Lode’s of Money?
March 31st, 2008Many of England’s oldest football (soccer) clubs were formed in order that cricket teams might maintain their fitness levels during the winter. Ian Botham was (probably) the last person to play both cricket and football at a professional level. As a youngster he had to choose between cricket or join Crystal Palace. After an injury he once played for Scunthorpe United. However, it is inconceivable that a cricket player having a career at the highest level would play in the Premiership nowadays. The demands of professional sport are too great.
So what to make of a company, Tata of India, that is a conglomerate of every thing from agrochemicals to watches, insurance to steel – and now Land Rover and Jaguar?
I think a clue can be found from their web site, www.tata.com/0_about_us/group_profile.htm ,
The Group was founded by Jamsetji Tata in the mid 19th century, a period when India had just set out on the road to gaining independence from British rule. Consequently, Jamsetji Tata and those who followed him aligned business opportunities with the objective of nation building. This approach remains enshrined in the Group’s ethos to this day.
I would suggest that Tata have not so much bought an enterprise as made a political statement – capturing a manufacturing icon from its old imperial ruler that was once the world’s pre-eminent manufacturer. In much the same way as India’s cricket team is a world super power, having mastered another of England’s icons.
Of course, the above statement could be just a bit of PR posturing. Company bosses do like to talk big. But, from the same site, Tata claims to contribute 3.2% of India’s GDP. In other words, Tata is corporate India. In much the same way that it used to be said what ‘s good for GM is good for the USA. So how well grounded is this deal?
Business is about management bringing capital and labour together. Patently any firm requires investment and over time car firms require huge investment. For Toyota to develop the Lexus it took 5 years, billions of dollars and the production of 150 prototypes. This is the world Tata have now entered.
There is a view amongst management theorists that conglomerates have an advantage over ‘focused’ companies (firms, like Ford, that concentrate on one type of product) when raising capital if the cost of capital borrowed from a bank (external capital) is expensive. A conglomerate, rather than having to raise external capital, can use internal capital – money it generates itself from a wide-range of activities.
In addition, not all industries share the same pattern of demand so one part of the empire can bolster another.
Certainly Tata would seem to have this capacity, in 2006-2007 it generated revenues of $28.8 billion. Then again, Ford in 2007 generated $173.9 billion but still made a loss of $2.7 billion (see http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=27534).
These losses stem from its North American operations but the purchase of Land Rover and Jaguar in 1989 for $2.5 billion has not been a happy one. It is thought that Ford has sunk $10 billion into Jaguar and the indications are that it has still to become profitable. Land Rover cost Ford $3 billion and the indications are, again, that it has also lost money – warranty claims have been substantial.
In the short term, investment may well not be an issue as part of the deal is that Ford will supply Tata with parts and the powertrain. They (Ford) will also supply engineering support including research and development. The key short term issue was the pension fund (Gordon Brown’s pension fund raid in 1997 runs and runs and runs). It is always though that the demise of Rover was the pension fund. It’s hard to persuade lowly paid Chinese and Indian workers that efforts subsidises rich westerners. I would think Indians, with their colonial history, would be very reluctant to let the British raid their wealth for a second time. Furthermore, the investment Ford made in Jaguar will either pay off or Jaguar will join the ranks of Rover, Triumph, Wolseley and the other marques of a by-gone age. It certainly doesn’t warrant any more investment. But where does that leave Land Rover and Lodes Lane?
At some point in the not too distant future the Land Rover models will need some sort of investment – that’s only to be expected. The Defender and Range Rover are niche products that almost certainly do not deliver much profit. The Freelander and Discovery have to be their profit makers (potential or otherwise). The Freelander has suffered from quality issues and is not particularly prestigious. Furthermore, a car purchase is a lifestyle statement. In a world of high oil prices and carbon footprints, these vehicles will probably need significant investment in new engine and material technologies sooner rather than later.
The cost of buying Land Rover/Jaguar probably means that Tata will need to raise any investment for Land Rover from within the assets of the purchase. As part of the deal Tata also have the names to past marques - Lanchester, Daimler and Rover. Selling brand names would be one way, either to other manufacturers or as new models. Rover is probably worthless. Lanchester too unknown, So that leaves Daimler. But who would want to buy it? And could Tata afford to develop it? I suspect the answer to both questions is no.
I suspect Jaguar is a dead brand walking. The current models will earn some money but not enough to pay for future investment in a crowded (BMW, Mercedes, Lexus) world. Furthermore, Jaguar suffered initially when bought by Ford due to snipings that a Jaguar was a Mondeo is disguise. Jaguar soon took on Ford’s brand image. How soon will Jaguar become associated with Tata’s offerings of the world’s cheapest car and the City Rover? Trust me, it’s really easy to write Tata as Tat!!.
In any event, Land Rover is a better brand, will need investment sooner and more likely to produce a return. Tata are very keen on joint ventures. That is an option but prone to managerial problems - who does what and do we trust them? Furthermore, many of these ‘joint ventures’ look more like foreign companies bypassing Indian non-tariff barriers to trade by engaging in joint ventures with a local ‘partner’. For example, we have Tata-BP solar power, TataSky, Tata-McGraw Hill Publishing, Tata-AIG insurance. I’m not sure how much ‘managing’ actually goes on in these companies by Tata.
From now until 2012, when the current Land Rover models wiil probably need replacing, will be the decisive time. Bearing in mind that Toyota took 5 years with the Lexus but that new Land Rover models probably don’t need quite that amount of time, the next two years or less will call for some decision making to be made by Tata. One possible and obvious solution, move production from Lode Lane to Halewood and Castle Bromwich, would pay some dividends. Normally, this would require terrific organisation and the Lode Lane site, 308 acres (125 hectares) doesn’t have great scope for raising money by being sold. The government’s Communities Plan envisages increasing housing density to between 30 and 50 houses per hectare compared with 25 per hectare in 2001. So even at 50 houses per hectare that would only produce 6250 houses. Land price is around a third of house prices so assuming £300,000 per house in B91, that would generate between £360 and £600 million. A lot but not enough really bearing in mind both Ford’s and Toyota’s experience as experienced car manufacturers when spending money on development.
Of course, it could borrow the money from either outside Tata or internally, make the investment and then pay off the debt having moved production by new models being built elsewhere. In addition, the Lode Lane site is often described in the same terms (‘sprawling’) as the Longbridge site was and seen by many as the cause of the Freelander’s initial quality problems.
However, it will still need Tata to find a lot of money for new models and then there is the managing of it all. Tata is a sprawling company so devolved decision making has to be key. It is often regarded as a truism that BMW’s failure at Rover was not to have replaced British management by German managers. Quite how Indian managers in Mumbai are going to trust British mangers in Gaydon spending money like water remains to be seen. Indeed since Ford so spectacularly failed to manage these brands, despite a very common culture and great experience, it is very hard to see how Tata will do it better.
Ultimately, the only way any investment (cars, houses or anything else) can be justified is that the flow of profits, discounted over time by bearing mind alternative investments and risk, exceeds the investment. The key to that is the quality of the management and their organisational abilities. So far, in the UK, only the Japanese and the Germans (BMW at Cowley) seem to have pulled that off. There is no reason to believe that Tata is the equal of the Japanese and Germans and will succeed where the French and Americans have failed.
