CHINA Archives

24/07/2013by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Auto-Financing in China – A Valuable Business Proposition

317views

From a humble beginning in 1998, when state-owned banks were first allowed to provide car loans, automotive financing has come a long way in China. Vehicle loans are now available through commercial banks and automotive finance companies (AFCs), which are mainly non-banking financing companies (captive subsidiaries of automotive OEMs, both domestic and foreign). According to a 2012 report by Minseng and Deloitte, outstanding car loans are expected to grow over five times to reach US$ 160 billion during the next decade, from US$ 31 billion in 2011.

China has been a late bloomer when it comes to automotive finance, mainly because of its cultural mindset, which has been against credit-based consumption (houses are still paid for in cash, so a cash purchase of a car isn’t considered a big deal). However, in the last few years, the Chinese have become more open to the idea of credit and the trend of automotive finance has caught up, mostly with younger generations. About 80% of automotive financing consumers in China are individuals in the 20-40 years age group, according to a survey conducted by China Europe International Business School. The survey also found that 30% of buyers in this age group are likely to choose some form of auto financing, compared to only 10% of buyers over the age of 40.

Auto loan penetration rate currently is about 10% and is expected to triple by 2017. Developed automotive finance markets such as USA, UK and Germany boast of penetration rate of 92%, 74% and 70%, respectively; thereby highlighting the underlying potential in the world’s largest automotive market.

This potential hasn’t gone unnoticed and China now boasts of having close to two dozen automotive finance companies; however, these AFCs only account for one-fifth of the car loans market. The market is instead dominated by commercial banks, mainly the big four state-owned banks, largely thanks to their significant first-mover advantage over AFCs (state owned banks have operated in this segment since 1998, while AFCs started offering auto-financing in 2003).

Another disadvantage for AFCs vis-à-vis commercial banks is their inability to raise funds through bank deposits or by issuing bonds. In China, AFCs are only allowed to raise funds through inter-bank lending. Consequently, interest rates offered by AFCs to car buyers are higher, making their services less competitive. Moreover, AFCs also face a mismatch between the maturity of short-terms loans they have to take from banks and the maturity of the long-term car loans they provide to their customers. With such unfavourable financial conditions, AFCs find it tough to compete with commercial banks.

In spite of the many constraints, AFCs continue to set up their businesses in China (almost 10 new entrants over the past 24 months). One luring factor is China’s gradual opening-up of its domestic financial markets to foreign investors. The world’s second-largest economy is also considering allowing foreign AFCs to issue financial bonds in China. Moving from bank loans to bond financing, should help AFCs reduce funding costs and become more competitive. Bond issuance will also help them in extending the average maturity of their liabilities and create a better maturity match between their assets and liabilities.

The market potential for automotive financing in China is obviously huge, and with the gradual easing of regulatory barriers, foreign financing companies are much more comfortable setting up a shop in the country. This will lead to more competitive financing options for automotive consumers and will also go a long way in popularizing automotive financing concept in China.

27/06/2013by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Future of Global Solar Power Industry – Tense, But There’s Still Hope.

The global solar power industry was always viewed as one based on flawed business principle of artificial sustenance. With prolonged low economic growth, the artificial support base disintegrated, resulting in shutdown of multi-million dollar business across the globe.

Several leading players, such as Siemens, Solar Millennium, First Solar Inc, and SunPower Corp and Suntech Power, have either filed for bankruptcy or pulled out of their loss-making solar power businesses. Others, such as Germany-based Bosch, have decided to wrap-up solar operations at the end of 2013 after having “tried unsuccessfully to achieve a competitive position”.

A 60% fall in solar panel prices between 2010 and early 2013, as well as the rapid expansion of natural gas production in the USA and curtailment of subsidies in the EU were some of the key reasons for growing losses. What is also worth noting is the overcapacity in the market – global production capacity for photovoltaic panels reached about 60 GW in 2012, while expected demand was only 30 GW. Driven by such unsustainable market conditions, no wonder solar power companies went out of business.

Industry experts, however, view the above factors as simply the result of China’s growing dominance in the global solar power industry. Driven by government subsidies, China became the largest solar panel supplier, accounting for 60% of global solar power production capacity. This domination of the industry has, however, come at a price. Amidst growing unhappiness with China-made products leading to local companies becoming uncompetitive, USA imposed a 40% anti-dumping duty in 2012 while in May 2013 the EU imposed provisional duties of 12% (likely to increase to 47% in August) on imports of Chinese-made solar panels. Whether this will deter China or encourage local growth is unknown; this might however have a negative effect of pushing the industry further into crisis.

