date.
Furthermore, Ally was government appointed as the preferred lender to Chrysler, and obviously Marchionne would attempt to block any effort by GM if it was waived through by Washington.
Ultimately GM having supposedly rid itself of its bad ways, and talking of a new cultural era, must expect a level of concern from investors, if it resorts to such sub-prime targeting practices – even if industry normal - 12 months out of Administration and with a supposed attractive product range at attractive pricing. It must bolster its financial credibility and image credibility, something that cannot be done if vehicle residuals suffer from near new cars rolling through auction houses.
Financials -
As of today, the Q1 figures presented previously look on the surface promising, they reflect the new era attitude of the organisation that has pronounced itself as having paid back the (primary) US & Canadian governments loans of $6.7bn and $1.4bn (@ 7%), prior to the June deadline. The statement with accompanying publicity intimates that all government debt was paid-off. Yet as analysts and Forbes' financial journalists have summised, it seems a distinctly separate $13.4bn 'working capital' loan held in an escrow account was used to pay-off the primary high-profile loan.
It has been suggested that this apparent early pay-back was undertaken to give GM the credibility to access another US dept of Energy loan to the tune of $10bn (@ 5%), so in effect gaining re-financing, easing company debt levels and improving its nominal credit standing.
Without the legal requirement to publicly publish in depth quarterly reports or full accounting of the P&L, Balance Sheet and CashBook, GM has been offering a level of fiscal transparency since the re-emergence from its Chapter 11 filing. Of note was the Sept 09 update which highlighted Q309 actuals vs the Q3 viability plan used for Chapter 11 restructuring. Having reduced last year's $94bn debt pile to only $17bn overnight on June 10th, and dramatically improved net Liquidity and so Managerial Cashflow, GM was set to pounce out of the starting gates and into Q3 & Q4.
Given the massive level of leeway involved – 'pessimistic' pitched plan versus (probably) achieved – it was not surprising to see GM out-perform the Q3 plan. As GM foresaw, Q4 and Q1 2010 experienced greater headwinds with slowing Triad markets set against flattening EM markets with greater cash burn due to increased input materials costs, engineering costs, S&M costs, overall CapEx demands, foreshortened supplier payment terms, debt payments to Delphi etc.
Of greater relevance are the operational achievement figures of recent times and today, now that the easier function of beating overtly dour, self calculated expectations has passed. The business returns to more normal operating assessment. However, relative to this, even it has warned that completing the remaining restructuring steps that impact the heart of the business and not simply the Balance Sheet will be tough.
The seeming increasing lack of deep operational detail being presented appears to be in contrast with the good news Q1 results submitted. At that point investment-auto-motives presumed that Ed Whitacre was underplaying GM's near-term capability, giving little away and letting the numbers speak for themselves. But that approach, if indeed the case, seems to be unravelling with some of the more concerning news leaked, such as GM's desire to access sub-priming lending facilities as the notional deadline date of the intended IPO approaches. But such moves, whilst temporarily boosting revenues, only serve to add risk to the new and improved entity, ironic when GM's de-risking was the prime intent. Better a smaller operation that capacity boosted in such a manner.
And if that means additional rounds of cost-savings prior to the IPO then so be it.
Surely, discussions with the various IPO managers – who themselves are competing for their inclusion in the bookrunner consortium – would have echoed that fact. It may not bring in immediate fees, but adds to their professional credibility, and brings in greater latter-day rewards if the IPO is phased structured.
Today, more than ever, Washington, GM Co LLC and the investment banks must realise that creating the foundations for 'the long game' is what matters to one and all.
Conclusion -
At this end-point juncture, it proves worthwhile to state exactly which entities presently own General Motors Co LLC, agreed via the 363 sale (via Title 11, Chapter 3, Sub-Chapter IV of the US Code).
#1 – The US Government with 60.8% (paid $49.5bn)
#2 - The UAW VEBA with 17.5%
#3 – In Right of Canada & Ontario HRH Queen Elizabeth II with 11.7% (paid $8.1bn)
#4 – Unsecured Creditors with the remaining 10%, primarily 'Old GM' related.
Acting primarily in the role of economic stabalising agents, these entities – largely with their engrained societal responsibilities – stood as the effective patrons of GM's transformation.
As such the US populous, GM employees, Canadian Sovereignty and particularly largely anonymous unsecured creditors, deserve to be rewarded above nominally low base interest rates for their enormous contribution to the industrial welfare of North America.
To ensure this the IPO must be carefully tended so as to achieve a successful launch price and for the stock to maintain an upward momentum well into its open trading period. This in turn relies upon corporate credibility that the GM business model – both in NA and worldwide – has substance. Furthermore, ideally the release of shares onto the market would be done in a phased manner typical of state asset privatisation given its inherent size, the 4 owner groups presenting similar percentage proportions of their holdings for floatation at the different stages. Such a phased full IPO should then better ease the transition into what will largely be domestic and foreign institutional funds ownership.
Much to date has been thrown toward, and undertaken internally by New GM, with the danger that it may appear wholly fixed and self-sustaining in readiness for its renewed capital markets listing. So the real question for investors is exactly what competitive advantages GM holds in the way of: direct customer access/retention, proprietary (and applicable) enabling technologies, manufacturing cost structure, domestic and international shipping rates, dealer-base enthusiasm and reduced customer credit default occurrence?
In the 1920s under Alfred P. Sloane's vision for expansion GM was a leading light in the still nascent auto-sector. But by the 1960s it increasingly became a parody of itself. To re-appropriate Gilbert & Sullivan's words it became with few personnel and product exceptions “the very model of the modern major general”, where once it led the way and taught others, it for nigh on 50 years as the world's No 1 player effectively sat effectively stagnant using its scale as leverage but still loosing market share decade after decade.
Today, even after its 'obesity operation' and its cultural shock, there is still a danger that the innate old GM culture of convention, politicking seniors, staff intrasingency and automatic expectation re-awakens. GM has been through the grinder, it was forced to for its and the US nation's own good. So it must continue to change any in-built old-order habits to in the mid and long-term once again re-capture the role as the true global auto-sector teacher... not the brash, bombastic, self-unaware character that 'sat outside', enthusiastically echoing hand-me-down words and in reality bringing little to the party.
After the massive blow dealt to the stock-holders and bond-holders of the old company – now trying to gain a lowly cent on the dollar via Motors Liquidation Co - to generate credibility and belief prior to any IPO GM must be seen to be advancing on all fronts, strategic an operational, in the critical battle for future US and EU custom.
As of today, simply reciting the good GMNA over Q4 & Q1 together with the rising tide of EM countries set against the lightly put 'problems' of GME is frankly not enough. At a time when the GM Board should be communicating its prime attitudes, viewpoints and actions to the investment community, the lightweight Q1 presentation charts (versus the likes of Ford, Daimler or VW) indicate a case of GM trying to manage expectations rather than conveying very necessary deep insight. Presently unlisted the company can afford to do this, presumably with the intention that more will be forthcoming as the intended IPO launch date approaches.
Yet, what with renewed capital markets' fragility across the world, especially so regards IPO launches (with many recently pulled or post-poned) GM's successful floatation still seems some time away – even though it is presently identifying book-runners and under-writers - probably at this point sometime in early 2011, as opposed to within the next 6 months as intended. The company has well ridden its orchestrated tailwinds as part and parcel of what was to be an early exit from effective nationalisation, but the unfolding reality is that it must demonstrate its mettle in increasingly testing times, and be able to convey sustained multi-region sales performance based on well received products, stable and ideally increasing market share and proven QoQ EBIT numbers
Hence, investment-auto-motives places GM ahead of the Renault-Nissan, FIAT-Chrysler and PSA on the basis that its fresh start, devoid of past responsibilities (and also seen in its accounting procedures) can be exploited. Yet it is a test of the new Board's supposed understanding of a global marketplace and commercial adroitness. This rank (5th of the 8) reflects not so much a case of hope over experience, though from historical evidence it suggests the fact, but more a case that never before in the modern era has GM had such an opportunity to demonstrate its worth as a massively re-calibrated conglomerate with both the scale leverage, global reach and the necessary external pressure/incentive to perform.
Sloane gave GM its 20th century vision, Whitacre et al must provide a credible 21st century vision, that may need to ultimately be truly radical' given the need to convert $46bn worth of Goodwill and Intangible Assets allocated 11 months ago. Even with the sliced debt levels from $46 to $16bn, and the government eased cashflow, the sooner GM shows its intent and methods to maintain the recent artificially inflated buoyancy the better.
In the meanwhile, much of what has been witnessed has been a co-creation of GMNA tailwinds afforded largely by the Obama administration and a fragile uptick in the US economy. Of real significance must surely be the proof of the GMNA pudding, something which should be communicated to investors and the public alike in the form of productivity metrics and a host of benchmark indicators that reflect the ideals set out for the goals of the original re-organisation.
Very much a case of “watch this space”, though no one should be holding their breath until the rising tide of global sales TIV returns. For today, unlike the old adage of “what is good for GM is good for America”, the shrunken company experiences the more converse relationship of “what is good for the global economy is good for GM”.
Post Script:
As of today (17th June) it was announced that GME would no longer be seeking state aid from the German central government, instead seeking to self fund operations.
Thus positioned incrementally 'in the twilight' are typically those that whilst enjoying boosted sales from 2009's governmental stimulus spending, must now face a new round of partial re-structuring to create more efficient, powerful and cost vs income relative: R&D initiatives, product development procedures, supply chain linkages, manufacturing bases, marketing platforms, retail channels, and of course pertinent product.
Relieved of many of its legacy problems after Chapter 11 re-birth, New GM sits in the shadows of an independent Ford, yet theoretically ahead of Chrysler. Whilst all 3 have either directly shown or announce from internal accounting methods a Q1 profitability, given the lack of true transparency regards GM and Chrysler relative to their 'umbrella protection' by Washington and FIAT respectively, the investment community will obviously be trying to assess both's true bottom-line contribution beyond the PR rhetoric.
