Auto Industry and Auto Company Valuations

[nickenumbers]

All,

 

Does anyone have some good research or background on the auto industry and auto company valuations?

 

I have been noticing that Honda, GM, Nissan, etc have PEs that are down in the 4, 5 and 6.

 

I get that it is low growth, changing technology and there is the Tesla narrative, but I wanted to learn a bit more about the industry and the economic/business headwinds and tailwinds.

 

Does anyone have a good resource or some thoughts or idea of direction?

 

I can go noodle/Google on my own, but being that we are a like minded group, I figured I would start with you brothers and sisters of the CoBF.

 

Thanks in advance!

[DTEJD1997]

The auto industry is interesting indeed!

 

I suspect that there is something terrible wrong here....and I suspect that the market & analysts have got things wrong here.

 

WHY?

 

They are fixated on TSLA & self driving autos.  The fixation is misplaced I suspect.

 

Traditionally, auto manufacturers have been prone to poor capital allocation, no doubt.  This makes them trade at a discount.  That is slowly starting to change.  I would posit that FCAU is the best at this point in terms of capital allocation.

 

Analysts are fixated on TSLA as they think that:

 

A). TSLA will take MASSIVE market share in the upcoming years.  I have no doubt that TSLA has a good CHANCE to take market share...but they are going from .01% market share to 1-2% market share. (this may also be optimistic, as there is a non 1% chance that TSLA blows up)  In my area, there are TSLA's and I see more of them as time progresses.  HOWEVER, the amount I usually see is 1-2 per day, and I do a lot of driving.  I see a LOT more PORSCHE vehicles than I do TSLA, and this is order of magnitude more.

 

B). Analysts are worried that the conversion from ICE to battery is more than the auto industry can handle/afford.  Once again, I think this is WAY overblown.  In my circle of friends/associates, only 1 person has been seriously interested in purchasing an electric vehicle.  Most people laugh/chuckle when queried about this.  I see almost no change in the next 5 years.  Why should there be?  Gas is well under $2/gallon in my area.  In 15-20 years, that MAY be different.

 

So I think a lot of the analysts live in a bubble.  They are in NYC, LA and they think that what they see/do/aspire to is what the rest of country wants.  That is not the case.

 

As for self driving vehicles, there may not be a market there (limited market)?  Many studies have pointed out that UBER drivers make LESS than minimum wage when you account for expenses & taxes.  Why have an expensive robot driving when you can have a human do it cheaply (and provide a TON of the capital to boot!)?

 

So with that bubble, you get FCAU with a net cash position, that is about to get a LOT better, single MID-digit P/E, nice dividend, and on & on.

 

You still have to be very careful & picky, as some companies still have too much debt & pension obligations...but I think there is crazy opportunity here.

[cmlber]

The auto industry is interesting indeed!

 

I suspect that there is something terrible wrong here....and I suspect that the market & analysts have got things wrong here.

 

WHY?

 

They are fixated on TSLA & self driving autos.  The fixation is misplaced I suspect.

 

Traditionally, auto manufacturers have been prone to poor capital allocation, no doubt.  This makes them trade at a discount.  That is slowly starting to change.  I would posit that FCAU is the best at this point in terms of capital allocation.

 

Analysts are fixated on TSLA as they think that:

 

A). TSLA will take MASSIVE market share in the upcoming years.  I have no doubt that TSLA has a good CHANCE to take market share...but they are going from .01% market share to 1-2% market share. (this may also be optimistic, as there is a non 1% chance that TSLA blows up)  In my area, there are TSLA's and I see more of them as time progresses.  HOWEVER, the amount I usually see is 1-2 per day, and I do a lot of driving.  I see a LOT more PORSCHE vehicles than I do TSLA, and this is order of magnitude more.

 

B). Analysts are worried that the conversion from ICE to battery is more than the auto industry can handle/afford.  Once again, I think this is WAY overblown.  In my circle of friends/associates, only 1 person has been seriously interested in purchasing an electric vehicle.  Most people laugh/chuckle when queried about this.  I see almost no change in the next 5 years.  Why should there be?  Gas is well under $2/gallon in my area.  In 15-20 years, that MAY be different.

