Tatas’ unlikely golden goose

When Tata Motors acquired Jaguar Land Rover, it was pilloried for poor judgement. Now, JLR is a roaring success.

Alongside his warning last week that Tata Group expansion plans would have to be tempered by the troubled global environment, Mr Ratan Tata noted that in its drive to take heed of risks, it shouldn’t lose out on good opportunities.
Four years ago, the “good” opportunity that the company didn’t pass up provoked much tut-tutting. When Tata Motors first took Jaguar Land Rover off Ford’s hands for $2.3 billion in 2008, many asked: how could a company known for commercial vehicles and cheap cars, and for whom there were no obvious synergies in the acquisition, do any better than a gargantuan of the global auto world, which had pumped billions into the iconic brand?
Those that didn’t tut then, certainly did a few months later, when the financial crisis struck and sales at JLR plunged. Even worse, Tata Motors had taken out a $3-billion bridge loan to finance the acquisition, and struggled to refinance its debts, which remained firmly high. Attempts to secure financial support from the British government failed, forcing the Tata Group to pump its own funds into the company.
In March 2009, Tata Motors posted a Rs 25.1 billion loss for the year. “Troublesome trophy” declared the Financial Times, adding that it “raised questions about the wisdom of fast-growing companies from emerging markets acquiring their developed-world counterparts in struggling sectors.”
Those “questions” have now been turned on their head: far from being a trophy, JLR survived the crisis to become the biggest earnings contributor to Tata Motors, something that has continued — and is expected to continue — through this second round of the crisis.
For the year ending March, Umesh Karne at BRICS Securities expects JLR to make a net profit of Rs 71 billion, against a group profit of Rs 79.5 billion, with sales up 14 per cent, and a further rise of 8 per cent the following year.

Turnaround factors

JLR seems to be preparing itself for such an upbeat scenario. The threatened closure of one of its British plants never happened; the company has since announced plans to expand the workforce at its Solihull plant, and build an engine factory near the city of Wolverhampton, a move that will gradually reduce its dependence on Ford engines. It’s in talks over a joint venture in China.
It’s easy to look for one reason for this remarkable turnaround, but there are a number of answers. Firstly, Tata Motors wasn’t afraid to seek external assistance, bringing in KPMG and Roland Berger Strategy Consultants to design a turnaround for the immediate, medium and short term. In 2009, the company unveiled a business plan, which involved aggressive cost cutting (reducing employee numbers, more efficient IT systems and marketing spend), changes to cash flow management, and a multi-year plan for product launches.
Luckily, there was lots of room for improvement. Ian Fletcher, an automotive analyst at IHS Global Insight, who worked for JLR under Ford, argues that the American firm had a “feast and famine” approach, lavishing cash on JLR at points, while starving it of investment at others. Cash was often directed in unhelpful ways, such as a Jaguar F1 programme.
“If you want to make a profit don’t put millions into racing it round a car track,” Mr Fletcher says. “You need to build a car that people want and charge what you can get away with.”

Restoring ‘Cool’

Building a coveted car also proved challenging in the Ford years: its launch of the X-Type — which was known to some in the industry as a “Ford Mondeo with a pretty frock” — was just one example, while others such as the “S” type were seen as overly retro, and unappealing to audiences below the age of 50. (By contrast BMW and Mercedes were able to attract mid to late 30s buyers too).
Under Tata, the XF and XJ updates did much to restore the company’s “cool” reputation while the launch of the Discovery in 2009 proved timely for the recovery. Tata Motors’ pledge to pump 1.5 billion pounds a year up until 2014, into a total of 40 new product actions — including new vehicles, and updates — has added to that credibility and created a buzz (rumours that it was considering expanding its Halewood plant had observers asking whether it could mean a new compact Jaguar was on the cards).
Part of the problem in the past was too much interference from Ford: something that Tata Motors has reversed. Tata brought in (and retained from Ford days) senior engineers and management, with many years of experience, particularly in the German industry, pretty much leaving them to their own devices, but with the assurance of having the sizable resources and support of the Tata Group behind them.
The CX-16 concept car that wowed audiences at the Frankfurt auto show last year was a case in point. “10 years ago, something with such cutting-edge technology would have been left on the drawing board,” says Mr Fletcher.