New GM, now devoid of the 'bad baggage' hived into Motors Liquidation Co, faces the world with optimism citing its renewed product range, renewed North American customer attraction, Chinese market history/penetration and the renewed efforts of global reach and value-car pertinence of its Chevrolet brand.
Thus GM once again seemingly prides itself on what it sees as a largely right-sized, globally relevant, re-invigorated US multi-national, with a business model designed to muster both region-specific relevance and the ability for inter-regional demand off-setting. This was always the historical intent set out by Alfred P Sloane in another age. Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the $65bn state aid package provided the catch-all to initiate contraction of GMNA's operational obesity, protecting NA jobs at more competitive labour rates and re-balancing the worldwide business platform from which it could seize the EM high-growth opportunity and re-orientate itself to new Triad market product demand trends.
' Flight of the Phoenix' is the obvious cinematic metaphor - a semantic sub-text used by the IR team through the inclusion of 'phx' at the beginning of the web address for the Q1 presentation. Thus New GM is a new lightweight corporate structure created from the broken old, but in the film the newly created vehicle performed an impressive but short lives hop skip and jump to the nearest oasis. That cannot be the case for GM, none should see the intended IPO as the final stop oasis, even if it be a destination of choice for Washington and perhaps certain executives.
Instead it must credibly demonstrate that IPO is simply an enabling milestone towards a tenable future, and not a finish line unto its own ends given parental pressures to redress the balance of the the US national debt. The parental governmental protection is ideally given to both act as a safety net and offer enough guidance over the appropriate time-frame to ensure the entities long-term contribution to shareholders, employees and society at large.
[NB the recent UAW convention (miraculously) indicates that union leaders and staff see GM as healthy, a new era of union-building and demand-setting will begin, ahead of the 2011 contract talks. This seeming militancy can only be damaging to NA's operational flexibility and cost-bases, and so employee's futures].
Q1 2010 Performance -
Growing global car demand from Q309 to Q1 2010 saw an increase in GM's global deliveries reaching 1,998,000 units from 1,972,000 units two quarters earlier, but market share if the TIV slipped to 11.2% from 11.8%. (Likewise across the three quarters GMNA deliveries slipped to 563,000 in Q1 2010 from 690,000 in Q309, a 37,000 drop in core brand vehicles of Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac & GMC, whilst the run-out brands of Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer & SAAB slipped from 102,000 to 12,000 over the period, so helping to decrease over-capacity issues).
Having risen impressively from Q309 to Q409, the Group's Q1 Net Revenue (via GAAP) remained nonetheless strong in Q1 2010 at $31.5bn, which was $800m down on the previous peak quarter. Q1 Operating Income climbed out of the red, reaching $1.2bn, allotting $0.9bn to primarily government stockholders, rated at $1.66 per share.
GMNA market share peaked in Q409 at 19.3%, with at a similar Q4 high of 20.2% for US market share, the 4 core brands representing 18.6%. But Q1 2010 saw a respective slip to 17.8% GMNA share and 18.1 regards the core brand market share. However, incentive sums steadily reduced in Q1 from $3,150 per unit in January to $2,800 by March – before unfortunately climbing above $3,000 in April. Across the year, only in March 2010 did GM managed to fractionally beat the industry average incentivisation package figure, the general monthly figures showing extreme volatility/reactivity which no doubt reflect the end-of-month 'shift deals' undoing the pricing stability achieved previously. And now with the incentives cost creeping back upwards it looks like that March was an historic anomaly. Q1 GMNA Net Revenue increased over the last three quarters thanks seemingly largely to speedy QoQ dealer inventory reduction and re-stocking, reaching $19.3bn from Q4's $18.3bn and Q3's $14.6bn. Through the effects of lesser sales volume with improved unit margins and gained re-structure cost savings this fed through to a GMNA Q1 EBIT of $1.2bn, having seen losses of $-3.4bn and $-1.4bn in the preceding quarters.
GME market share has generally eroded since the slow-down and stoppage of EU government led eco-product credit availability, yet it did picked-up in Q1 thanks to the new compact product launch of Astra, basic EU share latterly at 8.5%. share slides in Germany of 1.2% over 6 months doesn't bode well, probably as a result of GME's begging bowl requests, but a return to nearly 12% in the UK looks promising. The only problem investment-auto-motives envisages is the credit-worthiness (and so future default possibility) of some of its sales base demographic, many purchasers often state employed by a contracting government or equally prone in government affiliated private sector employment. However, Q1 EU deliveries were up 405,000 nearly touching the Q309 high of 409,000 thanks largely to what was an eased retail credit environment. GME Net Revenue fell for the third quarter, reaching $5.5bn, this possibly due to reliance on what could have been limited vehicle availability of the severely contracted previous quarter production. [NB to provide a better picture GM should set Q1 EBIT against Q4 production figures, not Q1 production figures to provide a more relevant cross-comparison of the actual cars produced/sold and accordant revenue].
However, the massive Q2 ramp-up of 90,000 additional units should cure availability issues, and boost Q2 revenues, as long as demand meets supply. Overall Q1 EBIT was negative at $-0.5bn, though improved upon Q409's $-0.8 and apparently heading back toward's Q309's breakeven.
GMIO (International Ops) markedly grew Q1 deliveries in the rest of the world, primarily due to China's rise to 623,000 units from 478,000 units six months previously; whilst remaining Asia-Pacific, Latin America and African sales effectively staid flat at 395k / 403k / 407K units over the preceding 6 months. Market share in China and Brazil staid flat over preceding quarters even if sales were lifted by the 'rising tide', with India showing market share improvement at 4.2% from 3.1% half year earlier, this thanks to its well positioned broad line-up of small, compact and 'high-ride' Chevrolet vehicles. However the additional sales to maintain market share come at the cost of Net Revenue, GMIO down to $8.1bn from Q409's $9.1bn, that quarter's income boosted by China's temporary reduction on small car purchase taxation. However EBIT continued to grow impressively reaching $1.2bn in Q1(of which $0.4bn was equity driven) from $0.7bn and $0.5bn in previous quarters.
Strategic -
Although obviously under the GM conglomerate umbrella, since early 2009 management has tried to perception ally distance its marques from the parent so that they might be divorced from any immediate cross-contamination. Yet in truth, especially for non NA public, the parent and off-spring brands are synonymous.
However, whilst efforts are made to keep North American momentum and China, Asia-Pacific and Latin American regions happily 'bubble', the real operational issue is of course GM Europe. Namely, the manner by which the RenCen can gain additional free/low-cost funding and other corporate benefits from its European host nations, specifically from Germany for Opel, as part of its $3.7bn regional restructure.
[NB investment-auto-motives was always a keen proponent of Opel/Vauxhall's partial or possibly full divestment of its manufacturing base within the GM empire. Then ideally freed from present obligations and hyper-competition, and put under a strict business rational by co-owners or new owners. So as to create a globally cost-competitive, large contract manufacturing base that could serve EU clients such as the remaining commercial shell of New GM Europe, and others including Daimler, FIAT, Renault etc; a model more adept for Europe's new seemingly long-term sales ceiling. This done to create a world class, technology led and well funded B/C-segment industrial base, thereby introducing the much needed horizontal supply model, as opposed to the vertical supply model of the 20th century industrial archetype which still is being run, resuscitated, and run today; as we see with GM].
It is the remit of he GM Board to maximise its cost-benefit of all its divisions, in GME's case by way of externally lenient short-term funding arrangements for what it sees as the precious technical centre of the empire. GM recognises that maintaining its A, B & C-segment technology contacts with Germany's supplier-base is critical to access world class engineering R&D and integration . Hence its attitudinal turnabout regards Opel's release at a time when across the EU injections of sizable state aid were being offered. However, economic and political times move quickly, and Nick Reilly (head of GM Europe) will have known that the receipt of the previous bridging loan guarantee (made largely available to keep the CDU party in power given voter attitudes to Opel), would in all probability not be followed up by any further central funding guarantee of the E1.1bn requested as part of GME's $3.7bn re-structuring plan. Now instead relying on the German provinces to offer 25% of the sum and presumably negotiating the remaining E825m value by way of additional fiscal benefits.
Of course since provision of the bridging loan, another high impact event has come to pass - the European Debt Crisis came into being and keeps rumbling even after the E750m backstop. Its demands spot-light all EU governments' debt levels and constrain future 'savior' expenditure. Now that financial back-stops must be put in place to save the Eurozone from shattering, industry – especially if owned by supposedly 'back on track' companies – has a comparatively empty case.
Reilly and the Board must now be considering what options are left regards the possibility of a self-sustaining GM Europe, something that must take a very different guise if it is not to fall back into the old ways of being internally supported by GM's more profitable NA & EM divisions.
One probable preferential option may be to formulate a deal similar to the NA turnaround model, by way convincing the unions that the conversion of pension debt into equity and so working capital is a good solution for all stakeholders. Alternatively re-visit past suitors as co-owners. Thus to Marchionne's satisfaction re-negotiate the tabled deal with FIAT....or possibly a rekindled deal with Magna International (given the Canadian company's acquisition of certain ex-GM US assets)....or one that sees an extended GM-Avtovaz Russian relationship (in accordance with Merkel's German-Ruso philosophy but a bitter pill for Washington). A PE re-emergence from the likes of RHJ International now seems slim given such tight liquidity access and desire for short-term exit horizons. Singularly, combined or including other new party interests, the ownership and operational shape of a future Opel/Vauxhall remains to be seen – but it must alter to suit the 'new norm' if it is to prosper.
Lastly a topic that sits on the side-lines and is still of curiosity to investors. The devolved 'toxic' side of the old company, Motors Liquidation Co sits quietly in the shadows; its stock being traded over the counter with pink slips that portends reminiscence of the bygone 1920s era which echoes the origins of MLC's asset base of tracts of real estate. Beyond the physical assets which are presently split between mid-valued plant and low-valued ground, interim managers endeavor to seek buyers for the corralled brands of: Pontiac, Saturn & SAAB. As well reported, SAAB has been sold to Spyker Cars and its owners, itself forming SAAB-Spyker Automobiles. Saturn has been destined to to be sold to Roger Penske, but negotiating hurdles emerged regards product supply and dealer contracts. Pontiac, like HUMMER, remains effectively dormant.