Beneficiary of the present situation are likely to be manufacturers in countries like Taiwan which are not yet subject to US/EU import tariffs. About 90% of solar cells manufactured in Taiwan are exported to the USA, Europe, and China. Taiwan might also benefit from the EU’s imposition of duties on China made products, driving Chinese investment into Taiwan for setting up manufacturing plants to then directly export to the EU from Taiwan without having to pay the duties. Recent activities of some Chinese companies have indicated Turkey and South Africa being possible destinations for setting up manufacturing units.

The Chinese will find ways to get their products into the US and EU markets, even if it means moving their operations to Taiwan or other countries which are not subject to the high duties. The real issue, however, is the state of the global solar industry – with some of the major players shutting down operations and funding of solar power depleting, is the end of the road? We doubt it.

There is still hope for the solar power industry, largely driven by favorable policy measures in emerging Asian and Latin American countries. The first half of 2013 witnessed solar power investments in several countries, including Kuwait, South Africa and Chile. The industry received a major boost from Middle-East when Saudi Arabia announced a US$100 billion investment plan in 2012, to generate one-third of the country’s electricity demand through solar energy. Although current demand in these emerging markets is relatively low and may take about 10-15 years to develop into a sizeable market, the scope for growth is immense.

22/04/2013by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Can ‘Made In China’ Become a Desirable Label in the Luxury World?

376views

If you type ‘Chinese luxury’ in your search engine, you are very likely to get a plethora of information on China being a hot spot for Western-produced luxury goods, as the demand for luxury is strong and continues to grow. What you are unlikely to find amongst your top searches, is information about recognized and valued China-originated luxury brands. Is this likely to change any time soon?

Over the next 5-7 years, China is expected to move up to become the second largest luxury market in the world, after Japan. Luxury market growth in China is forecast at a healthy 10-15% during 2013, driven by aspirational consumers whose financial position is rapidly improving and who originate from a cultural background where image, social stand, and respect from others are important values. The concept of luxury falls well within Asian cultural context, as luxury goods are a great tool to wordlessly manifest one’s high stand in the society.

Budding Chinese Brands

For several years now, China has been an attractive market for European luxury products, but it is yet to build its own set of valued, recognized luxury brands that can figure alongside the likes of Hermes or Louis Vuitton. While there seems to be some activity on this front, with some truly Chinese brands struggling to up their game and attempting to compete in the luxury market, the question is whether they are capable of succeeding.

Undoubtedly, there are some established high-end labels that have originated from Hong Kong and China, including Shanghai Tang, Ne-Tiger, Longio, Ascot Chang, Qeelin, Shang Xia, or Mary Ching. But for now they are known and appreciated mostly locally, and even in their domestic market, they lag behind the Western luxury brands. Chinese consumers are instinctively patriotic, so those Chinese luxury brands that are able to build associations with status statement are likely to win domestic consumers over period of time. But will these brands become as relevant and influential internationally as the brands in the LVMH portfolio?

Two Great Challenges

The first challenge for aspiring Chinese luxury houses is to develop great quality brands that will represent superior materials, flawless craftsmanship, unique and relevant designs, consistent quality management, and luxury-level service. This might be relatively easy to do, with proliferation of young creative Asian designers, who often gain their experience abroad. With several high-end and luxury European brands having some parts of production located in China, the know-how and skill set is already being transferred. In some regions, e.g. Southern China, manufacturing is shedding its image of low-cost, mass-produced, low-quality manufacturing center.

The second challenge is to change consumer attitudes, both domestically as well as internationally. Fighting the ‘made in China’ image requires revamping consumer perceptions, which oftentimes, once built, are very difficult to alter. For years, China has been associated almost exclusively as the source of cheap, substandard, unoriginal, and mass products. Even in China itself, while the attitudes towards Chinese-made apparel in mid range segment have improved, domestic high-end brands have not gained good recognition and acceptance, and many domestic luxury customers still prefer well known European brands. Local brands simply cannot provide the status that Chinese luxury shoppers look for. At least not yet.

The negative connotations are particularly strong in Western markets, where it will take a very long time before consumers are ready to accept a ‘made in China’ luxury brand. A European aficionado of luxury couture brands such as Louis Vuitton, Hermes, Gucci, Chanel, or Prada is unlikely to be open to trying luxury products originating from China, a land known for counterfeit goods, bad quality and cheap equivalents available for the masses.

