Toyota's Profits, Nissan's Lack

One year ago – 2012Q4 that is – Toyota lost money in North America, and made only modest amounts of money in Japan. Today is much different, in contrast to Nissan. Bloomberg nails the source: the yen boom.

Yes, the Japanese economy and the US economy are both doing better, and so therefore should Toyota. But others were profitable in the US in late 2012, and Toyota has not gained market share. My scan of Toyota's financial statements (with glances at those of Ford and GM) suggest the entire gain is due to a more favorable exchange rate. (I have yet to look at the reports of stock analysts to see their take.)

From Toyota's perspective this should be a cautionary tale. They now are rolling in profits, and have the opportunity to continue a restructuring pushed by Akio Toyoda, the firm's near-eponymous chairman. But it does suggest two big problems.

The first is that Toyota is not making substantial money on its North American operations – otherwise it would not have lost money last year. Yes, they have a good market share, but they face competition in key segments and are weak in light trucks (and then there's the failure of their full-sized pickup to gain sales commensurate with investment). Their lack of profits suggests these are major, not minor issues.

Do Toyota's vaunted cost controls no long provide them a competitive advantage?

The second is that Lexus remains their cash cow – which is primarily a US story – but the vehicles themselves come from Japan. When the yen was strong, Lexus lost money. With the weaker yen, that shifted dramatically (though not immediately since Toyota hedges their dollar receipts).

So Toyota needs to improve the bottom line on their US operations. That's surprising, suggesting that their vaunted cost controls are no long providing them a competitive advantage. Second, they need to move away from the yen cost basis on their most profitable products. Otherwise when the yen next strengthens profitability will again collapse. Given that the "cycle time" in the auto industry for realigning what is made where is measured in 4-6 year increments, they had better get moving.

Mike Smitka

Oh, and I did put Nissan in the title, but haven't looked at their financials. But as a quick cut, reverse the above logic: they're not booming because they've successfully aligned their cost base with their revenue base. Instead Nissan's profits will reflect markets strengths, not forex swings.

China: The Domestic and the Global Industry

In October 2013 sales in China reached 1.92 million units – see the China Auto Industry Association statistics page for details. That's just shy of a 24 million unit rate, and is surely the largest number of vehicles ever sold in a single market in a month. For GM, sales were 282,000 units – 25% more than US sales that month. Everyone is in the market, or preparing to enter there. The Korean neighbors (Kia and Hyundai, but also Daewoo as part of GM), Japan (or at least the Japan Three of Toyota, Honda and Nissan, and Mazda and Suzuki), Germany (BMW, Mercedes, VW), the Detroit Three and now the French, both PSA and Renault. A host of local firms continue, though most as paper entities. Still, Great Wall, Chery, Geely, BYD, Changan and others.

This raises a host of questions. I focus on two: geography and profitability. I frame my brief analysis using the perspective of the OEMs. Since more and more value added lies with suppliers, that may lead to inappropriate conclusions, but for now I will accept the status quo terms of debate.

...the geography of China's automotive industry makes no economic sense...

First, despite very large production volumes, a side effect of government policy has been to disperse production widely. Even though the Third Front policies of the 1960s are widely understood to have been a failure, the political economy of joint venture approvals has led to factories in locations that make little sense. Today, with the market supply-constrained, that matters little. As competition heats up, however, the costs that accompany scattered locations will become more and more burdensome.

Second, there's profitability. On a global basis, the dark secret is the industry depends on the US market for a disproportionate share of profits. Japan's domestic market is in long-term secular decline, and will remain fundamentally unprofitable despite the dominant position of Toyota. (Suppliers seem to be able to collude with impunity – or so they thought – but Toyota hasn't been successful in being a price leader.) Europe is little better, offset only because of a richer product mix. How profitable is China? To my mind that is the single more important strategic variable the industry faces.