[NB HUMMER was not transferred to MLC, retained by GM, and is now 'retired' given the previously failed acquisition agreement by China's Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co, due to disapproval by the PRC's Ministry of Commerce. Allied and other PE interests emerged from Western China via and the US, but issues of credibility and credit access from the buyer perspective and GM's use of valuable executive resource on increasingly marginal prospects scuppered deal momentum ].
Operational -
GM must be concerned that the the tail-off of CARS (with no CARS 2 forthcoming) may mean a consequential drop-off in sales, especially as the econometric indicators of non-farm payroll and productivity reports, and EU contagion fears, highlight the still fragile state of the US nation.
As Automotive News reports, May sales saw GM's market share drop by 0.4% whilst its per unit sales incentives cost it an additional $61. This contrasts the respective incremental gains by Nissan, Ford, Hyundai-Kia and even Chrysler at 0.3%, 0.4%, 0.5% and 1% respectively, with reduced incentives costs.
In the shadow of reduced sales impetus, renewed focus is being put onto input costs, especially in vehicle systems areas where cost can be more easily abated. With steel contract prices re-set at high levels (+30% or so) after the recent round of iron ore miner vs steel processor talks, it was inevitable that automakers targeted non-engineering critical plastic components as the area to make cost savings. Maintaining showroom activity is of course corrolaristic to pursuing profits. Thus it came of little surprise to investment-auto-motives when - as part of all manufacturer's efforts to maintain consumer credibility via vehicle recalls - GM recently announced a low-safety-critical recall for approximately 1.5 million vehicles dating from 2006 to 2009 to have a “heater washer fluid module” replaced. Originating from 5 instances of low-threat under-hood fires, GM will now replace the possibly faulty unit with an all new item, and offer $100 disruption compensation.
Of course not all owners will return their vehicles, but this event – as with all recalls – promotes the chances of the owners of older vehicles to tour the refreshed 2011 model year showroom, tempting them into replacement deals and so avoiding customer loss to other manufacturers. The typical re-call rate on low-safety items is about 35%, so expecting 500,000 or so people to peruse new product will theoretically cost $50,000,000, but could generate a 50% new buyer conversion rate so securing 250,000 additional new car sales, without the required large incentive packages needed for conquest customers. This follows a previous March recall for steering system faults on Pontiac compact & medium cars that would have pulled otherwise 'promiscuous' customers back into the GM fold.
Chevrolet:
Chevrolet US sales in May grew by 31% YoY, highlighting eased economic concerns and critically available credit.
GM's intent with Chevrolet has been as the globally rolled-out vanguard that would create a worldwide foundation-stone for the distribution, retail and latterly production of its sibling upmarket brands. After what has been decades of fragmented efforts by the individual divisions to do likewise, and constant emphasis on Buick in China, it seems that albeit painfully GM is growing its foothold in EM & RoW markets thanks to the tenacity of Chevrolet. Gradual success has come in most markets, but problems persist in Europe, where presence and brand positioning has not as successful as originally envisaged given the brands use of below quality GMDAT sourced vehicles and the stiff competition from the likes of Hyundai, Kia, Skoda and Dacia which offer better small product or similarly priced larger vehicles.
This incursion by the Korean and E. European players will only continue to persist on an ever broadening world stage, so Chevrolet must properly define itself globally.
Furthermore, GM fears an image degradation problem (and so profitability) with Chevrolet: specifically use of the term 'Chevy' - given its blue-collar heartland & pick-up truck connotations within the US. Thus – not for the first time – a memo was put out to employees that the supposed image cheapening 'Chevy' nickname should be avoided. Unsurprisingly an internal and public backlash emerged defending the emotionally charged shortened title, given that it is engrained in American popular culture.
[NB This issue is also of importance in international markets, a special case in point is that Indian customers enjoy vocalising and emphasising “Chevy”, since it demonstrates their familiarity with aspirant and 'hip' US culture; and so a reason to maintain and create further cultural currency from “Chevy”.].
The remainder of the 2010 product pipeline includes release of the 2011 model year Cruze compact sedan in GMNA, and the launch of the long-awaited, Volt. In truth the Cruze is of far more importance to GMNA's bottom line than the heavily publicised, but in all probability limited availability Volt, given its high production costs and still broadly untested sophisticated technology in volume real-world customer conditions. Investment-auto-motives expects Volt to be essentially a spiritual successor to the EV1, more practical from package and powertrain stand-points but still far too exotic and expensive a proposition for mass adoption. The Orlando MPV is presented by GME, whilst GMIO continues the roll-out of Spark small hatchback and continues the Sail (rebranded from Buick).
Buick:
Buick's US sales in May was up 37% YoY, showing that new product and easier financing availability underpinned demand.
As is evident, Buick has been regenerated as a core marque, a consequence of its early availability and popularity in China, with this 'Chinese capacity pull' the rationale for its effective re-invention back in the US. The model range has been seemingly sporadic over previous years as the result of a transition from GMNA's typical badge-engineering policy across many models to instead greater brand-relative product focus.
The ambition is to exploit lower cost Chinese manufacture and the higher margins available from near luxury positioning. However its seems very likely that Buick will continue to introduce smaller vehicles into its range sourced from China and elsewhere in Asia, this GMNA Asian import business model created by the soon to be launched 'baby LaCrosse'
GMIO gains the new 2011 Excelle, which is expected in itself to be superseded by the aforementioned compact.
Buick must of course 'find itself' and its raison d'etre amongst a Pan-Pacific audience. Its offering of near-luxury is in tune with the times and regional demand – as seen 2010MY LaCrosse's reception - yet this may prove harder to secure given that Buick is still offering 'all things to all men', including large sedans, compact sedans, compact hatches, SUVs and 4WD. GM has reviewed the USPs of its separate competitors and apparently tries to fight across all strengths by dipping into the extensive GM tech & parts bin.. This then follows in the footsteps of Cadillac and Lincoln, which have yet to prove that such a catch-all approach is successful against far stronger competitive product and competitor organisations.
Buick's recent product history has been patchy, now it must properly explain its identity and relevance moving beyond the upscale yet unlasting formulas of yesteryear Oldsmobile & LaSalle..
Cadillac:
Cadillac's US sales in May was up over 53%, showing renewed near-luxury vigour and the depth of the previous May 2009 low
Since its early glory days Cadillac's re-invention as a serious luxury brand has been GM's ambition so as to gain the advantages of scale cost efficiencies and market pricing leverage. As GM shrunk decade on decade it was able to exploit its SUV products to ensure good margins, but as SUV demand withered and the very size of the manufacturing capacity base necessarily withered, so there has been raised pressure to make Cadillac perform. Present margins come from an aged and presumably tooling amortised product range, with expansion into smaller sedan territory via the ATS model using the Epsilon 2 platform (EU only BLS) in mid 2011. With mid-size CTS presently on the Sigma 2 platform but moving onto new Alpha base, and the platform merging of STS and DTS onto the Super Epsilon 2 base.
However, even with ongoing technical rationalisation, accordant cost savings and the geographic expansion of the smaller car. Cadillac's main concern is its lack of meaningful psychological connectivity to worldwide customers, replacement product after replacement product consistently poorer than German, Japanese and British rivals.
GMC:
GMC's US sales in May grew by 26%, demonstrating the effect of new SUV product, pertinent to the brand, and slow, specific re-growth in the commercial vehicle arena.
The historical machismo of the GMC brand in commercial trucks, buses, large pick-ups & latterly SUVs echoes meaningfully with the North American spirit. As such it became the #2 GM brand after Chevrolet, and continues as a somewhat uniquely placed division within the GM empire, with perhaps more room for exploration and exploitation that its sibling divisions.
Economic recovery in the US and Canada will bode well for GMC commercials and America's GMC should play into the hands of GMC's value pricing of generally older product compared to Daimler's Freightliner or Navistar Int. Corp.
Note -
Thus having established Chevrolet as its global platform, GM now must 'weave in' Buick, Cadillac and possibly GMC, a task made harder by FIAT's ability to leverage FIAT geographical coverage for Chrysler and Jeep.
Opel/Vauxhall:
As previously stated the machinations over GME's future continue with CEO Nick Reilly now approaching the 4 German states for financial aid assistance, aswell as no doubt continued efforts targeted at the UK and other less fiscally strained nations – ie exempting Spain etc. Given the UK's relative buoyancy for GM versus other EU nations, sales and marketing efforts will undoubtedly be directed here.
Regards new product, new Meriva launches with its 'theatre doors' (also known as clap-hand or suicide doors), that should entertain families given that the only other cars with such apertures are the Rolls-Royce Phantom & Ghost and RX-8. Unlike these 3 cars though Meriva still has an obvious structural B-post which demonstrates style over substance, still nonetheless a USP very much in the innovative Opel tradition after Flex7 seating in Zafira and pull-out bike rack on Corsa. Old Meriva is apparently being 'run-out' but given the large higher price differential compared to new Meriva, investment-auto-motives suspects that in reality it is simply a marketing ploy to demonstrate the suppose value of the replacement car. (A similar pitch for old vs new Astra, but listed at the same presumably to enable dealers in face to face negotiations to heavily discount the old car yet maintaining the price floor on the newer car). Otherwise the line-up remains as is, with discounting envisaged for most models given the level of 'talk-down' available from French and Italian competitors.
Holden:
This division continues to fight for its place in the GM empire, trying to balance domestic manufacture and consumption with the export of large car (sedans and coupes).
Domestic consumption consists of primarily GM imported small and medium cars, with ever decreasing purchase numbers of its home assembles large cars thanks to a mix of higher oil/petrol prices and product substitution from MPVs and 1-ton pick-up and chassis-cab trucks.
