Tesla's Growing Inventory-Problem or No?

Thanks for that input. I was not familiar with that concept.

Could not miss that the one automaker with a worse score than Ford is BMW. Other information I have seen shows BMW with a very high GP, higher than even Mercedes. BMW has also been talking a lot about “subscription model”, as has Farley, and many other OEMs.

There could be a justification for a subscription model, for services that incur continuing costs, like the “On Star” service that GM has offered for years. But BMW is going farther. Some time ago, BMW floated the idea of charging a subscription fee for, iirc, the seat heaters in the car. Seat heaters do not require data from the ether in real time, nor even periodic updates. Heaters are entirely an electromechanical device that is completely self-contained, and the customer paid form as part of the car. But BMW decided that it would disable the system remotely, unless the owner kept paying a fee. This is shiny management in action, trying to figure ways to extract more money from it’s customers, for nothing. I get the same smell from Farley’s comments. Needless to say, the blowback from BMW trying to charge monthly for using a seat heater was blisteringly negative.

I mean - maybe? Seems unlikely. The shift away from sedans and towards trucks and SUV’s has been going on for decades. Cars used to be about 60-70% of the U.S. market or more. Now they’re less than 25% of the market. That’s a trend that has been going on more or less continuously since the early 1980’s, other than a brief recovery in the sedan market after the oil price spikes right before the Great Recession.

This seems more like they’re correctly responding to a market shift, rather than blowing the call like RS did. American consumers have been shifting away from sedans towards larger vehicles for the last four decades, now. It’s not entirely crazy for Ford and others to finally take the hint.

Would not a “grey zone” performance be the preferred outcome? That would be the level where a company makes just enough to sustain itself, over the long term, without gouging/cheating is customers, the result you would expect from vigorous, free market, competition?

The sky high bar chart for Tesla is not sustainable. Even allowing for the cult status of Tesla, other companies will enter the market, and Tesla will have to sharpen it’s competitive game. We are already seeing Tesla forced to cut prices.

Steve

I agree with Steve, much more interesting to look at automobile market overall than just Muskmobilia. I agree with Steve and others scenting Welchist quick buck assinity in Ford, GM…

Rant warning
Privately owned automobiles (and a few other cagtegories of goods as well but autos are the ultimate example) have been key in bringing on worldwide disasters because human culture, especially our political cultures, had not and still have not evolved to the point of being able to think through future consequences of technological advances and choices. Autos greatly accelerated GCC, destroyed the health of most of the population, caused avoidable deaths at levels only surpassed by state of the art wars, crippled the working classes by making auto ownership necessary to survive in reasonable safety and comfort in much of the world…

I expect private autos will mostly die out over the next 50 years and be missed about as much as human sacrifice.

Shoot the dog?

david fb

Nope. Automobiles are too useful, too good at moving people around for them to disappear. And while autonomy might eat away at the margins of individual ownership of automobiles, the economics of robo-taxis will probably limit those effects.

Happened a long time ago, sadly:

1 Like

Accepting that argument, there is good business to be had in the compact and midsize segments of the SUV market, but Farley doesn’t want it, because vigorous, free market, competition, constrains the profit margins. He wants to run away from that market, where Ford is a competent competitor, and concentrate at the high end, where he fancies fatter margins can be had.

You win a story from Durametallic, the pump seal company I worked for some 40+ years ago. Dura had once been dominate in the mechanical seal business, but it’s bread and butter products at the end of the 70s dated from the 40s. Their seals required a lot of material, and a lot of machining, which made them price uncompetitive. What was management’s plan? Design new seals that were more efficient to produce? Nope. Their plan was to walk away from the ANSI and API markets, where they were established, and “go high-tech”, where there was less competition.