 

So I think a lot of the analysts live in a bubble.  They are in NYC, LA and they think that what they see/do/aspire to is what the rest of country wants.  That is not the case.

 

As for self driving vehicles, there may not be a market there (limited market)?  Many studies have pointed out that UBER drivers make LESS than minimum wage when you account for expenses & taxes.  Why have an expensive robot driving when you can have a human do it cheaply (and provide a TON of the capital to boot!)?

 

So with that bubble, you get FCAU with a net cash position, that is about to get a LOT better, single MID-digit P/E, nice dividend, and on & on.

 

You still have to be very careful & picky, as some companies still have too much debt & pension obligations...but I think there is crazy opportunity here.

 

I also have a large position in FCAU, but I think you're way underestimating autonomous fleets.  So what if some drivers are earning less than minimum wage, that's still a lot more expensive than nothing...  minimum wage in NYC is $13.5/hr, assume an autonomous car drives a 12 hour shift 365 days/year and it saves you $59,130/year in labor.  Do you really think the tech in autonomous cars will cost that much money?  Uber's cost per mile is 70-90% labor.

 

You're also not factoring in the possibility of cars made specifically for the robo-taxi purpose.  Why do they need to have 5 seats when most of them cary 1-2 people?  Smaller, 2 person vehicles could cut even the up-front cost of the vehicle.

 

And insurance will be cheaper for self-driving cars.

 

And fleet operators will probably have lower maintenance costs per mile.

[DTEJD1997]

The auto industry is interesting indeed!

 

I suspect that there is something terrible wrong here....and I suspect that the market & analysts have got things wrong here.

 

 

You still have to be very careful & picky, as some companies still have too much debt & pension obligations...but I think there is crazy opportunity here.

 

I also have a large position in FCAU, but I think you're way underestimating autonomous fleets.  So what if some drivers are earning less than minimum wage, that's still a lot more expensive than nothing...  minimum wage in NYC is $13.5/hr, assume an autonomous car drives a 12 hour shift 365 days/year and it saves you $59,130/year in labor.  Do you really think the tech in autonomous cars will cost that much money?  Uber's cost per mile is 70-90% labor.

 

You're also not factoring in the possibility of cars made specifically for the robo-taxi purpose.  Why do they need to have 5 seats when most of them cary 1-2 people?  Smaller, 2 person vehicles could cut even the up-front cost of the vehicle.

 

And insurance will be cheaper for self-driving cars.

 

And fleet operators will probably have lower maintenance costs per mile.

 

An excellent response!  Thank you!

 

You are assuming the rest of the country is like NYC?

 

Autonomous vehicles very well may work in NYC...but probably not in the wastelands of the middle of the country.  Vehicle demand here is largely during the commutes, early evening (running of errands), drinking & gambling time, and weekends.  I don't think a fleet of autonomous vehicles would be engaged 12 hour days...not here in/around Detroit at least.

 

I assume that insurance would be significantly HIGHER, at least for the first few years.  Can you imagine what the damages would be for somebody injured/killed by a self driving vehicle?  Lawyers would be DROOLING to get those cases.

 

A 2 person vehicle might indeed cut the cost down, I admit that I did not even consider that!  I don't think that will cut the costs tremendously though.  I imagine the single biggest cost to a self driving vehicle will be the software, followed by vision/computing/navigation, followed by engine & such.

 

As it currently stands, I don't think UBER buys/owns very many vehicles at all.  It is my understanding that 99%+ are provided by the drivers.  It is the human driver that is providing the vehicle/capital so that UBER can operate.  If some desperate attorney is willing to drive UBER with his own vehicle for $7-$8 hour, how much money can UBER possibly make by cutting him & his vehicle out of the loop with an autonomous driving vehicle?  Perhaps in NYC & SF & LA this might work, but I don't see how this works in the vast hinterlands...especially with most demand during rush/hours and early evening.  OR perhaps it might work with a very small percentage of vehicles being owned by UBER that can be utilized 12+ hours a day. 

 

Even if an Uber can cut a driver out of the loop and NOT let them get $14 in pay, UBER is still going to have expenses of capital wear & tear, gas, and insurance, so they won't be able to keep anywhere near that $14. 