Exports were/are sold under other GM nameplates; primarily in the Middle East (largest market), USA, China, South Korea, Brazil and other smaller markets . That has been the modus operandi since 1998 with its peak between 2003 and 2007, but the demand for large car exports flailed with Pontiac's discontinuance in the US and GM's ability to assemble the Buick Park Avenue in China
Thus the business model has been under severe strain over the last few years and Holden must seek volume growth in regions with low petrol prices and taste for 'affordable eclectic personal cars'. However, this will continue to prove increasingly problematic give n the squeeze between globally extending near luxury players like Nissan's Infiniti and Hyundai's Genesis and the entrenched luxury players such as Mercedes, BMW, Audi etc.
Traditionally the business model has relied upon relatively low cost labour and the higher pricing afforded by differentiated & tailored large car products and fleet sales by nationalised enterprise, but with labour costs rising as a consequence of the general Asian demand wage-spiral and domestic consumption of specialised product falling so Holden finds itself in a business model squeeze; one in which government assistance is unlikely to be forthcoming as it once was.
It seems into the future it will be required to expand its operations as a prime GM Asian engineering centre, with possible continuation of the Zeta and Super Epsilon 2 platforms development and other R&D ambitions, aswell as export continuance of partially and fully dressed engines.
Delphi*:
Though not seen as an integral division as such, Delphi has played an increasingly important role in GM, both in terms of component supply and previously creditor for some years. Originally spun-out of GM to diversify its own customer base through the 1990s, GM has recognised that integration of portions of Delphi would be beneficial so as to better control supply chain costs and speed NPD. Thus it took over 4 of Delphi US plants and its global steering business.
GMAC / Ally Finance Inc*:
In 2006, prior to GM's restructuring, it sold GMAC off which latterly coined the name 'Ally' and suffered through its exposure to sub-prime mortgage lending, only to be part nationalised with 56% government ownership. Ally has historically large exposure to the sub-prime lending market, a customer-base that makes up 16-20% of NA sales (so Experian reports). For some months GM has increasingly hinted that it should like to regain a sizable captive finance ability so as to once again tap into sub-prime buyers, which it feels is required to maintain sales levels.
GM recognises the problems of creating from scratch its own finance division, especially given the potential political opposition, so seeks to acquire one. Extending the present arms' length relationship with Ally so as to give it the power of lending arbitration obviously makes most sense,but understandably Ally executives are far from convinced having had its figures burnt previously in mortgages. Though they'll admit that car loan defaults were lower than that of housing at the peak of the toxic asset crisis, they also know that these are different times and default danger still exists given the fragile economy and the willingness of less than wholesome car buyers willing to 'arbitrage' such credit availability for a new car, even if towed away at a later date.
Furthermore, Ally was government appointed as the preferred lender to Chrysler, and obviously Marchionne would attempt to block any effort by GM if it was waived through by Washington.
Ultimately GM having supposedly rid itself of its bad ways, and talking of a new cultural era, must expect a level of concern from investors, if it resorts to such sub-prime targeting practices – even if industry normal - 12 months out of Administration and with a supposed attractive product range at attractive pricing. It must bolster its financial credibility and image credibility, something that cannot be done if vehicle residuals suffer from near new cars rolling through auction houses.
Financials -
As of today, the Q1 figures presented previously look on the surface promising, they reflect the new era attitude of the organisation that has pronounced itself as having paid back the (primary) US & Canadian governments loans of $6.7bn and $1.4bn (@ 7%), prior to the June deadline. The statement with accompanying publicity intimates that all government debt was paid-off. Yet as analysts and Forbes' financial journalists have summised, it seems a distinctly separate $13.4bn 'working capital' loan held in an escrow account was used to pay-off the primary high-profile loan.
It has been suggested that this apparent early pay-back was undertaken to give GM the credibility to access another US dept of Energy loan to the tune of $10bn (@ 5%), so in effect gaining re-financing, easing company debt levels and improving its nominal credit standing.
Without the legal requirement to publicly publish in depth quarterly reports or full accounting of the P&L, Balance Sheet and CashBook, GM has been offering a level of fiscal transparency since the re-emergence from its Chapter 11 filing. Of note was the Sept 09 update which highlighted Q309 actuals vs the Q3 viability plan used for Chapter 11 restructuring. Having reduced last year's $94bn debt pile to only $17bn overnight on June 10th, and dramatically improved net Liquidity and so Managerial Cashflow, GM was set to pounce out of the starting gates and into Q3 & Q4.
Given the massive level of leeway involved – 'pessimistic' pitched plan versus (probably) achieved – it was not surprising to see GM out-perform the Q3 plan. As GM foresaw, Q4 and Q1 2010 experienced greater headwinds with slowing Triad markets set against flattening EM markets with greater cash burn due to increased input materials costs, engineering costs, S&M costs, overall CapEx demands, foreshortened supplier payment terms, debt payments to Delphi etc.
Of greater relevance are the operational achievement figures of recent times and today, now that the easier function of beating overtly dour, self calculated expectations has passed. The business returns to more normal operating assessment. However, relative to this, even it has warned that completing the remaining restructuring steps that impact the heart of the business and not simply the Balance Sheet will be tough.
The seeming increasing lack of deep operational detail being presented appears to be in contrast with the good news Q1 results submitted. At that point investment-auto-motives presumed that Ed Whitacre was underplaying GM's near-term capability, giving little away and letting the numbers speak for themselves. But that approach, if indeed the case, seems to be unravelling with some of the more concerning news leaked, such as GM's desire to access sub-priming lending facilities as the notional deadline date of the intended IPO approaches. But such moves, whilst temporarily boosting revenues, only serve to add risk to the new and improved entity, ironic when GM's de-risking was the prime intent. Better a smaller operation that capacity boosted in such a manner.
And if that means additional rounds of cost-savings prior to the IPO then so be it.
Surely, discussions with the various IPO managers – who themselves are competing for their inclusion in the bookrunner consortium – would have echoed that fact. It may not bring in immediate fees, but adds to their professional credibility, and brings in greater latter-day rewards if the IPO is phased structured.
Today, more than ever, Washington, GM Co LLC and the investment banks must realise that creating the foundations for 'the long game' is what matters to one and all.
Conclusion -
At this end-point juncture, it proves worthwhile to state exactly which entities presently own General Motors Co LLC, agreed via the 363 sale (via Title 11, Chapter 3, Sub-Chapter IV of the US Code).
#1 – The US Government with 60.8% (paid $49.5bn)
#2 - The UAW VEBA with 17.5%
#3 – In Right of Canada & Ontario HRH Queen Elizabeth II with 11.7% (paid $8.1bn)
#4 – Unsecured Creditors with the remaining 10%, primarily 'Old GM' related.
Acting primarily in the role of economic stabalising agents, these entities – largely with their engrained societal responsibilities – stood as the effective patrons of GM's transformation.
As such the US populous, GM employees, Canadian Sovereignty and particularly largely anonymous unsecured creditors, deserve to be rewarded above nominally low base interest rates for their enormous contribution to the industrial welfare of North America.
To ensure this the IPO must be carefully tended so as to achieve a successful launch price and for the stock to maintain an upward momentum well into its open trading period. This in turn relies upon corporate credibility that the GM business model – both in NA and worldwide – has substance. Furthermore, ideally the release of shares onto the market would be done in a phased manner typical of state asset privatisation given its inherent size, the 4 owner groups presenting similar percentage proportions of their holdings for floatation at the different stages. Such a phased full IPO should then better ease the transition into what will largely be domestic and foreign institutional funds ownership.
Much to date has been thrown toward, and undertaken internally by New GM, with the danger that it may appear wholly fixed and self-sustaining in readiness for its renewed capital markets listing. So the real question for investors is exactly what competitive advantages GM holds in the way of: direct customer access/retention, proprietary (and applicable) enabling technologies, manufacturing cost structure, domestic and international shipping rates, dealer-base enthusiasm and reduced customer credit default occurrence?
In the 1920s under Alfred P. Sloane's vision for expansion GM was a leading light in the still nascent auto-sector. But by the 1960s it increasingly became a parody of itself. To re-appropriate Gilbert & Sullivan's words it became with few personnel and product exceptions “the very model of the modern major general”, where once it led the way and taught others, it for nigh on 50 years as the world's No 1 player effectively sat effectively stagnant using its scale as leverage but still loosing market share decade after decade.
Today, even after its 'obesity operation' and its cultural shock, there is still a danger that the innate old GM culture of convention, politicking seniors, staff intrasingency and automatic expectation re-awakens. GM has been through the grinder, it was forced to for its and the US nation's own good. So it must continue to change any in-built old-order habits to in the mid and long-term once again re-capture the role as the true global auto-sector teacher... not the brash, bombastic, self-unaware character that 'sat outside', enthusiastically echoing hand-me-down words and in reality bringing little to the party.
After the massive blow dealt to the stock-holders and bond-holders of the old company – now trying to gain a lowly cent on the dollar via Motors Liquidation Co - to generate credibility and belief prior to any IPO GM must be seen to be advancing on all fronts, strategic an operational, in the critical battle for future US and EU custom.
As of today, simply reciting the good GMNA over Q4 & Q1 together with the rising tide of EM countries set against the lightly put 'problems' of GME is frankly not enough. At a time when the GM Board should be communicating its prime attitudes, viewpoints and actions to the investment community, the lightweight Q1 presentation charts (versus the likes of Ford, Daimler or VW) indicate a case of GM trying to manage expectations rather than conveying very necessary deep insight. Presently unlisted the company can afford to do this, presumably with the intention that more will be forthcoming as the intended IPO launch date approaches.
Yet, what with renewed capital markets' fragility across the world, especially so regards IPO launches (with many recently pulled or post-poned) GM's successful floatation still seems some time away – even though it is presently identifying book-runners and under-writers - probably at this point sometime in early 2011, as opposed to within the next 6 months as intended. The company has well ridden its orchestrated tailwinds as part and parcel of what was to be an early exit from effective nationalisation, but the unfolding reality is that it must demonstrate its mettle in increasingly testing times, and be able to convey sustained multi-region sales performance based on well received products, stable and ideally increasing market share and proven QoQ EBIT numbers
Hence, investment-auto-motives places GM ahead of the Renault-Nissan, FIAT-Chrysler and PSA on the basis that its fresh start, devoid of past responsibilities (and also seen in its accounting procedures) can be exploited. Yet it is a test of the new Board's supposed understanding of a global marketplace and commercial adroitness. This rank (5th of the 8) reflects not so much a case of hope over experience, though from historical evidence it suggests the fact, but more a case that never before in the modern era has GM had such an opportunity to demonstrate its worth as a massively re-calibrated conglomerate with both the scale leverage, global reach and the necessary external pressure/incentive to perform.