At that time, Bingham had won the contract for the primary circ pumps.for the Clinch River fast (correct descriptive word not allowed by the Fool) reactor project. Bingham had designed a seal for their pumps, a huge thing that broke down the pressure in three stages. Dura undertook the production of these seals, as they fit with the company’s “high-tech” ambition. They shipped a prototype seal out to Bingham, which inspected it themselves. I saw the report of Bingham’s inspection. Half of the parts in that seal were out of tolerance. Dura’s ambition to run away from competition by going “high-tech” was delusional, because the company was not competent to produce seals at that level.

What? They’re getting rid of the Explorer? Now that would be a huge mistake. The Explorer is one of the best-selling SUV’s of all time of any size. And the Mach-E? They just launched that!

Ah, but no. A few moments googling reveals that this is not the case. They’re not abandoning the midsize segment, since the Explorer is still going to be offered. Nor the compact SUV segment, either. They’re discontinuing their ICE offerings in that class, but the Mach-E is a compact crossover. TBH, they’re probably making the right call not to offer another generation of the Escape as an ICE vehicle, and just make the break to an EV version when this generation runs out (as they are expected to do).

Isn’t that kind of the opposite of what Ford is doing, though? Ford’s bread and butter for years has been large vehicles. The F-series is the best selling pickup - nay, the best selling vehicle - in the U.S. year after year. Before they started walking away from sedans, their next best-selling models were still SUV’s (the Explorer and Bronco).

This isn’t a case where they’re moving to a market segment that “the company was not competent to produce.” Producing trucks and SUV’s has been one of Ford’s strengths for the last few decades. And it’s not like the crossover and mid-size SUV segments are where there’s “less competition.” There’s only like a dozen midsize sedans available in the U.S., but nearly thirty midsize SUV’s and more than forty crossovers/small SUV’s.

I don’t think anyone argues that Tesla has been flirting with bankruptcy for most of its history. But not since 2019, and unfortunately that website stops at 2019. Tesla did a remarkable thing in the last four years. During the period (2019-present) when it was spending billions building gigafactories, Tesla paid off most of its debt! That is why its current Altman-Z score is very high, much more so than in 2019.


Test debt to equity ratio is minuscule today compared to when Altman Z indicated it was flirting with bankruptcy.

The Explorer is a three row SUV. Farley has clearly said he doesn’t want to make any two row SUVs, because, he claims, that segment is “over-served”, a euphemism for a segment with vigorous, free market, competition, that prevents Ford booking the fat GP they want.

The EV SUV that Farley is touting is another huge three row, not an Escape replacement.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a43976438/ford-teases-electric-three-row-suv/

Fair enough. But still, if a measure claims that every automaker in the world is in weak financial straits, and always have been (or at least since 2008), then perhaps that measure isn’t a very good one to apply to the automotive industry. Toyota’s the most profitable company in Japan, one of the most profitable companies on earth, and hasn’t spent the last fifteen years in a “gray” zone of a chance of bankruptcy.

1 Like

Which makes a ton of sense. After the F-series, the Explorer is their best selling model. They’ve already got an electric cross-over in the Mach-E. You’d want your next electric model to be either a mid-size or full-size SUV - putting it in that Explorer-size slot would be the logical step.

The current ICE generation of the Escape will probably last until 2025, so you don’t need to slot in an EV version of that car until 2026 at the earliest. You’d certainly want an electric version of the Explorer before the Escape, if you could.

1 Like

It also makes sense in terms of competition. There aren’t many 3-row EV SUVs out there. The only one I can think of is the Rivian, but it’s in a different price class anyway ($100k+). Next is the new Volvo EX90 that is coming next year, but that will likely also be one price class (or maybe half a price class, $80k) higher than a Ford 3-row EV SUV. So Ford might get lucky, and when they come out with their mid-priced ($60k) 3-row EV SUV, it may face limited competition for a couple of years.

Of course, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Tesla come out with a 3-row SUV in a similar timeframe. Once the Cybertruck is in full production, I’m pretty sure they will turn the bulk of their attention to a small, cheap sedan (what many call the model 2) AND to SUV form factors, perhaps both 2-row and 3-row at once.