 

Then you've got acceptance of people willing to ride in autonomous vehicles.  I might do that at an amusement park OR in a controlled environment.  NO WAY IN HELL I'm doing that in/around Detroit.  Road conditions are too bad, drivers are crazy, weather changes/it is a dangerous/difficult environment.  Autonomous vehicles are going to have to be very good indeed to beat a good human driver!  I've asked some other people I know and associate with...they are also skeptical.

 

All that aside, FCAU is trading at such a silly valuation that it won't matter in a few years, IF FCAU can keep going like they are.

 

I see incredibly limited applications/usefulness of AI.  In my interactions with it, I find it to be severely lacking...

 

We will see, but my money is riding on FCAU and some others!

 

[rb]

We already have a 2 person vehicle. It's called a Honda Civic working uber pool. In addition to that, it's not so clear that people will just jump into 2 person vehicles. That's why you have Uber XL. Engineers may be baffled but that's just the way people are.

 

But I would posit that it's not uberization, or self driving cars, or 2 people vehicles that's behind the stock prices we see now. Auto parts manufacturers are also in the dirt. And self driving electric ubers would still need stamped parts etc. I think it's just one of those sectors that's down because of some cycle narrative. Also maybe fears about slow down in China. But we're not producing a crazy number of vehicles where it's obvious the numbers should crash. A small pullback... ok, maybe. But share prices are back to 2012-2013 levels.

[valueinvesting101]

Only part of the Auto maker's profits are available for shareholders. So accounting earning are not really reflection of free cash-flow to shareholders.

 

http://theinvestmentsblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/munger-on-great-lesson-in.html This link has more details explanation.

 

This discussion of Ford and GM in 2005 AGM during afternoon session. Question #4:

 

https://buffett.cnbc.com/video/2005/04/30/afternoon-session---2005-berkshire-hathaway-annual-meeting.html?&start=824&end=1236

 

I think Charlie Munger was big fan of GM of 1950-60s but saw problems in the industry. I believe he mentioned in some recent video that it's somewhat surprising that Berkshire owns large stake in GM now but it's cheap and they have lot of cash to be invested now so it makes sense.

 

 

[kab60]

Only part of the Auto maker's profits are available for shareholders. So accounting earning are not really reflection of free cash-flow to shareholders.

 

http://theinvestmentsblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/munger-on-great-lesson-in.html This link has more details explanation.

 

This discussion of Ford and GM in 2005 AGM during afternoon session. Question #4:

 

https://buffett.cnbc.com/video/2005/04/30/afternoon-session---2005-berkshire-hathaway-annual-meeting.html?&start=824&end=1236

 

I think Charlie Munger was big fan of GM of 1950-60s but saw problems in the industry. I believe he mentioned in some recent video that it's somewhat surprising that Berkshire owns large stake in GM now but it's cheap and they have lot of cash to be invested now so it makes sense.

I agree with a lot of the stuff in that first link.

 

Auto looks cheap on a P/E basis, especially something like FCAU, but I can't get myself to invest in OEM's because I really struggle to figure out whether those earnings will ever be available to me or just plowed into the next new new thing. Now surely FCAU is doing all the right things, and it seems like they're setting themselves up for at sale, but what's the actual FCF over the cycle?

 

I might be missing a big opportunity, but I think auto retailers and parts manufacturers are possibly easier to figure out and just better businesses.

[JRM]

If you look at the number of miles driven in the US, the chart is up and to the right: https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10315

 

If you factor in China and India it is likely more parabolic.  I think miles driven per year is important to think about as well as average life of a car/age of fleet. 

 

Services like Uber and Lyft help to accelerate this replacement cycle because: 1) they put more miles on a new car, and 2) these companies require the drivers have new cars.

 

The last important factor is product mix; SUVs and trucks are much higher margin than sedans and small cars.  I could go on for a while about Americans and their trucks, but I don't have time this morning.

 

I think investors are still fighting the last war with regards to the auto makers regardless of where we might be in the cycle.

 

 

[kab60]

Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. Historically, I suppose miles driven have trended up quiet a bit as well, and look where that has gotten us...

 

I really don't know, which is why I can't get myself to buy what has historically been terrible - TERRIBLE - businesses despite them looking cheap on a P/E basis.