Sloane gave GM its 20th century vision, Whitacre et al must provide a credible 21st century vision, that may need to ultimately be truly radical' given the need to convert $46bn worth of Goodwill and Intangible Assets allocated 11 months ago. Even with the sliced debt levels from $46 to $16bn, and the government eased cashflow, the sooner GM shows its intent and methods to maintain the recent artificially inflated buoyancy the better.
In the meanwhile, much of what has been witnessed has been a co-creation of GMNA tailwinds afforded largely by the Obama administration and a fragile uptick in the US economy. Of real significance must surely be the proof of the GMNA pudding, something which should be communicated to investors and the public alike in the form of productivity metrics and a host of benchmark indicators that reflect the ideals set out for the goals of the original re-organisation.
Very much a case of “watch this space”, though no one should be holding their breath until the rising tide of global sales TIV returns. For today, unlike the old adage of “what is good for GM is good for America”, the shrunken company experiences the more converse relationship of “what is good for the global economy is good for GM”.
Post Script:
As of today (17th June) it was announced that GME would no longer be seeking state aid from the German central government, instead seeking to self fund operations.
Monday, 8 February 2010
Company Focus – General Motors – Pulling Back to Fitness, Preparing for Public Markets & Looking Far Beyond.
Although obviously not presently listed on the NYSE or other bourses, GM's intention to re-list as soon as practicable, predicates that investment-auto-motives maintains an overview of unfolding events.
GM has obviously been through major changes over the last 18 months, recast effectively as 2 companies – the 'new GM' and Motors Liquidation Co – with more recently amendments made at Board level with some of the faces that made up the 'American Industrial Establishment' moving-on, and replaced by others; the most significant of which was Ed Whitacre appointed as Chairman in June 2009.
By December he was appointed as Interim-CEO, and after reportedly a 2 month executive search for new CEO, Whitacre was named Chairman and CEO on 25th January. This then mirrors his dual role at AT&T – a role he kept for 17 years! Asked how long he would hold this dual-role, the answer was indefinite, but unlike AT&T, his primary role at GM is to cast the foundations internally and externally that prepares 'new' GM for a second coming on the public capital markets.
There has been criticism from the financial press that such dual appointments can make for over-authoritarian corporate regimes, the power-base centralised with the Board and senior executives given little more than implementation roles. Of course the counter-argument is that testing times, such as those now at GM, require definite leadership, the high ideals of consensus possibly leading to the worst of committee outcomes. Thus, it seems that Washington via the 'pseudo-czar' of Ron Bloom (now assisted from a labour-position by Ed Montgomery) has rightly encouraged the idea of 'The General's General', assisted by promoted executives and amenable work-force representation that enables the continued reformatting of GM. A reformatting that seeks in due course to excite the capital markets about a brighter, leaner, greener and globally competitive future.
Asked whether additional Presidential or COO appointments would be made, Whitacre stated that such roles would not be created. Thus a picture forms where Whitacre will be working in a partial, critically intentional, vacuum so as not to become embroiled in the everyday fire-fighting. Instead working as closely with Governmental officials and Wall Street bankers as he is with his own Board and top tier. This then, given previous IPO experience with AT&T, allows him to best understand what both these 2 primary exiting and entering stakeholders require from GM to administer a successful transition from state to private ownership. Relatedly, the promise to payback a slice of the government loan by June effectively reduces the government's share, thus simultaneously creating a greater portion of privately available GM equity. This then provides GM itself with greater decision-making freedom as to exactly how much equity it should offer versus self-held.
Thus far the GM recovery plan has seemingly gone well. Certain divisions sit in limbo awaiting sale, or have been so, within the 'invisible twin' of Motors Liquidation Co (ie Saturn, Pontiac versus Hummer, SAAB) and MLC's own volatile stock-price mirrors event-driven speculation.
Interestingly and appropriately GM has taken different vender-strategies with differing buyers, Hummer sold for a lowly $150m cash (possibly to aid US-Sino relations) whilst SAAB was sold to the consortium fronted by Spyker under a deal sees GM retain $300m worth of equity and take $74m cash. Given the technical-supply relationship a maintained stake was always expected, but what wasn't, was the high level of stake versus minimal cash received; thus ostensibly a paper-based deal.
GM's main focus however, has obviously been its domestic market and operations, with the dual benefits of a major 'weight-loss' bankruptcy filing chronologically superseded by the major aid of Washington's CARS scrappage programme – even if GM was not a primary beneficiary. Such surgeory and rehabilitationn has enabled a stabalising of NA market-share and, as Whitacre reports, achieved the metrics laid out by the internally stewarded GM viability plan. At exactly what level those performance metrics set, and by what degree they were bettered, remains confidential, but investors will require convincing of the self-generated leap made given the massive regulatory and fiscal assistance of the state, and the implicit nature of a seemingly coterie-coddled behind the scenes process as opposed to a commercially naked one.
However, for all the criticism GM has re-bounded well on the product front. The European devised Insignia, badged as Buick Regal in China and the NA, well positioned as a handsome lower exec sector affordable vehicle. The 2010 Astra exudes a matured distinction in the C-segment. The S.Korean (GMDAT) devised Chevrolet Beat (also badged Matiz, and Spark for Asia-Pacific) holds a youthful funky appeal to global markets (Euro and US markets from Q1 2010).
So top-line earnings look set to be boosted from a broad centre-ground yet meaningful market appeal.
In reality the US tax-payers money allowed GM to temporarily massage its business model, able to heavily discount its once sizable vehicle inventory, push stock onto dealers at reduced rates to shed production excess whilst re-aligning new vehicle supply capacity to match lowered forecast demand, yet theoretically maintain margins on new release vehicles such as Insignia and Beat/Spark. Thus it has been able to play both the unit-margins card in the D-segment in Europe and as a result of China-US exportation, and the volume-profit card in the B segment across regions, though the S.Korean Won has risen of late compared to previous ongoing weakness.
In mind of, but beyond, the currency effects of global operations, GM effectively seeks to re-invent itself as a right-sized, capable and prosperous modern car company.
Washington has done what it can, arguably far more than economically rational, to enable that metamorphosis. The Chairman and CEO is now tasked with stewarding the transition back to a commercially viable global entity. Once the extended scrappage schemes (eg UK's) that have kept the industry on life-support only those with buoyant balance sheets and attractive products will be able to fight for their respective share of the shrunken 'normalised' markets, and be able to maintain CapEx momentum.
Investors will want to see GM as a clean sheet company, having shed its remaining major operational issues; such as the arbitration filings by “some 500/600” NA dealers.
[NB that very approximate sum was uttered by Whitacre, demonstrating his somewhat removed position from the coal-face].
In contrast to the overtly relaxed, laid-back conference persona the top-brass of GM seemingly espouse, future investors will need substantive convincing that the 'massaged momentum' expected to be seen in financial statements over the next 6 months - as a precursor to the IPO - can be latterly maintained.
In sports parlance, GM's future, for investors and all stakeholders alike, must be considered as a long-haul marathon, not simply an IPO sprint. Today, GM pushes-off of the starting blocks with new vigor and presently less incumbered by a diminished competitor set. Importantly, the renewed Board hopefully offering fresh-thinking to bolster Walter Borst's Congressional promise, must look far beyond the attractive fluttering 'ticker-tape'.
That contention and possible dilemma is the core task that the now all-powerful Whitacre must balance. In this respect GM is a very different beast to AT&T – conglomerate divestment as opposed to conglomerate build, cost-cutting as opposed to competence building, erratic as opposed to stable capital market conditions and international competition as opposed to domestic focus.
Ed Whitacre's obviously astute knowledge of, and progressive introduction to GM, of the TelCo business model means that new GM into the future morphs into a very different beast.
[NB, as stated some time ago, investment-auto-motives conjects that one potential scenario sees the formation of 'GEM', with GE & GM creating a new 'Intel-e-Drive' division, possibly hastened via the acquisition of Chrysler's GEM electric car division].
Ed Whitacre mentioned a stay of two to three years, yet given Bob Lutz's oft return in what should be a stable, 'heir apparent' world of NPD, the mass revision of the complete GM business template indicates that Whitacre's stay looks set to be far longer than announced.
GM has obviously been through major changes over the last 18 months, recast effectively as 2 companies – the 'new GM' and Motors Liquidation Co – with more recently amendments made at Board level with some of the faces that made up the 'American Industrial Establishment' moving-on, and replaced by others; the most significant of which was Ed Whitacre appointed as Chairman in June 2009.
By December he was appointed as Interim-CEO, and after reportedly a 2 month executive search for new CEO, Whitacre was named Chairman and CEO on 25th January. This then mirrors his dual role at AT&T – a role he kept for 17 years! Asked how long he would hold this dual-role, the answer was indefinite, but unlike AT&T, his primary role at GM is to cast the foundations internally and externally that prepares 'new' GM for a second coming on the public capital markets.
There has been criticism from the financial press that such dual appointments can make for over-authoritarian corporate regimes, the power-base centralised with the Board and senior executives given little more than implementation roles. Of course the counter-argument is that testing times, such as those now at GM, require definite leadership, the high ideals of consensus possibly leading to the worst of committee outcomes. Thus, it seems that Washington via the 'pseudo-czar' of Ron Bloom (now assisted from a labour-position by Ed Montgomery) has rightly encouraged the idea of 'The General's General', assisted by promoted executives and amenable work-force representation that enables the continued reformatting of GM. A reformatting that seeks in due course to excite the capital markets about a brighter, leaner, greener and globally competitive future.