1 Like

To be fair, I don’t think there were many pathways to success for Radio Shack. They weren’t going to make it selling switches and resistors to hobbyists, and they couldn’t out-computer the computer stores (at the time), and they weren’t going to get much but the low end of homestereo market, so what was left? Cell phones, except that turned out to be an over saturated market quickly too.

I think I can count on one hand the number of old line retailers who made the turn into the new world: Lowe’s was a bunch of clap-trap hardware stores, Dayton Hudson birthed Target, Sears did once - but not twice - and … I’m sure there are more, but it’s rare. Most retail businesses seem to come of age in their age and then die. Way back there were five-and-dime but Kresge’s and Woolworth’s are gone. Here comes Dollar Stores, etc. Close to the same concept, but different people entirely.

So my question is: how should Radio Shack have pivoted? (When I saw them trying to change the image with “The Shack” ad campaign I knew it was the end.) What should they have done?

A little background

First thing, as the article I linked above noted, they were wildly oversaturated. In Kalamazoo, there were two shopping malls on West Main St, on the west side of Kazoo, directly across the street from each-other. They both had Radio Shacks, then there was a third store in a strip center on Stadium Dr, about 2.5 miles away. There was another, an old one, in a converted fish and chips shop, in the back of a parking lot, on S Westnedge, on the south side of town. A mile down the road, there was another Shack inside Crossroads Mall. Then there was the shack I had in Easttowne Mall, on the east side. This is in a metro area of 250,000.

As an outgrowth of having so many stores, the sales of slower moving items were spread way out, so we were constantly in a position of trying to get full price for an item that had been a floor sample for a year, because the item turned so slowly the store could not afford any backstock. I don’t remember for sure what RS’ inventory turn rate was, but it was horrible, something like 4 times a year, or less.

RS had tremendous buying leverage with vendors. Early on, the company set up a trading company in Japan to handle relations with vendors. Elaine Yamagata was on the Tandy Board for years. In the 70s, the competition was mom and pop TV and appliance stores, that would buy things like component audio from a distributor, maybe a dozen pieces at a time. RS would go direct to Matsushita, Trio, and Sony, and buy an item by the thousands at a time. RS would match the mom and pop shops at full catalog price. When RS put something like component audio on sale, they would take 40% off, blow the mom and pop out of the water, and still make a profit.

Then, the market changed. The “fair trade” laws that allowed OEMs to enforce “suggested retail price”, to prevent predatory pricing, were repealed. That enabled the discounters like Best Buy. Then it was a question of who had the most efficient operation. As I said, an RS needed 40 points of GP to break even. I read, years ago, Best Buy runs on 19%. Management’s response to this market change? Whenever anyone got up at the management breakout session at the annual meeting and tried to say RS was not competitive, Bernie would thunder “I’ve been in this business 40 years, I know everything” (heard that with my own ears) Another pearl from Bernie “we do people a favor when we sell them our stuff”. Even my DM was following the company line, asking managers like me “do you think our product is worth the price?” (you better say “yes” if you want to keep your job).

So, plan Steve to save the Shack:

-close probably 80% of the stores, and treat RS as a destination store, not a convenience store.

-get out of the fancy shopping malls, because the occupancy costs destroy the profits. (that little, old, RS, hidden away at the back of a parking lot was a gold mine, because the occupancy costs were peanuts)

Get rid of the redundant stores and the expensive locations that raise costs, without raising sales, and the efficiencies of their purchasing can make it through to the price on the shelf. But would RS do it? Nope. When Len Roberts was hired in to replace Bernie, he said he wondered why RS’ pricing was the way it was, but, he said, over lunch, Bernie converted him to the RS way.

This is where that old, small, RS was, the one that was making a handsome profit into the early 90s. It was really tucked away. The building just visible on the right was a restaurant. Farther to the right from that was a theater. The theater was the one that was actually visible from South Westnedge.