Back to geography. Under Mao local governments were expected to fend for themselves, first and foremost in terms of food but extending to a wide variety of industrial products. Fearing a Soviet attack, Mao deliberately dispersed heavy industry into remote locations. So at the onset of post-Mao reforms, every province and most large cities turned out trucks and passenger cars, even if only a handful a year. In total there were perhaps 120 producers. But political power was likewise dispersed; up-and-coming party officials were rotated through a variety of posts, but anyone slated for top leadership served a stint as a provincial governor or mayor of a prefectural-level city such as Shanghai. To be promoted to the senior leadership in Beijing required presiding over economic growth. So when the government looked to joint ventures to improve motor vehicle production, the result inevitably was one factory here, another there. Local protectionism – in Shanghai you found old generation VW Santanas, in Beijing you found jeeps – reinforced this desire to have your own plant.

China has no equivalent to the 600-mile-long I-75 "automotive alley" in the US, with an agglomeration of suppliers, assemblers and associated engineering centers feeding off of each other in a positive manner. Beijing is 1,300 miles from Guangzhou [Canton] in the south, and several automotive operations are another 400 miles to the northeast of Beijing. Similarly, at the western end of the zone is Kansas City, 700 miles from Detroit and 650 miles from Columbus, OH; Chengdu in the Sichuan basis is 1,200 miles to the west of Shanghai, across rough terrain, and Urumqi is 2,400 miles away.

Perhaps Wuhan will become a nexus – a recent Automotive News China story – but there is none at present at the assembler end. Perhaps suppliers are more concentrated, I know of several engineering centers in Shanghai, proximate to those of VW and GM, the two largest car companies in China. But what this means is that as competition heats up, and the segmentation of the country into regional markets eases, there will be numbers of plants whose location will saddle them with high logistics costs coming and going. As long as the government mandates joint ventures, politics will trump sensible plant siting. The geography of China's industry makes no sense, and will cost firms money.

...GM's & VW's Chinese ventures appear to be quite profitable....

Then there's profitability. Perhaps some suppliers break China out as a separate geographic region, but I've yet to find any. (My understanding is that parts suppliers are not under the stricture of forming joint ventures, though likely many of them have because local partners add value.) Assemblers however are limited to joint ventures, and at the two market leaders (GM and VW) their profits are accounted on an equity basis, rather than as part of normal operating profits. Both however provide that number. It's likely to be an underestimate. The biggest potential divergence would be if these ventures paid dividends; that would reduce retained earnings and the rise in book value. That is, equity income falls, though it would be offset by dividend income. However, neither media reports nor financial statements provide any hint of such payments. Indeed, it's clear that at present all funds are being reinvested. Instead, the (post-tax) equity income is an overstatement because both venture partners have an incentive to use transfer pricing to the hilt, as they get 100% of any excess, but only half if they let the venture book a lower price and higher profits. On the Chinese side that includes the provision of real estate; for VW and GM it would include licensing fees for intellectual property. Both firms have relatively new facilities, and continue to invest at a prodigious pace; they likely have high offsets for depreciation. And of course GM and VW can only report half of total profits.

To the numbers: in the first 9 months of 2013 GM International Operations, under which China falls, realized equity income of $1.4 billion; total consolidated GM profits were $4.3 billion, so the Chinese joint ventures accounted for 32% of the total (and 32% of unit sales). Another way to view the China side is to compare profits in North America with profits in China. GMNA is 6% larger unit sales, and GM China lacks the gold mine of full-sized pickups. But given GM's 50% share, GM's joint ventures in China earned $2.8 billion while North America pulled in $2.2 billion. China makes money.

VW's numbers paint a similar picture. The increased equity valuation of VW's China operations came to €3.5 billion in the first 3 quarters of 2013; total profits were €8.8 billion. China thus accounted for 40% of the total, on 32% of global volume. Of course at present Europe weighs down VW's profits. Nevertheless given its 50% stake, its joint venture partners in China earned €7.0 billion. Its operations are older than those of GM, so it will have lower depreciation charges; its Santana plant in Shanghai, which contained used equipment, is likely fully amortized. Its Audi brand is also the dominant luxury vehicle in China. Still, at roughly US$9 billion it substantially out-earned GM. The bottom line again is that China makes money.