Asked whether additional Presidential or COO appointments would be made, Whitacre stated that such roles would not be created. Thus a picture forms where Whitacre will be working in a partial, critically intentional, vacuum so as not to become embroiled in the everyday fire-fighting. Instead working as closely with Governmental officials and Wall Street bankers as he is with his own Board and top tier. This then, given previous IPO experience with AT&T, allows him to best understand what both these 2 primary exiting and entering stakeholders require from GM to administer a successful transition from state to private ownership. Relatedly, the promise to payback a slice of the government loan by June effectively reduces the government's share, thus simultaneously creating a greater portion of privately available GM equity. This then provides GM itself with greater decision-making freedom as to exactly how much equity it should offer versus self-held.
Thus far the GM recovery plan has seemingly gone well. Certain divisions sit in limbo awaiting sale, or have been so, within the 'invisible twin' of Motors Liquidation Co (ie Saturn, Pontiac versus Hummer, SAAB) and MLC's own volatile stock-price mirrors event-driven speculation.
Interestingly and appropriately GM has taken different vender-strategies with differing buyers, Hummer sold for a lowly $150m cash (possibly to aid US-Sino relations) whilst SAAB was sold to the consortium fronted by Spyker under a deal sees GM retain $300m worth of equity and take $74m cash. Given the technical-supply relationship a maintained stake was always expected, but what wasn't, was the high level of stake versus minimal cash received; thus ostensibly a paper-based deal.
GM's main focus however, has obviously been its domestic market and operations, with the dual benefits of a major 'weight-loss' bankruptcy filing chronologically superseded by the major aid of Washington's CARS scrappage programme – even if GM was not a primary beneficiary. Such surgeory and rehabilitationn has enabled a stabalising of NA market-share and, as Whitacre reports, achieved the metrics laid out by the internally stewarded GM viability plan. At exactly what level those performance metrics set, and by what degree they were bettered, remains confidential, but investors will require convincing of the self-generated leap made given the massive regulatory and fiscal assistance of the state, and the implicit nature of a seemingly coterie-coddled behind the scenes process as opposed to a commercially naked one.
However, for all the criticism GM has re-bounded well on the product front. The European devised Insignia, badged as Buick Regal in China and the NA, well positioned as a handsome lower exec sector affordable vehicle. The 2010 Astra exudes a matured distinction in the C-segment. The S.Korean (GMDAT) devised Chevrolet Beat (also badged Matiz, and Spark for Asia-Pacific) holds a youthful funky appeal to global markets (Euro and US markets from Q1 2010).
So top-line earnings look set to be boosted from a broad centre-ground yet meaningful market appeal.
In reality the US tax-payers money allowed GM to temporarily massage its business model, able to heavily discount its once sizable vehicle inventory, push stock onto dealers at reduced rates to shed production excess whilst re-aligning new vehicle supply capacity to match lowered forecast demand, yet theoretically maintain margins on new release vehicles such as Insignia and Beat/Spark. Thus it has been able to play both the unit-margins card in the D-segment in Europe and as a result of China-US exportation, and the volume-profit card in the B segment across regions, though the S.Korean Won has risen of late compared to previous ongoing weakness.
In mind of, but beyond, the currency effects of global operations, GM effectively seeks to re-invent itself as a right-sized, capable and prosperous modern car company.
Washington has done what it can, arguably far more than economically rational, to enable that metamorphosis. The Chairman and CEO is now tasked with stewarding the transition back to a commercially viable global entity. Once the extended scrappage schemes (eg UK's) that have kept the industry on life-support only those with buoyant balance sheets and attractive products will be able to fight for their respective share of the shrunken 'normalised' markets, and be able to maintain CapEx momentum.
Investors will want to see GM as a clean sheet company, having shed its remaining major operational issues; such as the arbitration filings by “some 500/600” NA dealers.
[NB that very approximate sum was uttered by Whitacre, demonstrating his somewhat removed position from the coal-face].
In contrast to the overtly relaxed, laid-back conference persona the top-brass of GM seemingly espouse, future investors will need substantive convincing that the 'massaged momentum' expected to be seen in financial statements over the next 6 months - as a precursor to the IPO - can be latterly maintained.
In sports parlance, GM's future, for investors and all stakeholders alike, must be considered as a long-haul marathon, not simply an IPO sprint. Today, GM pushes-off of the starting blocks with new vigor and presently less incumbered by a diminished competitor set. Importantly, the renewed Board hopefully offering fresh-thinking to bolster Walter Borst's Congressional promise, must look far beyond the attractive fluttering 'ticker-tape'.
That contention and possible dilemma is the core task that the now all-powerful Whitacre must balance. In this respect GM is a very different beast to AT&T – conglomerate divestment as opposed to conglomerate build, cost-cutting as opposed to competence building, erratic as opposed to stable capital market conditions and international competition as opposed to domestic focus.
Ed Whitacre's obviously astute knowledge of, and progressive introduction to GM, of the TelCo business model means that new GM into the future morphs into a very different beast.
[NB, as stated some time ago, investment-auto-motives conjects that one potential scenario sees the formation of 'GEM', with GE & GM creating a new 'Intel-e-Drive' division, possibly hastened via the acquisition of Chrysler's GEM electric car division].
Ed Whitacre mentioned a stay of two to three years, yet given Bob Lutz's oft return in what should be a stable, 'heir apparent' world of NPD, the mass revision of the complete GM business template indicates that Whitacre's stay looks set to be far longer than announced.
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Industry Structure – GM & Opel – A Temporary Case of Irrational Exuberance?
“Irrational Exuberance” was once the phenomena of stock markets, yet it now seems that such misplaced optimism can be found in the annuls of a still heavily shocked and sedated western auto-sector.
Recent weeks witnessed a U-Turn of attitude in the RenCen at Detroit, after 'New GM' decided to remove the sale of Adam Opel GmbH from the negotiating table. The heady mix of intra & inter-national industrial policy-making, the social strings of financial aid packages and business-centric strategy formulation ultimately clashed, and the triangular relationship of the 3 prime stakeholders - GM, Magna-Sberbank-GAZ and Angela Merkel – pulled and torn.
The protagonist GM has decided that it should, after all, direct the future of its European division, parachuting in Nick Reilly from his successes at GM Asia-Pac to take the reins from Carl Peter-Forster, his role at Opel presumably seen as untenable given his preference for the unit's sale to the the Canadian auto-supplier and Russian bank that would have given GAZ its much needed transformation.
Unable to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, it has rebuked the Russian backed offer on strategic grounds relating to IPR, R&D, Russian sales territory and longer term global competitiveness implications. Its stance is understandable, given the strategic importance of Opel as GM's medium car creation hub, and the opportunity the relatively new SCCS platform (created as a JV with FIAT) offers a rival automaker such as GAZ which can leverage to its own export advantage Magna components pricing, low cost labour & overhead and its geo-political position between Europe, the CIS states and 'Chindia'.
Unsurprisingly GM does not wish to 'hand on a plate' its relatively knowledge advanced division to an arguably better placed competitor. But it must in due course and at some point acknowledge that something radical must be done to alter the very DNA of Opel as part of an environment reactive evolutionary process if the company is to not simply survive on the largess of state sponsorship in the face of withering consumer attraction.
Critics rightly judge GM by its historical lack of good parenting toward Opel and the 21st century mis-management of its own North American operations, since Detroit has indeed been less than adept in profitably operating such a sprawling monolith - with typical internal & legacy conflictions - caught in a ravenous sea of global sector change.
The 'New GM' with new leadership and a largely new board seeks to redress such criticism, but realistically can it? What exactly will it do to redress the situation and specifically the Opel GmbH challenge?
Recent news indicates it seems to be replaying the 'set-play' recently created in the US by GMNA, which effectively draws in state and union stakeholder for interim term survival. Read between the news-report lines and this appears to be the case; GM using US and EU aid finance aswell as its own rebuoyed balance sheet.
But let us not forget the fact that the political will to keep financially bolstering under-performing companies is withering, and the fact that GM's improved balance-sheet is only – re-iterate 'only' – a function of a macro-enabled external assistance(s).
These being:
1. a fast-track (investor debilitating) Chapter 11 procedure,
2. massive financial injections from Washington ($13.4bn of which still sits in Treasury escrow)
3. the CARS 'cash for clunkers' scrappage scheme which effectively drove an estimated 50% of GM dealership footfall in the period (& with the by-product that it actually benefited Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Ford far more so than GM).
4. it is effectively US tax-payer cash that repays Opel's E1.5bn bridging loan from the German tax-payer – done so to eradicate the implicitly socialist agenda of the 'custodial' Opel Trust
Given that this is the reality, GM though better placed, is not in a position convey any swagger, or indeed “irrational exuberance”. For its is far from out of the woods in the US, and especially not so relative to Opel's diminished prowess in Europe.
Removing the remit and need for the Opel Trust is indeed a good development, since it partially de-shackles management, but instead of simply re-running the 'GMNA set-play' of state & union equity provision – and thus simply replacing one set of shackles with others - a truly viable plan of action is needed to re-shape Opel. One to suit its diminished place within the EU consumer market yet of possibly more marked importance to a global GM and indeed a global auto-sector.
And it is from the hopeful 'lessons learnt' by way of the Magna-Sberbank-GAZ consortium that GM Europe must re-invent itself.
Such aspiration may or may not be the case, we shall have to wait and see.
In the meantime, instead of an Opel sale, GM has arrived at its own plan, one which reduces the level of German aid reliance and so presumably freeing itself from much of the present plant & labour overhead obligation. Following the FIAT lead with a pan-European approach it seeks to spread the $3bn cost and load of re-structure across various EU nations and labour unions, with $1.48bn of company capital re-directed from Detroit to Russelsheim and beyond.
GM states that Opel has enough liquidity to maintain operations (effectively 'as is') but lacks the resources to undertake the full re-structure required.
So beyond the lower level contribution of EU state and union aid – including 'only' hundreds of millions of Euros from Germany vs the previous E2.2bn relative to the Magna deal – the largest slice of such additional resource presently look to come from the US Treasury.