 

I understand OEM profitability is boosted by the switch from sedans to trucks, but what happens if/when oil prices rise? Haven't we seen that play out before? I believe there was a time where everyone wanted to build small vehicles... Now late in a cycle all people talk about is trucks... I like Fiats' brands, but doesn't that dash to trucks increase competition and possibly hurt margins? And what if oil hits 120 USD/barrel and we get a recession - will trucks still be in vogue?

 

Another thing, which I mentioned in the FCAU thread and didn't see anyone address. What happens to working capital in a downturn? I believe it's negative some 20B (at Fiat)?

 

Again, I don't know the answer, but I really wouldn't value these businesses on their P/E but try to gauge how much cash they'll generate to their owners. And I'm not smart enough to come up with a reasonable answer.

[cmlber]

Autonomous vehicles very well may work in NYC...but probably not in the wastelands of the middle of the country.  Vehicle demand here is largely during the commutes, early evening (running of errands), drinking & gambling time, and weekends.  I don't think a fleet of autonomous vehicles would be engaged 12 hour days...not here in/around Detroit at least.

 

If you're interested in the topic, I thought Autonomy was a very good book and I came away more bullish than I already was on self-driving fleets being the not so distant future.  Coincidentally, the author (former head of GM advanced tech R&D & Waymo consultant) did a modeling exercise to determine how many cars you would need to serve Ann Arbor, Michigan and provide near instant access at all times including rush hours and the number was 18,000, vs. a current total of 120,000 vehicles.

 

I assume that insurance would be significantly HIGHER, at least for the first few years.  Can you imagine what the damages would be for somebody injured/killed by a self driving vehicle?  Lawyers would be DROOLING to get those cases.

 

As far as I know, in 10 million miles driven Waymo has never killed anyone.  95% of fatalities are human error, so you need to outweigh the costs per incident (agreed, will probably be higher due to jury perception of a robot killer) with the much lower frequency of fatalities. 

 

As it currently stands, I don't think UBER buys/owns very many vehicles at all.  It is my understanding that 99%+ are provided by the drivers.  It is the human driver that is providing the vehicle/capital so that UBER can operate. 

 

Even if an Uber can cut a driver out of the loop and NOT let them get $14 in pay, UBER is still going to have expenses of capital wear & tear, gas, and insurance, so they won't be able to keep anywhere near that $14. 

 

Your prior statements on Uber drivers earning minimum wage (which I'm using to show how significant the labor savings could be) already includes an assumption of those costs.  I believe all those studies on Ubers "wages" take the gross wages less the monthly cost of lease/insurance/gas/maintenance and divide by hours to get a # around or below minimum wage. 

 

All that aside, FCAU is trading at such a silly valuation that it won't matter in a few years, IF FCAU can keep going like they are.

 

Agreed.

 

[nickenumbers]

Excellent discussion and info.  After an investor adjusts for Deprecation and CapEx, there is practically no cash leftover.  So, the PEs might be low, but if the earnings don't become cash, the adjusted PE is much higher, maybe infinity.

 

Plus, for the auto manufactures, it is a commodity business in the mind of the customer, and there are lot of technology changes coming on the horizon.  Who knows how much more CAPEX will be needed to adapt to the technology.

 

 

I am going to either put it in the "Hell No" pile or the "Too Hard" pile.

 

PS- I love the discussion around vehicle, passenger, technology and autonomy vs Uber.

[Spekulatius]

FWIW, very few companies in the auto business have FCF = net earnings. For many, it was about half that number, which makes even a 5-6x PE less enticing. Some of the auto suppliers don’t have debt disruption risk, like for example seat manufacturer LEA. LEA is one of the companies that deserve a second look, because they do actually generate a lot of FCF and are well managed with a solid balance sheet, unlike ADNT.

 

The problem with suppliers is generally low margin and fixed cost, as well as dependency on fee customers which could go bankrupt and pulling their suppliers down with them.

 

Another angle is to invest in EXO.MI, You get a double discount, as they hold discounted FCAU as well as a steep conglomerate discount, despite being a good capital allocator.

[DTEJD1997]

Excellent discussion and info.  After an investor adjusts for Deprecation and CapEx, there is practically no cash leftover.  So, the PEs might be low, but if the earnings don't become cash, the adjusted PE is much higher, maybe infinity.

 

Plus, for the auto manufactures, it is a commodity business in the mind of the customer, and there are lot of technology changes coming on the horizon.  Who knows how much more CAPEX will be needed to adapt to the technology.

 

 

I am going to either put it in the "Hell No" pile or the "Too Hard" pile.

 

PS- I love the discussion around vehicle, passenger, technology and autonomy vs Uber.

You might be right on GM & F, but FCAU has had consistent free cash flow over the past 5 years.  For some of those years, FCAU free cash flow has been VERY significant in relation to it's market cap.

 

When you look at capital expenditures...a good chunk of that is simply to replace drill bits, lathes, tool & die, and other things that wear out quickly...but I know that FCAU has some more modern factories (as compared to GM & F).  So perhaps FCAU's physical plant is in somewhat better condition.  If sales fall off, FCAU's capital spending should go down somewhat also.

 

So I would posit that FCAU has the best capital allocation of all the major manufacturers AND is in the best position (sales & profit) going forward for the near term. 

 

These assertions have been reinforced after yesterday's (1.3.19) sale's figures for the auto industry.  FCAU was up 8%, and is the best of the major manufacturers.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

Only part of the Auto maker's profits are available for shareholders. So accounting earning are not really reflection of free cash-flow to shareholders.

 

http://theinvestmentsblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/munger-on-great-lesson-in.html This link has more details explanation.

 

This discussion of Ford and GM in 2005 AGM during afternoon session. Question #4:

 

https://buffett.cnbc.com/video/2005/04/30/afternoon-session---2005-berkshire-hathaway-annual-meeting.html?&start=824&end=1236

 

I think Charlie Munger was big fan of GM of 1950-60s but saw problems in the industry. I believe he mentioned in some recent video that it's somewhat surprising that Berkshire owns large stake in GM now but it's cheap and they have lot of cash to be invested now so it makes sense.

 

The irony is that Buffet is now in automakers and airlines with LARGE bets despite them being called out as the terrible types of businesses. Business economics change with time and the competitive landscape. The consolidation in both industries has helped. I don't think I would want to own an OEM long-term, but they seem like decent bets now with people being overly pessimistic on the industry every since "peak-auto" concerns back in 2016.

 

Excellent discussion and info.  After an investor adjusts for Deprecation and CapEx, there is practically no cash leftover.  So, the PEs might be low, but if the earnings don't become cash, the adjusted PE is much higher, maybe infinity.

 

Plus, for the auto manufactures, it is a commodity business in the mind of the customer, and there are lot of technology changes coming on the horizon.  Who knows how much more CAPEX will be needed to adapt to the technology.

 

 

I am going to either put it in the "Hell No" pile or the "Too Hard" pile.

 

PS- I love the discussion around vehicle, passenger, technology and autonomy vs Uber.

 

Eh, "commodity" might be stretching it a bit. Maybe in the sense of traditional sedan business, but otherwise it doesn't seem that way. I own  Porsche Carrera and it is NOT a commodity car that is interchangable with any other car. My southern friends feel very strongly about their specific truck brands and Jeep has a die-hard following.

 

It seems to me the commoditization of autos was in the sedan space (which is dying off) and maybe in the SUVs (which are still significantly higher margin vehicles). Net-Net for the auto industry is fewer models/costs and higher margins while retaining strong brands.

 

 

When I look at the brands Fiat owns, they're very well positioned for future success. Maserati and Alfa Romea are not commodities. Jeep is not a commodity. Ram is likely not a commodity.

 

Also, I'm less concerned about autonomous drivings impact on these OEMs. They're still going to make the vehicles and will either build the software in-house or license it. There will probably be fewer vehicles, but higher margin and higher turnover. Further, the reduction in vehicles is likely to be overestimated unless if we start staggering working hours across cities.

 

It's the companies like Uber which I think may struggle with autonomous vehicles as they have little competitive advantage to offer outside of a sophisticated logistics app.

[JRM]

Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. Historically, I suppose miles driven have trended up quiet a bit as well, and look where that has gotten us...

 

I really don't know, which is why I can't get myself to buy what has historically been terrible - TERRIBLE - businesses despite them looking cheap on a P/E basis.

 

I understand OEM profitability is boosted by the switch from sedans to trucks, but what happens if/when oil prices rise? Haven't we seen that play out before? I believe there was a time where everyone wanted to build small vehicles... Now late in a cycle all people talk about is trucks... I like Fiats' brands, but doesn't that dash to trucks increase competition and possibly hurt margins? And what if oil hits 120 USD/barrel and we get a recession - will trucks still be in vogue?

 

Another thing, which I mentioned in the FCAU thread and didn't see anyone address. What happens to working capital in a downturn? I believe it's negative some 20B (at Fiat)?

 

Again, I don't know the answer, but I really wouldn't value these businesses on their P/E but try to gauge how much cash they'll generate to their owners. And I'm not smart enough to come up with a reasonable answer.

 

I'm not saying there won't be an impact if oil prices/gas prices rise enough; however, trucks and SUVs in general get much better mileage than they did 10-15 years ago.  The last time SUVs were popular they were mostly built on truck frames and had poor drivability.  Today many SUVs are on unibody frames similar to a sedan and drive more like a car.

 

The experience of everyone I know who owns a truck (which is quite extensive); they all say "once you own a truck you can't NOT own a truck".  They might switch brands, but I still see a lot of brand loyalty among the truck crowd.  It's a totally different dynamic than the rest of the auto market.  I think folks who live in big cities might be blind to this social dynamic in the rest of the rural US.

 

For people in rural areas a truck is a status symbol and a way to signal ones "manliness", whereas driving a nice BMW or Tesla says, "I have money, but I'm not a real man". 

 

FWIW I don't own a truck yet, but I probably will in the future. 

[Spekulatius]

It’s not a truck, but I absolutely love our 2015  Subaru Forester. Mileage is actually better than with my 2012 Hyundai Elantra on our suburban roads (31 mpg vs 28mpg LT average) despite being heavier and having a 4 wheel drive (which is very handy in winter). The progress in mileage in the last few years has been significant.

[thelads]

Long time not posting on here. Apologies if the following seems naive our out of place. I am far from an expert (on anything)! But I think the topic has real merits here. I think some part of the mess that has happened the past 8 months or so on the Auto and Supplier names is down to China. A lot is down to WLTP too, the new emmissions testing rules in Europe. This created a real bottleneck in production. I may be wrong, but certainly in some conversations I have had, people have conflated those two, and I think that is inappropriate.

 

Of course, there could be real problems from China if a trade war goes full blast. Or in general if we are at the top of the LVP cycle. Though I think much of the latter is priced in. Those certainly seem like the real risks to me. However, if the trade war fears abate, and if you believe WLTP is mostly a temporary phenomenon (I do) in Europe, then this is a reasonable opportunity.

 

The points raised in earlier posts about capital intensity and concerns around true distributable owner earnings are completely valid. In addition, there are some big potentially very capital intensive bets being made on Autonomy. Those could go well, or go poorly. I know for some of the German OEM's they have scrapped billions in investment quietly and moved the R&D burden onto suppliers. The problems were much greater than they expected and the skill set internally didn't match that required. Perhaps the US OEM's do the same? Ford seems to be very far along, and from what I know has a decent lead over GM and others (despite the Cruise investment). But who knows if they can make it stick. I certainly don't. Ford still has legacy issues anyhow.

 

Anyhow - I thought I would mention a couple of names as alternates that have less of a capital intensity issue. Both are tier 1 suppliers to OEM's worldwide. The first is Autoliv, which makes airbags, seatbelts and some other sundry safety equipment. It is not a sexy business, but they have 50% market share in certain products and no viable alternatives available. It is extremely well run and has a good growth runway for the next 3 years which is largely assured. it is not as cheap on a P/E basis as some of the other names mentioned, but at 9x P/E it is still far too cheap in my opinion. The other company is Gentex. There is a short thesis out there on it. I will let you all decide if that makes sense. I think they are in a more questionable spot strategically. They are dominant in rear view mirrors. They have done well with R&D and have incredible margins for a company supplying Auto OEMs. There are some questions around their results, and also around whether mirrors will be replaced by screens. It is also cheap vs. its historical norm and has a heavily involved owner operator CEO.

 

I just thought I would mention the two for anyone interested in the topic. Happy new year to everyone.