So perhaps we will move towards a bipolar world, in which North America and China come to dominate global automotive profits. As the industry is currently structured, though, China's geography will remain an impediment.

Thanks to David Wiest for discussing equity accounting with me.

Toyota as Number One

...remember Japan as Number One?...

I'm just back from a meeting of the Japan Foundation American Advisory Board, where part of the discussion was on the ups and downs of the field, such as high enrollments into the mid-1990s from those approaching the region in an instrumental way. Do you remember a prominent book of that era, Ezra Vogel's Japan as Number One. [mea culpa: he was the advisor for my undergraduate senior paper]

So what of Toyota as Number One? Is this a similar transitory phenomenon? – in many ways, yes. Despite all the doom-and-gloom reportage, though, Japan remains the 3rd largest economy [ahead of Germany, behind China and the US in absolute size] and overall a prosperous place. No, Japan never was going to take over the world. It remains important. Similarly, neither Toyota nor any other single firm will dominate the global auto industry, but Toyota is here to stay.

The metric that is in the headlines is total unit sales. That's not the only such metric; total revenue is another one. As an economist, I look to profits relative to assets. We could also look at quality measures, at the volume of top products (segment leadership), at "car of the year" and similar awards, and at positioning in growth markets. These give different answers – even if we can agree to an objective standard for how product in the industry's shifting array of joint ventures ought to be counted.

Total sales matters to Toyota in several ways. First, the impetus for this post, regaining the lead generates free (and favorable) publicity. After a period of supply disruptions (the 3/11 quake/tsunami followed by the floods in Thailand) and demand shocks (consequent to the US unintended acceleration incidents), this also is an important morale booster at Toyota and its dealers. Gloomy sales staff and gloomy sales go together, though which causes which may be ambiguous. In the US, what Toyota has done though is recover partway (14% of the market, down from 17% a few years back), while it's lower post-bankruptcy fixed costs allow GM to pursue profits rather than volume (18% of the market, rather than 21%). Only VW is picking up market share in North America.

In terms of total revenue, however, it is Volkswagen that has the lead by a hair. Yes, Toyota has Lexus and Hino, but VW has Audi and Porsche and its own truck division; VW has the Golf and other small cars; Toyota has its minicar subsidiary Daihatsu. GM is more focused on cars and light trucks. So in the 3 months ending September 30, 2012 VW had revenue of €48,848 million, Toyota had ¥5,406 billion and GM US$37,567 million. Using end-September 2012 exchange rates (US$1.00 = ¥78 = €0.78) gives revenue of $62.6 for VW and $69.3 for Toyota. At todays rates (US$1.00 = ¥90.5 = €0.74) the ranking shifts: $66 billion for VW and $60 billion for Toyota. So while Toyota may outsell GM and VW this year in unit terms, current exchange rates suggest VW is #1 in revenue. (GM is a distant #3.)

Then there's profits. Here the ranking is slightly different. VW earned a 4.2% return on €309 billion in assets; Toyota earned 0.9% on its ¥30 trillion in assets; GM earned 1.2% on its US$155 billion in assets. Here Toyota is third, not first. Now these companies are different in their structure; in particular, GM has only a very small finance unit, contributing only 7% to its profits. Similarly, VW gets about 11% of its profits from financial activities. It survives on vehicle sales. In contrast, 25% of Toyota's profits come from finance. So if we think of vehicles as the core of these firms, looking at the recent past we find Toyota trails in profitability.

How about quality? In the eyes of Consumer Reports and others, Toyota is no longer an automatic safe choice. Indeed, this past year they've recalled 4.5 million vehicles, more than their rivals. JDPowers ranks everyone very close to each other (look at the absolute numbers, not the rank order!). No one goes to the service bays of the big multibrand dealers but hearsay is that Toyota does not stand out from the standpoint of mechanics and warranty costs. (I don't know of any hard data.) That doesn't mean Toyota's vehicles aren't good; basically, everyone's vehicles are good, and compared to two decades ago, they're very good. No one is ahead in quality – thanks in part to Toyota's leadership in that area and the competitive pressure it exerted.