It will be of little doubt that as GM was negotiating with Magna as to the IPR package made available for sale, it would have also been convincing the Obama Administration of Opel's central strategic role to the company given its R&D exposure to Germany's advanced eco-engineering sector that realistically downplays high-cost EV and hybrid R&D for that of low-cost clean diesel development. Whilst the Japanese may have the petrol-NiMH hybrid lead, GMNA may realistically wish to ultimately pursue a more conventional path for all the rhetoric of presently limited available US-made hybrids or next generation L-ion range-extender vehicles (NB GM Volt est $35,000 vs Toyota prius $22,000!)
Beyond the US's own intrinsic benefit from Opel (ie Germanic) know-how, and we see that with FIAT & RHJ International still probably in the background, GM recognises that Opel's constituent parts of: R&D capabilities, project development assets (HR, IT, studios, test-cells, tracks etc), plants and company dealerships and company land can be very probably further sweated. The company is less than the sum of its parts as a whole, but what if the parts themselves can be informally or formally hived-off?
Investment-auto-motives suspects that even if Opel's full and final sale is not imminent, a new period of corporate asset re-evaluation is so. Led by Reilly he will note: the EU's supplier base ambitions to become Tier0.5 players (not still discounting Magna); FIAT's own growth ambitions (yet cogniscent of historical FIAT-CCCP relationships), and lastly and very importantly his experience of China's auto-industry structural growth path with GM seeking a leading role.
The new Opel plan is ultimately an interim step, and undoubtedly will mean a required metaphysical 'deconstruction' of the entity. Exactly how that comes to play out in the future remains unclear. At one extreme via a 'GMNA set-play' Opel GmbH could be floated to become an AG or more likely an SE via an IPO to reflate its value. At the other extreme it could become a discreet set of self-propelled cost-centres, acting as an eco-engineering house, contract manufacturer, Tier0.5 player and yet more; tasked to compete within the GM empire (esp vs NA & China) to drive down costs and improve quality, and indeed reach out beyond GM to assist at a price in the development of BRIC auto-sectors.
As President Obama talks trade with President Hu Jintoa, that old adage of “what's good for GM is good for America...” is given the additional line “...is good for Sino-American relations”
However, for the moment that is a far-horizon possibility.
Any present GM jubilence should be recognise as only a momentary respite in the battle for GM transformation, since reports of Frederic Henderson's self-pronounced reliance on near-term sales which will now slacken after CARS will not provide GMNA with the momentum to turn the corner.
Hence it must look critically at the corporate and sector functions of Adam Opel GmbH.
Recent weeks witnessed a U-Turn of attitude in the RenCen at Detroit, after 'New GM' decided to remove the sale of Adam Opel GmbH from the negotiating table. The heady mix of intra & inter-national industrial policy-making, the social strings of financial aid packages and business-centric strategy formulation ultimately clashed, and the triangular relationship of the 3 prime stakeholders - GM, Magna-Sberbank-GAZ and Angela Merkel – pulled and torn.
The protagonist GM has decided that it should, after all, direct the future of its European division, parachuting in Nick Reilly from his successes at GM Asia-Pac to take the reins from Carl Peter-Forster, his role at Opel presumably seen as untenable given his preference for the unit's sale to the the Canadian auto-supplier and Russian bank that would have given GAZ its much needed transformation.
Unable to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, it has rebuked the Russian backed offer on strategic grounds relating to IPR, R&D, Russian sales territory and longer term global competitiveness implications. Its stance is understandable, given the strategic importance of Opel as GM's medium car creation hub, and the opportunity the relatively new SCCS platform (created as a JV with FIAT) offers a rival automaker such as GAZ which can leverage to its own export advantage Magna components pricing, low cost labour & overhead and its geo-political position between Europe, the CIS states and 'Chindia'.
Unsurprisingly GM does not wish to 'hand on a plate' its relatively knowledge advanced division to an arguably better placed competitor. But it must in due course and at some point acknowledge that something radical must be done to alter the very DNA of Opel as part of an environment reactive evolutionary process if the company is to not simply survive on the largess of state sponsorship in the face of withering consumer attraction.
Critics rightly judge GM by its historical lack of good parenting toward Opel and the 21st century mis-management of its own North American operations, since Detroit has indeed been less than adept in profitably operating such a sprawling monolith - with typical internal & legacy conflictions - caught in a ravenous sea of global sector change.
The 'New GM' with new leadership and a largely new board seeks to redress such criticism, but realistically can it? What exactly will it do to redress the situation and specifically the Opel GmbH challenge?
Recent news indicates it seems to be replaying the 'set-play' recently created in the US by GMNA, which effectively draws in state and union stakeholder for interim term survival. Read between the news-report lines and this appears to be the case; GM using US and EU aid finance aswell as its own rebuoyed balance sheet.
But let us not forget the fact that the political will to keep financially bolstering under-performing companies is withering, and the fact that GM's improved balance-sheet is only – re-iterate 'only' – a function of a macro-enabled external assistance(s).
These being:
1. a fast-track (investor debilitating) Chapter 11 procedure,
2. massive financial injections from Washington ($13.4bn of which still sits in Treasury escrow)
3. the CARS 'cash for clunkers' scrappage scheme which effectively drove an estimated 50% of GM dealership footfall in the period (& with the by-product that it actually benefited Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Ford far more so than GM).
4. it is effectively US tax-payer cash that repays Opel's E1.5bn bridging loan from the German tax-payer – done so to eradicate the implicitly socialist agenda of the 'custodial' Opel Trust
Given that this is the reality, GM though better placed, is not in a position convey any swagger, or indeed “irrational exuberance”. For its is far from out of the woods in the US, and especially not so relative to Opel's diminished prowess in Europe.
Removing the remit and need for the Opel Trust is indeed a good development, since it partially de-shackles management, but instead of simply re-running the 'GMNA set-play' of state & union equity provision – and thus simply replacing one set of shackles with others - a truly viable plan of action is needed to re-shape Opel. One to suit its diminished place within the EU consumer market yet of possibly more marked importance to a global GM and indeed a global auto-sector.
And it is from the hopeful 'lessons learnt' by way of the Magna-Sberbank-GAZ consortium that GM Europe must re-invent itself.
Such aspiration may or may not be the case, we shall have to wait and see.
In the meantime, instead of an Opel sale, GM has arrived at its own plan, one which reduces the level of German aid reliance and so presumably freeing itself from much of the present plant & labour overhead obligation. Following the FIAT lead with a pan-European approach it seeks to spread the $3bn cost and load of re-structure across various EU nations and labour unions, with $1.48bn of company capital re-directed from Detroit to Russelsheim and beyond.
GM states that Opel has enough liquidity to maintain operations (effectively 'as is') but lacks the resources to undertake the full re-structure required.
So beyond the lower level contribution of EU state and union aid – including 'only' hundreds of millions of Euros from Germany vs the previous E2.2bn relative to the Magna deal – the largest slice of such additional resource presently look to come from the US Treasury.
It will be of little doubt that as GM was negotiating with Magna as to the IPR package made available for sale, it would have also been convincing the Obama Administration of Opel's central strategic role to the company given its R&D exposure to Germany's advanced eco-engineering sector that realistically downplays high-cost EV and hybrid R&D for that of low-cost clean diesel development. Whilst the Japanese may have the petrol-NiMH hybrid lead, GMNA may realistically wish to ultimately pursue a more conventional path for all the rhetoric of presently limited available US-made hybrids or next generation L-ion range-extender vehicles (NB GM Volt est $35,000 vs Toyota prius $22,000!)
Beyond the US's own intrinsic benefit from Opel (ie Germanic) know-how, and we see that with FIAT & RHJ International still probably in the background, GM recognises that Opel's constituent parts of: R&D capabilities, project development assets (HR, IT, studios, test-cells, tracks etc), plants and company dealerships and company land can be very probably further sweated. The company is less than the sum of its parts as a whole, but what if the parts themselves can be informally or formally hived-off?
Investment-auto-motives suspects that even if Opel's full and final sale is not imminent, a new period of corporate asset re-evaluation is so. Led by Reilly he will note: the EU's supplier base ambitions to become Tier0.5 players (not still discounting Magna); FIAT's own growth ambitions (yet cogniscent of historical FIAT-CCCP relationships), and lastly and very importantly his experience of China's auto-industry structural growth path with GM seeking a leading role.
The new Opel plan is ultimately an interim step, and undoubtedly will mean a required metaphysical 'deconstruction' of the entity. Exactly how that comes to play out in the future remains unclear. At one extreme via a 'GMNA set-play' Opel GmbH could be floated to become an AG or more likely an SE via an IPO to reflate its value. At the other extreme it could become a discreet set of self-propelled cost-centres, acting as an eco-engineering house, contract manufacturer, Tier0.5 player and yet more; tasked to compete within the GM empire (esp vs NA & China) to drive down costs and improve quality, and indeed reach out beyond GM to assist at a price in the development of BRIC auto-sectors.
As President Obama talks trade with President Hu Jintoa, that old adage of “what's good for GM is good for America...” is given the additional line “...is good for Sino-American relations”
However, for the moment that is a far-horizon possibility.
Any present GM jubilence should be recognise as only a momentary respite in the battle for GM transformation, since reports of Frederic Henderson's self-pronounced reliance on near-term sales which will now slacken after CARS will not provide GMNA with the momentum to turn the corner.
Hence it must look critically at the corporate and sector functions of Adam Opel GmbH.
Friday, 6 November 2009
Industry Structure – GM & Opel – No Real U-Turns in a EinBahnStrasse.
The recent news that General Motors had altered its decision regards the sale of its Adam Opel division to Magna-Sberbank has created shock-waves through the industry; not least in Ontario, Nizhny Novgorod, Moscow, Berlin and Brussels.
Magna International's Stronach, GAZ's Deripaska and Sberbank's Gref, having thought it was only a matter of crossing the t's & dotting the i's will be fuming at the lost opportunity to re-align their interests in both the massive European Tier 0.5 arena and rapidly enhance a large, update sections of the Russian auto-industry and grow B2B and B2C banking expansion.