Niche focus

The trouble with Ford’s approach was that it understood and applied volume manufacturing, but not the global niche marketing and product that JLR needed to be successful, and which Tata Motors embraced through its hands-off approach, says Professor Peter Cooke, Professor of Automotive Management at Buckingham University.
“Fundamentally, Jaguar and Land Rover have to be global niche products,” he says. Now each product is targeted at specific niche audiences, such as the high-spending city dweller in the case of the Range Rover Evoque, the petit SUV, 15,000 of which have been sold since its launch in September.
As a result, Tata seems to be pushing demand in all the right directions: China is now JLR’s third largest and fastest growing market, accounting for around 16 per cent of sales, while demand in Russia, Brazil and India continues to grow.
Overall, with the investment from Tata Motors, JLR was able to position itself in the right space, just in time for the upswing that came in 2009. It is not the only luxury branded car to be doing well: Bentley saw sales rise 37 per cent in 2011, again driven by China, and is preparing for further growth with plans to expand its range.
There are, of course, challenges: currency movements, which have in the past worked well for JLR’s profitability, have hurt it in recent months, with the appreciation of the pound against the dollar. As a result, JLR profits for the quarter ending in September fell 2.1 per cent. Moreover, the financial climate will make the quality and timing of its 40 product actions all the more important.
The success of JLR doesn’t make or break the case for acquisitions of distressed foreign companies (There is only so much a company can do in the face of unremittingly weakened demand, as has been the case with Tata Steel’s European operations). But it does go to show, bad timing is often overrated. After all, had it waited a few months more, Tata Motors would never have secured the financing to acquire the company that has turned out to be its golden goose.
blfeedback@thehindu.co.in
(This article was published on January 8, 2012)

http://tourism9.com/

Can Credit Unions Replace "Predatory" Lending?

Felix Salmon has a really interesting piece about a professor who took out a loan from a personal finance company–at a roughly 40% APR–after her credit union turned her away.

Is it a good idea for the professor to be taking out loans at 40% interest rates? Really, she didn’t have much of a choice. She needed the money, she got precious little help from her credit union, and the loan company was friendly and extended her the cash on terms she could afford.
What’s more, the professor’s relationship with World Finance has indeed improved her credit. Since taking out that first loan, she’s obtained two different credit cards, and also bought a brand-new BMW with 2.9% financing. All with essentially no help at all from her primary financial institution, which is Missouri Credit Union. The debt the professor is taking on may or may not be wise, given her unique individual circumstances. And the credit union could in theory be a valuable resource in terms of helping her work out whether, for instance, she can really afford that car. But the relationship there is broken, and I see no chance that it will be fixed.
James does admit that he let the professor down: “I think we did fail her,” he says, “and I don’t think we did what we should have done.” The credit union dropped the ball with respect to her loan application, which was left in limbo when she was in a time of need. But at the same time, he also admitted to me that the credit union would not have given her the unsecured loan she was looking for.
The professor’s credit score is now good enough that she qualifies for a mortgage; it wasn’t before. That’s the kind of help a credit union should be able to give, and it’s disappointing that Missouri Credit Union doesn’t seem to be able to bring itself to do that. If the professor (a) wanted credit and (b) wanted to improve her credit score, then the loan company was, sadly, the place she needed to go.

Salmon, who is an enormous booster of credit unions, thinks that this points to directions for reform:

So two things are needed here, I think. The first is effective regulation, with teeth; I hope that Richard Cordray, newly installed at the head of the CFPB, will start providing that soon. There’s no time to waste.
But regulation isn’t enough: we also need alternatives — non-predatory financial products which allow people with bad credit to repair that credit and get back on their feet. Many credit unions provide such products, but as we’ve seen, many credit unions don’t. And credit unions are in any case often difficult institutions to navigate: it’s never entirely obvious who’s allowed to join any given one. Can someone set up a Kiva for America? Help is needed, here. And it’s very hard to find.

