Big Three Auto Woes

RECENT NEWS
Forbes  Mar 27  Comment 
Even Detroit's Big Three see self-driving cars in their rear-view mirror.
Reuters  Mar 19  Comment 
The big three just became the big four.
Financial Times  Mar 6  Comment 
With a market share of just 4 per cent, Imperial’s US margins have been squeezed by the big three tobacco makers and management has been facing pressure to restructure the business or put it up for sale
Cellular News  Mar 3  Comment 
Two of Canada's largest mobile networks have been blocked from buying a block of radio spectrum that was offered by a smaller player in the latest move by the government to try and curtail the power of the big three telcos. Click here for more.
New York Times  Feb 12  Comment 
Game players’ options now include tablets, game-streaming services and controllers that work with televisions.     
BusinessWeek  Feb 10  Comment 
If Barra bags every potential dollar, it will still be less than what GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner made in 2008
Sydney Morning Herald  Feb 10  Comment 
Cameron Smith, Cooper Cronk and Billy Slater are notable absentees from the Melbourne squad for this weekend's inaugural Nines tournament in Auckland.     
Sydney Morning Herald  Feb 9  Comment 
An overhaul of the way international cricket is run, and its earnings distributed, is afoot, with the contentious plan promoted by the game's big-three nations formally approved.     
Sydney Morning Herald  Jan 28  Comment 
Martin Snedden believes Black Caps will benefit from controversial changes.     
Sydney Morning Herald  Jan 28  Comment 
Times Online  Jan 27  Comment 
Daft Punk were the stand-out act at the Grammy Awards last night, winning two of the evening’s big three prizes....




 

In recent years, the recurring troubles of the American Big 3 automakers have been coming to a head. General Motors (GM), Ford, and Chrysler face a host of problems. Legacy costs inherited from past manufacturing heydays in the form of costly pension and health care plans for retired employees add up to hundreds of billions of dollars. Unappealing gas-guzzler product lines that are a step behind current auto buying trends aren't driving strong earnings, either; instead, the Big 3 are trying to pad flagging normal sales rates with price incentives. Finally, continuing tussles with the United Auto Workers and large capital investments in SUV and truck manufacturing equipment make it hard to cut costs and downsize to profitability. Meanwhile, Asian and European competitors are rapidly outstripping these traditional auto manufacturing powerhouses.

Asian and European brands captured 54.2% of overall vehicle sales in June, edging out the 45.8% of sales that went to the U.S. brands, according to Autodata (see chart above), placing the Big Three in their weakest competitive position ever compared to their overseas rival. Until last year, there had never been a month that American car buyers preferred the combined offerings of Asian and European automakers to those of the Big Three.

The situation of the Big Three has become more tenuous as long-time Michigan democratic Congressman, John Dingell, was replaced as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee by Californian Henry Waxman. What does this mean for the Big Three? As a long-time champion of America's automakers in the House of Representatives since 1955, Dingell used his chairmanship to protect the interests of Detroit automakers against Federal Government regulation, especially fuel economy standards.[1] Conversely, Henry Waxman has aggressively and openly called for ever more stringent fuel economy regulations and less generous help for automakers.[2] This change and the broad regulatory scope of the Energy and Commerce Committee will likely make any long-term Federal Government assistance for the Big Three both less forthcoming and less generous.

Despite a propensity to lump the Big Three together, it is important to understand the different strategic positions of each automaker. The best way to do this is by looking at the loan requests submitted to Congress during December 2008. GM reported that it will have to cease operations unless it gets $4 billion immediately, and $18 billion in longer term financing.[3] Chrysler is in a similarly dire state, claiming to need $7 billion before year end. Ford appears to be in a relatively better position, claiming that it will not need to draw on government support unless business conditions deteriorate rapidly.[4] Nevertheless, Ford is still requesting $9 billion in loan guarantees as a hedge.[5] Although the Senate eventually rejected these requests, the Bush Administration used $17.4 billion from funds allocated to the US Treasury under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, to keep Chrysler and General Motors (GM) from short-term insolvency. Ford did not receive any loans.

However long-term survival still remains unclear, both because the possibility of longer term government subsidy remains unclear, and because many now believe that the US auto market was artificially inflated during the past decade. Low interest loans and cheap leases led to a glut of consumption, illustrated by the following statistics: forty years ago only 6% of US households owned three or more cars, in 2000 that number was 18%; America currently has 244 million vehicles for its 202 million drivers.[6] At the same time, the quality of cars has improved considerably, which means that the average automobile can reliably be used for a decade.[7] This situation meant that automakers came to expect 16 million new car sales annually in the US. Most now believe the level of sustainable US fleet replacement is closer to 14 to 15 million per year.[8] While this will be an improvement over the 12 to 13 expected as the final tally for 2008, such a recovery will not be back to pre-recession levels.

Image: Auto3mktshr.jpg

Error creating thumbnail
Toyota's eco-friendly offerings, including the hybrid electric Prius, are making it difficult for the Big 3 to compete.

Who wins from Big 3 woes?

  • Japan's own Big 3- Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and other prominent foreign car manufacturers are ready and waiting to fill the production capacity and demand vacuum left by the Big 3's failure to continue dominating the North American market.

Who loses?

The Big 3 auto woes strike North American auto components manufacturers particularly hard, and hit in more than one way. Reductions in production volume and capacity will obviously decrease sales for the parts suppliers, but spending cuts within the Big 3 infrastructure also translate into decreased earnings for suppliers.

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki