Should Stellantis Investors Be Concerned About Long-Term Profitability?

Stellantis N.V. (STLA) announced a massive recall of over 1.2 million Ram 1500 pickups due to a software glitch that could potentially disable the electronic stability control (ESC) system. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the recall affects specific 2019 models and 2021 through 2024 Ram 1500 trucks, as reported by CNN.

Stellantis stated that the issue was uncovered during a “routine review of customer feedback,” which led to an internal investigation. This revealed that certain Ram 1500 trucks might be equipped with ABS module software prone to inadvertently disabling the ESC system.

The malfunction could cause the anti-lock brake system (ABS) to disable the ESC, posing a higher risk of crashes if the driver continues to operate the vehicle without the system's support. However, Stellantis assured that the brakes would still function normally, and drivers would be alerted to the problem with indicator lights for ABS, ESC, Adaptive Cruise Control, and Forward Collision Warning upon starting the vehicle.

Though no accidents or injuries have been reported due to the defect, the company emphasized that U.S. safety standards require ESC to function during nearly all driving conditions. Stellantis plans to update the software to resolve the issue at no cost to owners, with notification letters expected to be sent out beginning October 3.

In addition to this recall, the company addresses potential instrument panel failures in certain 2020-2024 Jeep Gladiator and 2018-2024 Jeep Wrangler models caused by an internal short circuit. It isn't the first time Stellantis has dealt with software-related recalls, either.

Earlier in June, the company recalled nearly 158,000 Ram 2500 pickups due to a similar issue with the stability control system. The total recall in June impacted over 211,000 vehicles, including the 2022 Dodge Durango and Ram 2500 and 3500 models. It was reported that more than 53,000 Dodge Durangos and 524 Ram 3500s were included in the recall.

Following the recall, Stellantis, which manages a portfolio of 16 international brands, moved quickly to address the problem and prioritize customer safety. Vehicle owners were urged to act promptly on the recall notice to ensure their vehicles remained safe for use.

Financially, the recall comes at a challenging time for Stellantis. For the first half of the year ending June 30, the automaker’s revenues decreased 13.6% year-over-year to €85.02 billion ($94.24 billion). Operating income took an even steeper hit, falling 50.9% to €6.64 billion ($7.36 billion).

Moreover, Stellantis reported a 48% drop in net profit for the six-month period, amounting to €5.65 billion ($6.26 billion). This sharp decline was primarily due to decreased sales volumes, ongoing production challenges, and a shrinking market share in North America. The company’s adjusted earnings per share also fell 34.6% year-over-year to €2.36.

CEO Carlos Tavares acknowledged that the company’s performance lagged behind expectations, citing both industry-wide challenges and internal hurdles such as inventory mismanagement and manufacturing inefficiencies. Nevertheless, Tavares remains optimistic about Stellantis’ strategic vision, which includes launching 20 new models and focusing on affordable electric vehicles (EVs).

Despite these setbacks, Stellantis is holding firm on its 2024 financial targets, which include achieving a double-digit operating income margin and returning significant capital to investors. The company is doubling down on new model launches, addressing specific issues in the U.S. market, and considering aggressive measures like price cuts and potential layoffs to improve its bottom line.

However, investor sentiment has been lukewarm, with STLA’s shares dropping more than 33% year-to-date, reflecting ongoing concerns over the company’s declining market share in North America and a 16% drop in U.S. sales.

While the recent recall and financial challenges may seem concerning, analysts maintain a cautiously optimistic outlook for Stellantis. Despite facing short-term headwinds, such as the cost of repairs and potential regulatory fines, the company’s global footprint and diversified operations could help mitigate the long-term financial impact.

Street expects STLA’s revenue and EPS to increase 5% and 10.3% year-over-year to $198.42 billion and $5.23, respectively. These projections suggest that while the recall may cause some immediate turbulence, the company remains positioned for steady growth in the coming years.

Citi analyst Harald Hendrikse maintains a “Hold” rating on the stock and has slightly raised the target price from $23.58 to $23.74, representing a potential upside of over 52% from current levels. Jefferies analyst Philippe Houchois has also issued a “Hold” recommendation, reflecting the overall sentiment that Stellantis, despite current issues, could deliver in the long run.

Investors must consider that the automaker operates across multiple regions and sectors, with a robust presence in EV production and a broad portfolio of brands. This global diversity helps cushion the blow from challenges in individual markets, such as the recall in the U.S. while allowing the company to tap into high-growth areas like EVs and emerging markets. With that in mind, it could be wise for investors to wait for a better entry point in this stock now.

Is Ford's Recall a Buying Opportunity or a Red Flag?

Ford Motor Company (F) will recall 90,736 vehicles due to a potential issue with engine intake valves that may break while driving, as stated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). This recall affects certain 2021-2022 models, including the Bronco, F-150, Edge, Explorer, Lincoln Nautilus, and Lincoln Aviator, equipped with either a 2.7L or 3.0L Nano EcoBoost engine.