In Germany, Angela Merkel has rebuked with distain, having heard the news just as she departed from a Washington trip - but the fortunate paradox for her government is that having been re-elected on the back of a massive Opel aid package, which undoubtedly worried Treasury officials and instigated the concerns of the EU Commission, is that her government's fiscal and regulatory woes have now been greatly diminished.
Whilst in Brussels, the EU Competition Commissioner Neile Kroese can retract the regulator's claws now it seems that any future GM aid requests will be legitimately spread across the region relative to the national industrial and jobs impact. Across town however, the private equity company RHJ International (held by Ripplewood and Rothschild interests) can smile once again as its initial business proposal previously beaten by Magna-Sberbank can be potentially re-tuned and re-submitted to the GM Board.
Whilst GM remarks that the Russian related Magna deal had too many negative strategic implications for both the company and no doubt Washington aswell, GM cannot possibly operate Opel AG in the same form. It may quote the delights of improved revenues over the last 2 quarters for the North American and European divisions, but without government bail-out monies and (pointedly) stimulus generated / subsidised consumer spending GM could not boast such a claim. In real terms there has been improvement in NA with the divestment of portions of its asset portfolio and much talk of a latter-day IPO, but its European arm is still loosing ground in the region, literally through market share and practically via overweight obligations relative to underweight productivity and capacity. As stated in the past, the idea for the profitability of the crammed EU marketplace and so the regional industry would have been to see Opel/Vauxhall disappear completely; its assets sold-off to other PE and trade-buyers with VM and Tier 0.5 & Tier 1 interests.
Thus the Magna deal would have assisted in the positive restructuring of the region, but the manner in which it was undertaken with so much German financial bias showed it to be less than 'democratic' to others such as RHJ International and other interested parties such as FIAT Auto.
The recent deal-retraction news has typically brought the usual government rhetoric and counterpoint union cheer in the UK versus union dismay in Germany, but for Opel/Vauxhall itself as a commercial entity it travels down a One-Way-Street (an EinBahnStrasse) of massive structural re-alignment. That achieved either through far more low-cost parts procurement from outside the EU, labour reduction and flexibility, plant closure(s) and dealer-rationalisation. However, the obvious and correct objection is that vitally previous management did not achieve this requirement throughout its loss-making era, hence its being put up for sale.
Thus the hopefully new path for Opel/Vauxhall is that it instead be put back under the reality of the commercial spotlight by GM's Henderson, Whitacre et al in Detroit, the representatives of the Autos Task Force in Washington, and crucially objective, insightful and independent advisors who understand both micro and macro-level requirements necessary to re-shape the over-bloated and lack-lustre animal that is Adam Opel AG. This of course must be done relative to those micro-macro trends.
Presently for GM, relative to the big-picture EU issues, we have a sharp juxtaposition emerging which must be dually exploited. The somewhat painful ratification of the Lisbon Treaty further integrates policy of mainland national administrations, yet this level of Federal Statism is vehemently countered by the UK's (expected) next government. The Conservative Party recognition is that Lisbon ratification without critical 'get-out-clause' stipulations endangers the competitive trade position of the UK – a country which from the economic perspective is in a far worse off than its EU neighbours given debt-to-GDP levels and other indicators. The UK, with its weakened Sterling currency seeks to benefit from the £ vs Euro differential, both intra-regionally throughout the EU and inter-nationally across the world.
Thus the GM Board must be ready to exploit the political fracture by ensuring that the new political harmonisation of the EU mainland allows it both any nation-based fiscal benefits (aid or taxation dispensations) whilst highlighting its need for operational freedom to restructure through partial or even 'sum-of-parts' whole divestment to PE and trade buyers....which puts RHJ International and FIAT Auto back in the frame, especially so since FIAT's Marchionne and his generals have achieved a similar singular nation-based rationalisation programme for FIAT Auto that could act as a template for GM's progress with Opel.
Objectively, the dead-weight of Opel has been a drag on the European automotive sector's fortunes - ask any CEO of any local car company 'off-the-record' and he'll say similar. Hence, in a globalised world the component entities of the EU, or en block, can not and should not act as a nanny-state. Do to so only undermines regional automakers and the futures of their employees and local economies.
Thus whilst there may now be nation-based aid with arms-length oversight from Brussels, it should be short-termist whilst GM Opel and its bankers seek alternative retained and divested futures for the Opel/Vauxhall's assets – both tangible (plant, R&D centres, admin offices etc) and intangible (brand, IPR, etc).
Capital markets, though over-bought in recent times, are on a historical trend basis slowly strengthening. This together with the pressure to break-up of banking roles & remits means that 'Productivity-Push' will (as investment-auto-motives has long stated) be the real focus for M&A , Fixed Income and Convertibles deal-making across Wall Street, The City, Brussels, Paris, Milan and Frankfurt
So for the future of Adam Opel AG (inc Vauxhall), Round 1 may have ended but the bell will soon ring for Round 2 in the fight for GM profitability.
Magna International's Stronach, GAZ's Deripaska and Sberbank's Gref, having thought it was only a matter of crossing the t's & dotting the i's will be fuming at the lost opportunity to re-align their interests in both the massive European Tier 0.5 arena and rapidly enhance a large, update sections of the Russian auto-industry and grow B2B and B2C banking expansion.
In Germany, Angela Merkel has rebuked with distain, having heard the news just as she departed from a Washington trip - but the fortunate paradox for her government is that having been re-elected on the back of a massive Opel aid package, which undoubtedly worried Treasury officials and instigated the concerns of the EU Commission, is that her government's fiscal and regulatory woes have now been greatly diminished.
Whilst in Brussels, the EU Competition Commissioner Neile Kroese can retract the regulator's claws now it seems that any future GM aid requests will be legitimately spread across the region relative to the national industrial and jobs impact. Across town however, the private equity company RHJ International (held by Ripplewood and Rothschild interests) can smile once again as its initial business proposal previously beaten by Magna-Sberbank can be potentially re-tuned and re-submitted to the GM Board.
Whilst GM remarks that the Russian related Magna deal had too many negative strategic implications for both the company and no doubt Washington aswell, GM cannot possibly operate Opel AG in the same form. It may quote the delights of improved revenues over the last 2 quarters for the North American and European divisions, but without government bail-out monies and (pointedly) stimulus generated / subsidised consumer spending GM could not boast such a claim. In real terms there has been improvement in NA with the divestment of portions of its asset portfolio and much talk of a latter-day IPO, but its European arm is still loosing ground in the region, literally through market share and practically via overweight obligations relative to underweight productivity and capacity. As stated in the past, the idea for the profitability of the crammed EU marketplace and so the regional industry would have been to see Opel/Vauxhall disappear completely; its assets sold-off to other PE and trade-buyers with VM and Tier 0.5 & Tier 1 interests.
Thus the Magna deal would have assisted in the positive restructuring of the region, but the manner in which it was undertaken with so much German financial bias showed it to be less than 'democratic' to others such as RHJ International and other interested parties such as FIAT Auto.
The recent deal-retraction news has typically brought the usual government rhetoric and counterpoint union cheer in the UK versus union dismay in Germany, but for Opel/Vauxhall itself as a commercial entity it travels down a One-Way-Street (an EinBahnStrasse) of massive structural re-alignment. That achieved either through far more low-cost parts procurement from outside the EU, labour reduction and flexibility, plant closure(s) and dealer-rationalisation. However, the obvious and correct objection is that vitally previous management did not achieve this requirement throughout its loss-making era, hence its being put up for sale.
Thus the hopefully new path for Opel/Vauxhall is that it instead be put back under the reality of the commercial spotlight by GM's Henderson, Whitacre et al in Detroit, the representatives of the Autos Task Force in Washington, and crucially objective, insightful and independent advisors who understand both micro and macro-level requirements necessary to re-shape the over-bloated and lack-lustre animal that is Adam Opel AG. This of course must be done relative to those micro-macro trends.
Presently for GM, relative to the big-picture EU issues, we have a sharp juxtaposition emerging which must be dually exploited. The somewhat painful ratification of the Lisbon Treaty further integrates policy of mainland national administrations, yet this level of Federal Statism is vehemently countered by the UK's (expected) next government. The Conservative Party recognition is that Lisbon ratification without critical 'get-out-clause' stipulations endangers the competitive trade position of the UK – a country which from the economic perspective is in a far worse off than its EU neighbours given debt-to-GDP levels and other indicators. The UK, with its weakened Sterling currency seeks to benefit from the £ vs Euro differential, both intra-regionally throughout the EU and inter-nationally across the world.
Thus the GM Board must be ready to exploit the political fracture by ensuring that the new political harmonisation of the EU mainland allows it both any nation-based fiscal benefits (aid or taxation dispensations) whilst highlighting its need for operational freedom to restructure through partial or even 'sum-of-parts' whole divestment to PE and trade buyers....which puts RHJ International and FIAT Auto back in the frame, especially so since FIAT's Marchionne and his generals have achieved a similar singular nation-based rationalisation programme for FIAT Auto that could act as a template for GM's progress with Opel.
Objectively, the dead-weight of Opel has been a drag on the European automotive sector's fortunes - ask any CEO of any local car company 'off-the-record' and he'll say similar. Hence, in a globalised world the component entities of the EU, or en block, can not and should not act as a nanny-state. Do to so only undermines regional automakers and the futures of their employees and local economies.
Thus whilst there may now be nation-based aid with arms-length oversight from Brussels, it should be short-termist whilst GM Opel and its bankers seek alternative retained and divested futures for the Opel/Vauxhall's assets – both tangible (plant, R&D centres, admin offices etc) and intangible (brand, IPR, etc).
Capital markets, though over-bought in recent times, are on a historical trend basis slowly strengthening. This together with the pressure to break-up of banking roles & remits means that 'Productivity-Push' will (as investment-auto-motives has long stated) be the real focus for M&A , Fixed Income and Convertibles deal-making across Wall Street, The City, Brussels, Paris, Milan and Frankfurt
So for the future of Adam Opel AG (inc Vauxhall), Round 1 may have ended but the bell will soon ring for Round 2 in the fight for GM profitability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)