Similarly, in "xxx of the year" metrics Toyota is present but no single firm is dominant. Toyota doesn't appear in Ward's "best engines" list, while GM appears only once (Cadillac) and VW once (Audi). Honda, Ford and BMW lead their three regions. Another best car list – sorry, I deleted the email! – had a wide variety of makers as tops in specific segments; my recollection is that Toyota did well in minivans and entry luxury, but had no "winner" in regular cars. No one is outstanding in the sense of capturing a majority of "best" ratings.

Now going forward Toyota's profitability has headwinds and tailwinds. It continues to suffer from the political tensions between Japan and China that affect its sales in the latter market, where VW and particularly GM continue to forge ahead. Its domestic market is weak; as the number of licensed drivers falls, firms producing inside Japan will struggle to match capacity with sales.

In contrast, at an exchange rate of ¥90/$1.00 exports will be much more attractive. In particular, most of Toyota's Lexus brand are exported from Japan, so even without better volume, revenue and profits will rebound. They won't make money in Europe, but GM will lose a small fortune. So far VW seems to have come through well amidst the Euro crisis, but we'll see whether that persists. My hunch is that VW will remain at the top of the global Big Three in profitability, while Toyota will pull ahead of GM. But in terms of sheer volume, over the next few years growth in China and Brazil will benefit GM and VW relative to Toyota, while the US market is unlikely to improve much for anyone. So the #1 sales slot will shift back and forth.

...mike smitka...

The End of Luxury Margins

...luxury at low cost is a potential disaster for the industry...

Diana Kurylko at Automotive News has a front-page story in the January 21st issue [online here arguing that "$30,000 is the new luxury-car hot spot". The evolution of CAD systems (linked now to engineering databases) and the revolution in materials science means that it is feasible to provide the NVH (noise vibration handling) of a luxury vehicle at little or no incremental development cost and a modest manufacturing cost. Leather remains necessary – a $1,000 cost premium for two front buckets and a rear seat?) – and additional speakers and other spiffs add cost. But safety mandates mean that stability control, keyless entry and so on are either present or can be added at low cost as the underlying IT backbone is in every vehicle.

While a boon for consumers, luxury at low cost is a potential disaster for OEMs as it will undermine their ability to earn fat margins on their upper-end vehicles. Yes, there are consumers for whom a car is used to enhance their social status, and so expensive cars won't go away. Ditto those auto enthusiasts who want unnecessarily large engines or other add-ons (and have the wherewithal to buy them). But my sense is that at present many consumers buy higher-end vehicles because of their NVH attributes. They don't mind the status symbol aspect, but what they really hanker for is simple ... or not so simply ... luxury.

Now having test-driven a wide array of vehicles the past few months, my own personal observation is that a few really stood out for a combination of comfort, quiet and superior drive. And I didn't drive any luxury cars. So maybe those are yet nicer; I suspect not. I've also been in anechoic chambers a couple times in my rule as a judge for the Automotive News PACE supplier competition, evaluating the (lack of!) contribution of one or another component to vehicle noise. I've seen presentations on recycled materials that turn out to be both inexpensive and really good at insulating drivers from noise. I've been in the Chrysler wind tunnel. Creating a quiet car does entail cost, but it's now at a point that can be fit into the cost target of a $30,000 vehicle, both in terms of purchase price and weight (because adding lots of rubber goop adds lots of weight and attendant indirect costs.)

The old saw that small cars mean small profits continues to hold; absent the ability to differentiate (here I think of the Mini) you get the old progression of larger size and larger price, without of course a commensurate increase in costs. The luxury end accounts for a disproportionate share of industry profits.

That may change -- not that the higher end won't generate higher profits, just that it will generate a lot less profits. Can the BMW's of the world maintain their relative position? Perhaps. But it may be harder and harder for Lexus, Cadillac and Lincoln to provide potential purchasers with a good value proposition when a Ford offers comparable luxury.

...mike smitka...