The recall, initiated by U.S. regulators, has prompted concerns among investors regarding the potential financial and reputational impact on F. This situation raises an important question: Does this recall represent a buying opportunity due to an overreaction in the stock price, or is it a red flag signaling deeper issues within the automaker?

Recall’s Financial and Reputational Impact on Ford

The recall could carry significant financial implications for Ford. While the exact cost of the recall will depend on the number of engines that need to be replaced, the expense of performing engine cycle tests and potential engine replacements will likely be substantial. However, it is essential to consider the company’s financial health when assessing the impact of recall.

For the second quarter that ended June 30, 2024, F’s revenue increased 6.2% year-over-year to $47.80 billion. However, the company failed to surpass analysts’ estimate of $44.90 billion. Also, Ford reported adjusted EPS of $0.47, down 34.7% year-over-year. That missed the consensus EPS estimate of $0.68.

The company’s second-quarter adjusted free cash flow grew 10.3% from the prior year’s quarter to $3.20 billion. Ford’s cash and cash equivalents stood at $19.95 billion as of June 30, 2024. The automaker raised its full-year guidance for free cash flow while maintaining its 2024 earnings guidance. F’s guidance range for adjusted EBIT is $10-$12 billion, and expectations for adjusted FCF increased by $1 billion to between $7.5 billion and $8.5 billion.

From a reputational standpoint, Ford’s recall could undermine consumer confidence, especially in the models affected. The vehicles involved include some of the automaker’s best-sellers, such as the F-150 and the Bronco, which play critical roles in Ford’s product lineup.

Recalls, particularly those related to engine issues, can tarnish the brand’s image and lead to concerns about its vehicles' overall quality and reliability. This could potentially affect Ford’s sales in the short term, as customers may hesitate to purchase models involved in the recall.

Immediate Impact on Ford’s Stock

In the immediate aftermath of the recall announcement, investor sentiment around F could turn negative, leading to a decline in the stock price. Market overreactions to such news are common, mainly when the recall involves critical components like engines. However, the dip in the stock price could present a buying opportunity for long-term investors who believe in Ford’s ability to navigate through these challenges.

Ford has been making significant strides in the electric vehicle (EV) and autonomous driving sectors, which are well-poised to witness substantial growth in the near future. Fortune Business Insights projects the global EV market to expand from $671.47 billion in 2024 to $1.89 trillion by 2032, exhibiting a CAGR of 13.8% during the forecast period.

F, announced in earlier 2022, has committed to investing $50 billion in EVs by 2026, aiming to produce 2 million EVs annually. The company’s push into autonomous driving technologies also positions it well in a rapidly evolving automotive landscape. These promising long-term growth prospects could outweigh the short-term challenges posed by the recall, making the current dip in stock price an attractive entry point for investors with a long-term horizon.

Competitor Analysis: Opportunities for GM and STLA

While Ford deals with the fallout from this recall, competitors like General Motors Company (GM) and Stellantis N.V. (STLA) could seize the opportunity to capture market share. Both companies are heavily invested in the EV market and have been gaining traction with their respective product lines.

With its solid portfolio of electric vehicles, including the Chevrolet Bolt and the upcoming Hummer EV, GM is well-positioned to benefit if F’s recall leads to a loss of consumer confidence. Similarly, STLA, with its diverse product lineup and focus on electrification, could attract customers who might otherwise have considered Ford vehicles.

Therefore, investors may consider buying GM and STLA as they could see an uptick in sales and market share at Ford’s expense.

Bottom Line

F’s recent recall over the engine value issue, initiated by NHTSA, presents a complex situation for investors. On one hand, the recall could lead to a short-term decline in stock price due to negative investor sentiment and potential financial costs. On the other hand, this dip could offer a buying opportunity for those who believe in Ford’s long-term prospects in EVs and autonomous driving.

Moreover, the recall opens up potential opportunities for competitors like General Motors and Stellantis to capitalize on any loss of market share that Ford might witness. As such, investors may find value in diversifying their portfolios by considering GM and STLA, which are also well-positioned in the evolving EV landscape.

While Ford’s recall is a concerning development, it may not be a long-term red flag. Instead, it could be a temporary setback for the automaker, creating a buying opportunity for discerning investors. However, it is crucial to monitor the situation closely, as the extent of the recall’s impact on F’s reputation and financials will ultimately determine whether this is a buying opportunity or a sign of deeper issues within the company.

STLA vs. California - Assessing the Investment Landscape Amid Emissions Policy Disputes

Stellantis N.V. (STLA), one of the globe's leading automakers, was formed in 2021 from the merger between Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and the PSA Group. The company's portfolio includes illustrious brands like Ram, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, and Jeep, and it has a strong presence in North America and Europe.

STLA has disclosed plans for significant workforce downsizing at its Jeep manufacturing plants in Detroit and Toledo, Ohio. The company has attributed its dire decision to the stringent emissions regulations enforced by California.

STLA’s Detroit plant, known for manufacturing the Jeep Grand Cherokee, may witness a potential impact on around 2,455 employees and roughly 1,225 workers at the Toledo facility – which is responsible for producing the Jeep Wrangler and Gladiator models – are also expected to bear the brunt of the downsizing decision.