1 Like

I’m guess this was in part bad execution by BMW and a generational thing. Boomers don’t have that subscription meme. But that’s not true for younger folk. When you buy an iphone you also have to pay for the better apps that you add. You can buy the top of the line Dell desktop, but you still also have to pay for Photoshop and Office. That’s how cars will work. You buy a car you can drive, but if you want it to drive itself then you need a subscription. The price of the car includes sound coming from the dashboard speakers. But if you want the 20 other speakers activated for immersive surround sound, you will need a subscription. It’s no different in principle than the current system of different trims but with the significant practical difference that one can add features any time after purchase. That’s not a bad thing for consumers.

The devil is in the details. Tesla has a great Altman Z score because its business model allows it to do substantial investment without incurring debt. During this period when it was paying off its debt it was spending billions on gigafactories in Berlin and Texas while also modifying Shanghai and Fremont, and developing both the Cyber truck and the Tesla Semi. It pays for a lot of this with its free cash flow. That is an enormous advantage. Toyota, probably the best run OEM, has $200B in debt at a time when interest rates are rising and a recession is looming. And Toyota still doesn’t have a competitive BEV.

I think the western OEMs are in trouble. China is going all in on EVs and only Tesla seems capable of competing with all those Chinese companies. The western OEMs appear to have lost the world’s biggest car market. Why is that not bigger news?

As Steve203 said, being in the grey zone is not necessarily bad if it means you are taking on debt to invest in the future and doing it right. An Altman Z below the grey zone is more problematic as it means a company is being financially stressed with a significant probability of bankruptcy if it doesn’t execute well. That sounds about right for the OEMs right now. Would point out that it wasn’t that long ago that GM and Chrysler needed government handouts to survive. The auto industry is not the most resilient.

This is the satellite view of that RS. I forgot there was another restaurant that actually fronted on S Westnedge (on the left in the pic). The theater was behind the restaurant. There was another restaurant behind the theater. The RS was behind the second restaurant.

Long ago, when Radio Shack mostly sold electrical and electronic parts to build Ham radios, I was helping Dad build early hifi gear. He designed and I helped solder (little fingers!) a stunningly accurate pioneer pre-amp for use with hi-fi magnetic pickup record players. This was so long ago the pre-amp we built had to have a selector dial to pick between the then multiple and competing different equalization roll-offs to use in amplifying the recordplayer signal through the pre-amp to output to the amplifier.

We would go to a Radio Shack squeezed between a liquor store and a 2nd hand clothing store in a wonderfully delapidated part of Los Angeles. I remember the bins upon bins of different resistors, capacitors, and inductors, and the case where they showed the newest transistors. They were mobbed. It was delightful.

david fb

4 Likes

Back in the way back when automakers could serve every segment simply because there was little competition and the industry hadn’t evolved to fill every in-between niche. Nowadays there is a mind-bending assortment of sizes, configurations, options to suit every taste. AWD, pickup, minivan, commercial van, sedan, SUV, 4WD, tow packages, convertible, 2D or 4D, fuel economy, interior comfort options, and yes, even cup holders! The blizzard of choices means that not every automaker can serve every market, and Ford has - (and this is important: over time) decided to concentrate where they have success and abandon those where they do not.

They tried competing with the Japanese at the very low end of the market without much success (and arguably with some disaster: see Nova, Pinto, Corvair etc.) And there are many more primary manufacturers than at any point in history (except the very beginning of the industry, when there were more hobbyists than mass producers). Almost every country that has an industrial base also has at least one prominent badge: Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Nissan, Fiat, Rolls, Volvo, VW, Peugeot, and many more fill the roads.

It’s true Ford and GM have been chased “upmarket” which is often a precursor to eventual decline and extinction (lots of examples in the Gorilla Game), but you can’t really blame a company for abandoning unprofitable segments or even profitable segments where they just can’t compete, can you?

2 Likes

The assembly line has to pay for itself or the corporation has to withdraw from the market.

Honda and Toyota dominate the sedan markets.

1 Like