I too, am a fan of the credit union. We got our mortgage through Navy Federal, and even though we could probably refinance to something cheaper, we’re sticking with them because I like the customer service and the fact that they will bend over backwards to fix issues with your loan.  (Back when I had a car loan, it took me a year to straighten out issues with my car titling, and as long as I made the payments, they kept giving me more time).

But I don’t think that they are somehow going to substitute for the lenders at the bottom of the risk market: loan companies and payday lenders.  Felix, who is on the board of a credit union, may have some insight into this that I don’t, of course.  But right now, I don’t see it.

Credit unions are not charities.  They have responsibilities to the members who deposit money with them: they cannot make loans that are reasonably likely to lose money (at least in aggregate).  And while the interest rates on products like payday loans are indeed eye-popping, the companies themselves are not especially profitable.  This suggests that the reason the loans are so expensive is that they cost a lot to make.

Why is this?  For starters, because the risk of default is very high.  It’s hard to get good numbers, and estimates vary widely, but I’m pretty sure that they’re well north of 10%.  That’s a pretty high default rate for any type of loan, but particularly one where the term is measured in weeks.
That’s not the only reason to think that these loans are expensive.  Since they are often for very small amounts, they have high transaction costs relative to the loan amount–it takes just as much time to process forms for a $200 loan as it does for a $10,000 loan.
There’s also the structure of the loan, which involves a lot of intensive interaction with the borrower.  Remember, the short term (and the fact that they’re tied to payday) helps hold down the default costs on payday loans.  It’s also really expensive to achieve; it means maintaining a storefront with people in it at all hours.
Credit unions might make those loans somewhat cheaper by layering that overhead on top of existing operations, and because they don’t need to make a profit.  On the other hand, credit unions lack expertise and skill in this sort of loan.  In general, credit union loans are not wildly cheaper than similar loans from other institutions.
But I suspect that what Felix has in mind is substituting a different–and much cheaper–type of loan for the payday loans.  And I’m skeptical that this can happen.  All of the research that I’ve seen on these super-expensive loan products indicates that most of the people who are taking them are not doing so because they don’t understand how high the interest rate is, but rather, because they have exhausted all of their other borrowing options.  (And frequently, the alternative is even more expensive: a bounced check fee, a utility disconnect that will require a hefty fee for reconnection, a lost day of work because of car trouble).
So I take it that the reason that the credit unions aren’t putting them into cheaper loans is that they can’t.  The cost of an unsecured loan to someone with terrible credit is high because those loans go bad very frequently, resulting not only in the loss of funds, but in considerable overhead expended on collection.  Particularly in the case of credit unions, who–as my auto loan illustrates–work very, very hard to keep their members’ loans from going bad.
And I’d guess that credit unions, for all sorts of reasons, don’t really want to get into the super-expensive-super-risky loan business.  That’s why they focus on figuring out how to help you not need the money.  Obviously, that is going to be a bad outcome in some particular cases, because no system is ever perfect.  But on balance, I can understand why credit unions aren’t eager to get into the payday loan game.

Update:  Apparently, some are.  But the products often aren’t substantially cheaper than regular payday loans–though Felix highlights this program at a State Employees credit union, which does look much cheaper.

Felix asks me if there’s any reason that last program can’t scale.  I think there are three possibilities:
1.  They’re losing money on it, and a lot of credit unions can’t be in the business of charity to people who need payday loans
2.  Their lending population is somehow different from those who need regular payday loans (state paychecks are pretty steady, and the program requires direct deposit)
3.  It’s a game changer that will revolutionize payday loans.
I’m pretty skeptical that #3 is the answer–these loans are cheaper than most credit cards, and that’s a very competitive space.  On the other hand, all game changing innovations suffer from not having been done before: that’s no proof that they can’t be.  I’ll only note that the general experience of nonprofits in this space seems to be that they have to charge high APRs (or fees that amount to the same thing) in order to make up for the costs.
More From The Atlantic


http://tourism9.com/