To respond to the sluggish sales performance of its Jeep brand, STLA has made strategic moves to adjust production levels accordingly. These include transitioning from an alternative work regimen to a customary two-shift operation at its Toledo location and eliminating one out of three shifts at the Detroit facility, which currently employs 4,600 individuals. The intended job reductions are projected to take effect as soon as February 5.

Let’s understand the issue in detail...

Since this summer, STLA has substantially curtailed its shipments of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and EVs to dealers in the 14 states that adhere to the stringent rules set forth by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

Consequently, consumers shopping in these jurisdictions are typically presented with a stock of plug-in hybrid SUVs. However, an order must be placed for those interested in buying an all-electric version or an ICE model.

Quite contrarily, dealers trading in states operating beyond CARB standards face a disproportionately different situation with scarce or no hybrids in stock, essentially providing an ICE-only product lineup. The underpinning rationale for STLA's strategic supply management is to meet CARB's emission standards in those 14 states, enabling manufacturers to sell a fixed percentage of zero-emission vehicles and plug-in hybrids.

But here’s the challenge for the Jeep producer. In 2020, STLA rivals Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, and BMW entered an exclusive agreement with California, delineating unique compliance criteria considering nationwide sales rather than solely focusing on CARB's jurisdictions. STLA argues that such a modification disrupts industry balance by unfairly tilting it in favor of the brands due to the more achievable nature of these revised targets.

After the initial agreement, Volvo and Geely acceded to the pact with California, leaving STLA in an unfavorable position as their request to participate was rejected. Seeking an explanation, STLA alleges that the rebuff resulted from Chrysler's public protestation against California's assertive act of promulgating autonomous rules in 2019. This drew attention, provoking similar challenges led by other automobile manufacturers such as General Motors (GM) and Toyota.

GM was prominently outspoken among those opposing California's regulatory authority, culminating in a stern confrontation. As a reaction, California declared it would cease purchasing vehicles from GM for its fleet requirements. The discord was resolved in January 2022 when GM consented to adhere to California's stringent emission standards.

Recent developments include STLA formally challenging the stand by submitting a petition to California's Office of Administrative Law, indicating accusations against the state for clandestine regulatory maneuvering involving selective automakers in direct violation of the California Administrative Procedure Act and claiming it amounts to a “double standard.”

The requested reevaluation of the framework agreement represents a bid to prompt the state’s Office of Administrative Law to invalidate the contract. While this outcome is improbable, it serves to reestablish an equal playing field with those car manufacturers who previously expressed a more favorable stance toward reinforcing emissions regulations.

Probable Impacts on STLA

STLA has actively opposed President Biden's endeavors to curtail carbon emissions and promote EVs. They allege that the stringent regulations risk imposing multi-billion-dollar penalties on their operations.

The automobile manufacturer has voiced support for lowering emissions, citing it as a challenge to California to address its "competitive disadvantages" and ensure fair product distribution across all states.

Earlier this year, STLA revealed plans to cease the supply of non-hybrid vehicles in states adhering to California's stringent emissions regulations in compliance with these rigorous environmental standards.

The discontinuation of gas-only vehicle shipments to 14 states, in the absence of specific customer orders, may lead to substantial repercussions for STLA. The automaker's sales and market share could decline significantly, while costs might escalate, eroding profit margins.

Moreover, the recently filed petition by STLA, charging CARB with executing an “underground regulatory scheme” against the company, casts a shadow of potential legal disputes. Fines, penalties or sanctions from CARB or other administrative bodies could emanate from the proceedings.

Furthermore, it is expected that STLA will revise its vehicle distribution strategy, adjusting it based on CARB emission compliance per state. This shift may result in restricted gas-only model availability for dealers in non-CARB states. Consequently, such constraints could initiate ripple effects on customer satisfaction, loyalty, and retention, potentially impacting dealer profitability and operational efficiency.

Diminishing SUV production, a recent move by STLA, might endanger the company's ability to meet customer demands. Ultimately, this could lead to a substantial impact on the company's revenue figures.

Other factors that should be considered…

Despite STLA's gradual progression toward EVs, the company's investment in this sector is substantial. The Jeep Wrangler 4xe and Chrysler Pacifica hybrids remain among California's top-selling EVs. However, business performance is volatile.

STLA announced a recall of over 32,000 vehicles last month due to potential fire hazards. Declining sales of Jeep ICE variants and soaring interest rates have compelled the company to adopt aggressive cost-reduction measures. This change may result in major disruptions for numerous employees' livelihoods.

It is not the first time the company attributed layoffs to the EV transition. About 1,350 employees at STLA's Illinois plant were laid off, citing the same rationale. This development comes at a compelling time as Detroit's "Big Three" – General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and STLA – are simultaneously exploring cost-cutting strategies.

This follows the recent agreement to significant wage enhancement in response to United Auto Workers' strikes this year. Consequently, many positions within the automotive industry face uncertainty, leading to widespread usage of the term "restructuring" in the current discourse.

STLA is indeed the proprietor of several well-known brands. However, the perceived quality of these brands falls short when matched against some competitors. Management will need to remain steadfast in addressing and circumventing this issue.

The auto giant has set its sights on putting 47 EVs on the road by the end of next year. Of course, such a target is easier said than done. To successfully execute this plan, STLA must continue to innovate with new model introductions and astutely invest without placing undue risk on profit margins or destabilizing the company's financial footing. The successful implementation of this intricate transition represents the primary risk and question concerning STLA stock.

The difficulty of this task becomes more pronounced when compared to peers such as Tesla, which has already established streamlined profitability through its vehicle production.

Determining wise investment strategies that properly steer STLA forward while confronting a market saturated with inexpensive Chinese vehicles is challenging. Moreover, predicting the outcome of this endeavor remains incredibly tough.

Valuation

At the current share price, STLA’s shares look tantalizingly cheap. Its forward P/E and Price/FCF multiples are 3.44 and 2.51, respectively, lower than the industry averages. Also, the company pays an attractive dividend yield of 6.53%.

Bottom Line

STLA is at a crucial juncture. The auto industry is immersed in an epochal shift toward electrification. Despite STLA's robust cash flows, it lags behind premier EV manufacturers in key areas of technology, sales, and future competitiveness. As a newcomer within the EV space, STLA recognizes the need to accelerate its progress, with monumental investments lined up over the forthcoming decade.

Investing in STLA is not without risks. The viability of the investment hinges on the company's ability to generate a meaningful amount of cash flow this decade. If it fails to do so, this could significantly hinder the funding earmarked for its transition to EVs.

The increasing global demand for EVs could place STLA in a precarious position and negatively affect its cash flow from operations. With an influx of automakers vying for market share, the fierce competition in the EV market could pose significant challenges to STLA. However, the potential rewards could be substantial if the company implements its strategies effectively.

STLA must successfully navigate numerous hurdles, including imminent economic turbulence, pricing pressure, rapidly evolving consumer preferences, attacks from emerging competitors, and, importantly, the strategic handling of disputes related to emission policies.

It is somewhat eyebrow-raising that layoffs transpire so swiftly following the confirmation of the latest "record" UAW agreement, a pact envisioned to establish the most robust job security in the face of transitioning to Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and hybrids. Contrary to expectations, job numbers appear to be contracting rather than expanding, marking yet another occasion where grim reality dawns after the initial euphoria dissipates.

Considering the waning demand for their " premium SUVs, " one might question if STLA ever alluded to the fact that they'd be reducing shifts and trimming employee numbers at their twin Jeep plants, considering the waning demand for their "premium SUVs." This comes despite the Fifth-Generation Grand Cherokee only halfway through its minimum six-year cycle.

Moreover, it is curious that they place the onus on California's stringent CARB regulations – rules that have existed long before. It would be expected that STLA has crafted or is at least devising strategies to roll out more BEVs and hybrids to enhance compliance with CARB regulations.

Interestingly, recent layoff news and issues with the CARB have kept investor confidence strong. Indeed, STLA stock experienced a decrease of less than half a percent on Thursday last week, a minor setback that has since been regained. However, given the current circumstances, potential investors might consider waiting for a better entry point in the stock.

Are General Motors (GM), Ford Motor (F), and Stellantis (STLA) Investors Facing a Troubled September?

The automobile industry navigated a tumultuous period featured by the pandemic-induced supply chain hiccups, soaring inflation, and climbing interest rates. However, the situation is improving lately thanks to the surge in EV demand.

According to Cox Automotive, during the first half of 2023, new vehicle sales in the U.S. surged 12.3% year-over-year, taking total sales to 7.69 million units, exceeding the estimated projections of 7.65 million.

However, this respite in the auto industry could be short-lived due to looming tensions wrought by potential strikes threatened by the United Auto Workers (UAW) union at Stellantis (STLA), Ford Motor Company (F), and General Motors (GM), should contractual negotiations not reach a successful conclusion by September 14, 2023.

In a recent authorization vote surrounding the possibility of walk-outs at these major plants, referred to as the ‘Big Three,’ employing 150,000 UAW-unionized workers, an overwhelming 97% of UAW members voiced their support.

UAW has outlined several ambitious targets. There will be a determined attempt to reinstate specific contractual provisions relinquished during the 2007 negotiations, including retiree health insurance and the abolition of a conventional pension scheme.

Since 2010, the number of U.S. automobile manufacturing jobs has risen. However, exponential advancements in EVs, increasingly supported by the government, could result in mass staff layoffs.

The main apprehensions of American autoworkers are twofold. First, the predicted transition to EV production could usher in layoffs and factory closures. Second, because many battery production companies are joint ventures, these entities might not pledge primary allegiance to union demands.

Adding to the frustration, workers have expressed discontent over profit distribution, claiming that corporate executives pocket vast returns, leaving little for the rank-and-file.

Substantiating this fear is that each of the three auto manufacturers has scaled down their employment figures over the past year. In June, Ford undertook a series of layoffs impacting nearly 1,000 workers across its gas-powered, EV production, and software development sectors. While it rationalizes the reductions as realignments based on ‘skills and expertise,’ hiring was reported only in ‘key area.’

Similarly, GM shut down an IT center in Arizona in October last year and initiated layoffs impacting about 940 workers. Moreover, the company acknowledged that over 5,000 salaried employees had opted for buyout offers as part of a broader cost-saving execution amid economic recession fears.

Furthermore, STLA, following a similar suit, offered buyouts to over 33,000 employees in April to avert layoffs that have befallen other automakers.

Amid these events, the union has vocalized its intent to secure protection against employment terminations and plant closures.

Potential Impact of the Strike

Halting production for even one big automaker during a strike could have acute ramifications, directly harming thousands of workers, and the companies could face significant financial losses due to diminished sales and stalled production.

F employs the highest number of UAWs, approximately 57,000 across all its U.S. manufacturing units, while its counterparts GM and STLA have 46,000 and 44,000 UAW members, respectively.

The UAW has amassed over $825 million in its strike fund to provide employees on strike with a weekly allowance of $500, projected to be exhausted within 11 weeks. Strikers would lose out on wages that would only be partially offset by the union’s weekly benefit.

During strikes, the financial implications for auto companies can be catastrophic. The 2019 40-day strike reportedly cost GM a staggering $3.6 billion. A prolonged strike may also threaten the UAW’s efforts to restore its reputation after several corruption allegations.

The fallout from a strike on the 'Big Three' automakers could result in production delays or potential shutdowns, influencing their overall revenues. Meanwhile, there has been news of F preparing its salaried and white-collar workforce to step into production roles should the UAW members initiate a strike.

Negotiations ensuing these situations could add over $80 billion in labor costs to each automaker over the contract period and increase the likelihood of work stoppages.

The Anderson Economic Group forecasts that potential work stoppages could inflict an economic loss exceeding $5 billion within 10 days. Similarly, Deutsche Bank hypothesizes that each automaker could endure earnings losses ranging between $400 million and $500 million for each week of halted production.

It could jeopardize production schedules within the Big Three's auto manufacturing realm. If the production losses escalate rapidly, it might lead to approximately 1.5 million units forfeiting. However, these aggressive tactics primarily favor the interests of the UAW rather than the companies or their shareholders.

If the demands are fulfilled without any revisions to other benefits, the hourly labor cost for automakers will more than double, representing a significant increase compared to the rates settled in the preceding four-year agreements.

Considering the current scenario, let us understand where the ‘Big Three’ automakers stand.

Stellantis N.V. (STLA)

Headquartered in Hoofddorp, the Netherlands, STLA reported a record-breaking earnings report for the six months ended June 30, 2023. Its net revenues increased 11.8% year-over-year to €98.37 billion ($104.52 billion), while adjusted operating income grew 11% from the year-ago value to €14.13 billion ($15.32 billion). The company’s net profit rose 37.2% year-over-year to €10.92 billion ($11.84 billion).

Following these impressive financial results, STLA projects that its adjusted operating income margin will reach double digits and maintain a positive industrial free cash flow for the 2023 fiscal year.

On August 24, it announced the expansion of its SPOTiCAR program to the U.S. This initiative aims to streamline vehicle purchases for individuals and businesses through digital tools and specialized dealerships, thereby increasing customer satisfaction and future product value.

On August 23, the company completed an agreement with AGI, a leader in nationwide branded infrastructure programs for more than 50 years, to support national U.S. dealership electrification and EV charging capabilities. These moves are expected to help STLA fulfill its Dare Forward 2030 strategy to achieve 50% battery-EV sales by the end of this decade. This strategic partnership with AGI will significantly augment STLA's revenue generation capacity.

As a result of such developments, Analysts expect STLA’s revenue and EPS in the fiscal year (ending December 2023) to be $205.16 billion and $5.70, registering growths of 7.8% and 3.2% year-over-year, respectively. Moreover, the company surpassed the consensus revenue estimates in all the trailing four quarters.

Shares of STLA have gained 28.9% year-to-date and lost 10.9% over the past month to close the last trading session at $18.30.

Institutional investors and hedge funds have recently changed their STLA stock holdings. Institutions hold roughly 29.3% of STLA shares. Of the 433 institutional holders, 200 have increased their positions in the stock. Moreover, 60 institutions have taken new positions (7,111,951 shares), while 42 have sold positions in the stock (30,938,367 shares).

Ford Motor Company (F)

Legacy automaker F posted better-than-expected second-quarter earnings and raised their respective 2023 projections.

During the second quarter, F’s revenues rose 11.9% year-over-year to $44.95 billion, and automotive revenues peaked at $42.43 billion, surpassing the $40.38 billion estimate. The net income almost tripled to $1.92 billion, marking an 187.4% year-over-year increase.

The automaker raised its full-year adjusted EBIT guidance range from $9 billion and $11 billion to $11 billion and $12 billion while simultaneously raising its adjusted free cash flow guidance from $6 billion to $6.5 billion and $7 billion. The company anticipates to hit an 8% EBIT target by 2026.

In August, SK On, EcoProBM, and F announced a C$1.2 billion investment to construct a cathode manufacturing facility that will provide materials to supply batteries to solidify the EV supply chain in North America. With production anticipated to commence by the first half of 2026, the facility is expected to produce up to 45,000 tonnes of CAM annually. Being F's inaugural investment in Québec, this new facility aligns with the company's goal of localizing vital battery raw material processing in regions where EV manufacturing occurs.

On August 1, F reopened its Rouge Electric Vehicle Center after a six-week expansion project, increasing its capacity to 150,000 units by the fall to meet the heavy demand. Nevertheless, a strike projected for September threatens to curtail the benefits of this additional capacity, given the likely slowdown in production.

Investor apprehension was fueled by multiple facets of the company's earnings and guidance. Notably, the EV segment of the business, recently rebranded as Model E, reported a pre-tax loss of $1.08 billion. The firm anticipates losses for this segment could mount to $4.5 billion in 2023, a startling increase of 50% compared to previous estimates.

Amid a global price war, F reduced prices for its 2023 Motor Trend Car of the Year F-150 Lightning Electric Truck, directly responding to price cuts implemented by rival Tesla. Consequently, this strategy spurred a six-fold demand surge in orders and over 50% for its XLT trim level. The price cuts are anticipated to dent the profitability of industry players.

Additionally, the company has publicly acknowledged the slow pace of EV adoption and consequently has dialed back its ambitious EV production plans. The company now expects to hit an annual production capacity of 600,000 vehicles by 2024 instead of 2023 while being “flexible” about the goal of 2 million vehicles it previously forecast by 2026.

Analysts expect F’s revenue and EPS in the fiscal year (ending December 2023) to be $166.11 billion and $2.07, registering 11.5% and 10.2% year-over-year growths, respectively. Moreover, the company surpassed the consensus revenue estimates in three of the trailing four quarters.

Considering these developments, F’s shares have been facing pressures, sending its stock down to May 2023 levels. Over the past year, the stock declined 22.8% and 10.3% over the past month to close the last trading session at $11.90.

Institutions hold roughly 54.7% of F shares. Of the 1,798 institutional holders, 773 have decreased their positions in the stock. Moreover, 131 institutions have taken new positions (12,514,405 shares), while 135 have sold positions in the stock (18,347,658 shares).

General Motors (GM)

Detroit’s auto giant, GM, reported impressive revenue and profit growth, upgrading its profit prediction for the second time this year. Despite global challenges, the company continues to see robust demand for its vehicles and reduced expenditure.

For the fiscal second quarter that ended June 30, 2023, GM’s total revenues grew 25.1% year-over-year to $44.75 billion, while its adjusted EBIT rose 38% year-over-year to $3.23 billion. Its net income attributable to stockholders rose 51.7% year-over-year to $2.57 billion, while its adjusted EPS came in at $1.91, representing a 67.5% increase year-over-year. GM’s adjusted automotive free cash flow amplified 294.3% year-over-year to $5.55 billion.

The company has revised its net income expectations for the ongoing fiscal year from an earlier high-end estimate of $9.3 billion to $10.7 billion. Its automotive division’s free cash flow is also expected to come between $7 billion and $9 billion, up from $5.5 billion to $7.5 billion.

This impressive financial performance, fueled by a thriving conventional auto business spotlighting profitable trucks and SUVs, has facilitated the company's intensified entry into the electric vehicle (EV) sector. GM said it would increase cost-cutting measures through next year by an additional $1 billion in expenditures.

Investors can look forward to significant potential gains if the company successfully leverages new business opportunities and smoothly transitions from reliance on internal combustion engine sales to EVs.

By aligning focus on the promising sectors of electric and autonomous vehicles, connected services, and new business models, GM anticipates being able to double company revenue by the decade’s end. Additionally, it envisages its EV wing reaching profitability by 2025, boasting an EV production capacity of 1 million units in North America and approximately $50 billion in EV-generated revenue.

GM's endeavors to explore fresh avenues of income are highlighted by its autonomous robotaxi unit, Cruise. The company recently declared the commencement of production for numerous EVs based on the freshly conceptualized Ultium platform from 2023’s second half. Initiated in 2018, the Ultium EV platform is versatile enough to produce various vehicle sizes and types across segments. The wide range of the platform will help streamline production and improve its supply chain, helping push toward more profitable EVs.

However, GM has struggled to ramp up production of its EVs this year, citing problems with battery module availability. GM said it is resolving that issue, and EV production is expected to improve in the second half of 2023.

Analysts expect GM’s revenue and EPS in the fiscal year (ending December 2023) to be $171.71 billion and $7.73, registering 9.6% and 1.9% year-over-year growth, respectively. Moreover, the company surpassed the consensus EPS estimates in all the trailing four quarters.

Institutional investors have recently changed their holdings of GM stock. Institutions hold roughly 82% of GM shares. Of the 1,346 institutional holders, 575 have decreased their positions in the stock. Moreover, 110 institutions have taken new positions (6,710,244 shares), while 95 have sold positions in the stock (7,158,230 shares).

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway recently announced a significant reduction in its stake in GM during the second quarter by 45%, from about 40 million to about 22 million. The decision could be related to the challenging contract negotiations.

Considering these developments, GM’s shares have been facing pressure. Over the past year, the stock declined 15.6% and 13% over the past month to close the last trading session at $33.12.

Observations

GM and F might face over 10% decline in their earnings, should a prolonged strike occur. However, STLA is less susceptible to this risk due to its primary business concentration in Europe, regions lacking a UAW union presence.

American Axle, for instance, gets an estimated 55% to 65% of its revenue from operations dependent on UAW workers, while Magna International gets 35% to 40%, and Lear gets 30% to 35%.

The repercussions of the UAW contract could resonate nationally, affecting the steel industry and smaller US manufacturers that supply parts to the Detroit Three automakers.

Furthermore, the replacement rates, indicating the percentage of product portfolio to be swapped with brand-new products in the next four years, carry significant implications. It impacts the age of products displayed in showrooms, the market share companies can capture, and their corresponding profitability.

John Murphy, the Lead U.S. Auto Analyst at Bank of America’s Equity Research, highlighted that companies with lower replacement rates indicate a less fresh product and are expected to lose more market share. Conversely, businesses with higher replacement rates tend to gain more market share.

According to the Car Wars study, the anticipated vehicle replacement rate between 2024 and 2027 is expected to align with the historical average of 15%. In this respect, F appears optimally positioned, while STLA lags. GM, on the other hand, “marginally” lags the industry’s average replacement rate.

GM's replacement rate is forecasted to land close to the industry average of 22.8%. F's forecasted replacement rate is the highest in the industry, at 24.8%, while STLA’s is at the bottom of the list with a forecasted replacement rate of 15.9%.

Bottom Line

The auto industry in the U.S. constitutes approximately 4% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Underpinning this, an upward trend in the industry is anticipated to generate a broader economic resurgence.

The strike is anticipated to impact the three big automakers, their shareholders, the associated industries, and the overall auto market. However, what looms on the horizon involves more than simply elevating individual living standards. A contemplative eye must be cast toward the imminent influence of technology on prospective employment within the sector.

As Peter Berg, Professor of Employment Relations at Michigan State University, posited, the gradual transition from combustion engines to battery-operated electric vehicles will inevitably reconfigure manufacturing, requiring a fewer workforce possessing divergent skill sets.

Notably, the potential strike could exert a greater impact on automakers' operations and financial outcomes than one that occurred four years ago. This amplified threat is primarily attributable to the ongoing recovery of the U.S. auto industry from supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic and lower vehicle inventory levels. Such elements make it imperative for negotiators to swiftly broker a satisfactory compromise to mitigate costly fiscal repercussions for all stakeholders involved.

Master the Art of Safeguarding Your Investments From Currency Volatility With 5 Assets

Jerome Powell and his team at the Federal Reserve have raised the benchmark borrowing cost to 5.25%-5.50%. While a 2.6% rise in inflation, down from a 4.1% rise in Q1 and well below the estimate for a gain of 3.2%, and an annualized increase of 2.4% in the gross domestic product in the second quarter, topping the 2% estimate, had raised hopes that the elusive “soft landing” could be within reach, recent developments have been less than encouraging.

As the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s annual gathering in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, gets underway, with a more-than-forecasted wage increase, there are increasing concerns that interest rates could stay higher for longer.

While a hawkish stance usually lends strength to the dollar, Fitch Ratings’ recent downgrade of the U.S. long-term rating to AA+ from AAA, citing the erosion of confidence in fiscal management, has weakened the global reserve currency.

Moreover, the slump in their market value and a consequent increase in their yields due to a selloff of long-duration fixed-income instruments, which led to Moody’s cutting ratings of 10 U.S. banks and putting some big names on downgrade watch, has not helped matters either.

With a material risk that an apparently resilient economy could find itself regressing into an economic slowdown, it is understandable why seasoned investors could look at international equities for diversification opportunities to manage tail risks.

However, the pandemic, armed conflict in Ukraine, shifting geopolitical inclinations in the Middle East, the recent expansion of the BRICS bloc of developing nations accompanied by calls to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar, and the Bank of Japan’s policy tweak of loosening its yield curve are all indicating to a changing world order.

Hence, returns from international investments are as much a function of wild swings in currency exchange rates as they are of the performance of the securities of underlying businesses. To help investors reduce risk exposure to unfavorable impacts of the former, many currency-hedged mutual funds and ETFs focus on providing long (buy) and short (sell) exposures to many currencies.

In view of the above, these five exchange-traded funds could be worthy of consideration:

Xtrackers MSCI EAFE Hedged Equity ETF (DBEF)

DBEF is an exchange-traded fund launched and managed by DBX Advisors LLC. It offers currency-hedged exposure to developed equity markets outside the U.S., making it a suitable fixture in long-term buy-and-hold portfolios. DBEF uses short-term forward contracts to neutralize the impact of exchange rate fluctuations, thereby rendering the performance of the underlying stocks the sole driver of returns.

With $4.14 billion in AUM, DBEF’s top holding is Nestle S.A. (NSRGY), which has a 2.04% weighting in the fund. It is followed by  ASML Holding NV (ASML) at 1.72% and  Novo Nordisk A/S (NVO) at 1.65%. The highly diversified fund has 1,000 holdings, with only 18.97% of its assets concentrated in the top 10 holdings.

DBEF has an expense ratio of 0.35%, lower than the category average of 0.46%. It currently pays $6.22 annually as dividends, and its payouts have grown at a 55.7% CAGR over the past five years. It saw a net inflow of $21.22 million over the past month and $255.64 million over the past three months. The ETF has a beta of 0.71.

iShares Currency Hedged MSCI EAFE ETF (HEFA)

As the name suggests, HEFA is a currency-hedged exchange-traded fund that is managed by BlackRock Fund Advisors. The fund invests in public equity markets globally, excluding the U.S./Canada region, through derivatives and through other funds in value stocks of companies operating across diversified sectors.

Almost all of HEFA’s $3.46 billion in AUM is allocated to iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA), which has a 99.95% weighting in the fund, with USD comprising the remaining assets of HEFA.

EFA’s top holding is Nestle S.A. (NSRGY), which has a 2.13% weighting in the fund, followed by  ASML Holding NV (ASML) at 1.76% and  Novo Nordisk A/S (NVO) at 1.68%. The highly diversified constituent fund has 1000 holdings, with only 17.08% of its assets concentrated in the top 10 holdings.

HEFA has an expense ratio of 0.35%, which is lower than the category average of 0.40%. It currently pays $6.56 annually as dividends, and its payouts have grown at a 49.1% CAGR over the past five years. It saw a net inflow of $74.06 million over the past month and $176.04 million over the past three months. The ETF has a beta of 0.7.

WisdomTree Japan Hedged Equity Fund ETF (DXJ)

DXJ is an exchange-traded fund co-managed by Mellon Investments Corporation and WisdomTree Asset Management, Inc. The fund offers broad-based exposure to the Japanese equity market while hedging out the effects of currency fluctuation. Hence, it is best suited for investors who are bullish on Japanese stocks but bearish on JPY’s value vis-à-vis that of USD.

With $2.72 billion in AUM, DXJ’s top holding is  Toyota Motor Corp. (TM), which has a 4.86% weighting in the fund, followed by Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (MUFG) at 4.37%, and Mitsubishi Corporation (MSBHF) at 3.64%. The well-diversified fund has 435 holdings, with only 30.7% of its assets concentrated in the top 10 holdings.

DXJ has an expense ratio of 0.48%, which enables investors to benefit from hedging while incurring costs lower than what could be managed while doing it on their own. It currently pays $2.60 annually as dividends, and its payouts have grown at a 9.8% CAGR over the past five years.

DXJ’s net inflow came in at $23.56 million over the past month and $731.28 million over the past three months. It has a beta of 0.65.

WisdomTree Europe Hedged Equity Fund ETF (HEDJ)

HDJ is an exchange-traded fund co-managed by Mellon Investments Corporation and WisdomTree Asset Management, Inc. The fund offers broad-based exposure to the European equity market while hedging out the effects of currency fluctuation.

Hence, it is best suited for investors who are bullish on European stocks but wish to insulate themselves from the impact of fluctuation of the exchange rate of EUR with respect to USD.

With $1.40 billion in AUM, HEDJ’s top holding is Stellantis N.V. (STLA), which has a 6.91% weighting in the fund. It is followed by  ASML Holding NV (ASML) at 4.41% and  Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) at 4.37%. The fund has 127 holdings, with 41.83% of its assets concentrated in the top 10 holdings.

HEDJ has an expense ratio of 0.58% and currently pays $1.58 annually as dividends. The fund’s payouts have grown at a 9.8% CAGR over the past five years. DXJ’s net inflow came in at $28.25 million over the past three months. It has a beta of 0.88.

iShares Currency Hedged MSCI Japan ETF (HEWJ)

As the name suggests, HEWJ is a currency-hedged exchange-traded fund that is managed by BlackRock Fund Advisors. The fund invests in the public equity markets of Japan through derivatives and through other funds in value stocks of companies operating across diversified sectors. Hence, it is best suited for investors who are bullish on Japanese stocks but bearish on JPY’s value vis-à-vis that of USD.

Almost all of HEWJ’s $213.9 million in AUM is allocated to iShares MSCI Japan ETF (EWJ), which has a 99.95% weighting in the fund, with USD comprising the remaining assets of HEWJ.

EWJ’s top holding is  Toyota Motor Corp. (TM), which has a 5.16% weighting in the fund, followed by Sony Group Corporation (SONY) at 3.05% and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (MUFG) at 2.59%. The well-diversified fund has 238 holdings, with 23.5% of its assets concentrated in the top 10 holdings.

HEWJ has an expense ratio of 0.50%. It currently pays $12.31 annually as dividends, and its payouts have grown at a 92.3% CAGR over the past five years. HEWJ’s net inflow came in at $45.01 million over the past month and $61.84 million over the past three months. It has a beta of 0.63.