Regardless of the geography, majority of purchases of luxury brands are driven by the desire to conspicuously communicate the belonging to the high, rich, and exclusive sphere in the society, and LV or Hermes logo communicates it in a matter of seconds. Purchasing a piece with a logo that is not instantly recognized by others appears pointless and contrary to the very essence of luxury logo display. This is also true (though to somewhat lower extent) for far more sophisticated, mature, and less conspicuous consumption-oriented European luxury consumer, who also value great quality in luxury products (and Chinese-made products are known for lack of it).

Fighting the Stigma

There are some industry voices cheerfully claiming that today ‘made in China’ is perceived differently than 10 years ago, but it appears more of a wishful thinking. As of now, many Chinese brands still need to exhibit some European connection to get through to the luxury customer both in domestic and foreign markets. This might be a finishing touch added to the product in Europe or internationally-recognized celebrity endorsement (e.g. Angelina Jolie ‘being a fan’ of Shanghai Tang luxury brand). But this is far too little to break the stigma of the Chinese label.

Interestingly, some brands opted for a different approach to nurturing their brand culture. Instead of piggybacking the European luxury heritage, they are trying to highlight Chinese roots, rich tradition of great quality going way back to pre ‘made in China’ era as we know it. This might be a good way for brands to start building on, and execute very careful moves when creating brand based on the Chinese ancient heritage when expanding in foreign markets.

It still remains a long term perspective to see Chinese luxury brands becoming as influential as Prada, Gucci, LV, and other big names in the luxury arena. For the time being, most brands are likely to opt for associating their products with European luxury as a less risky way to win customer base. Only a handful of visionary Chinese brands will be able to put long term brand building ahead of short term gains.

It is worth keeping an eye on Chinese luxury brands, striving hard to win market presence internationally, but their path to success will be long and rocky.

08/04/2013by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Venezuela – Evolution After the Revolution?!

It has been a month since Hugo Chavez passed away, losing a two-year long battle against cancer. With snap elections on 14 April, both Venezuelans and the rest of the world eagerly await the outcome – an outcome that might drive Venezuela deeper into a state of socialism or towards the path of market-oriented economic development.

Whatever the result of the election, perhaps the most pertinent question is how Chavez’s demise has impacted the future of Venezuela’s oil economy? What good has the largest proven oil reserves in the world (297.57 billion barrels) brought Venezuela in terms of inclusive human and economic development?

Let us retrace our steps to 1998. The global oil industry was in a big mess, with prices at an all time low of (less than $10 per barrel), driven by oversupply of oil by OPEC member countries, which were unwilling to comply with production and export quotas. Things, however, took a turn for the better when in February 1999 Hugo Chavez came into power in Venezuela. Now at the helm of affairs of one of the world’s largest oil producing nations, it became important for Mr. Chavez to revive the oil sector, which was to become the driving force behind his socialist policies. In his own charismatic manner, Hugo Chavez convinced the OPEC members to lower production, thus driving-up oil prices (to a price of $25-28 per barrel).

Further, driven by his ambition to bring about a socialist revolution in Venezuela, a new Hydrocarbons law was passed in 2001, to bring all oil production and distribution activities in Venezuela under the purview of the government. The law proposed a minimum 51% state ownership of PDVSA, the national oil company, and an increase in royalties paid by foreign corporations from 16.6% to 30%.

Under Chavez, Venezuela also shifted its focus from the US, to forge closer alliance with Russia, China, Nicaragua, Cuba and Iran by signing preferential oil deals. These deals, however, put additional economic pressure on PDVSA, and in turn the Venezuelan economy, with 43% of the company’s crude and oil products sales not being paid directly in cash, resulting in shelving of some of the company’s investment plans.

Oil-sector reforms were carried out under a veil of socialist change and reform. While the pro-socialist policies of Hugo Chavez remain popular among the Venezuelan masses, they have resulted in a lack of talent and investment, causing the Venezuelan oil industry to decline. According to Morgan Stanley reports, Venezuela’s oil production declined by 25% during the Chavez era (1998-2013).

While the socialist regime under Chavez is said to have brought about a sense of income equality amongst Venezuelans, the cost of this equality has left the country in an economically dilapidated state. Huge deficits and high inflation have lead to significant devaluation of its currency (30% to the US Dollar in February 2013).

The state of the economy hinges purely on the outcome of the elections, with Nicolas Maduro, the acting president and the hand-picked successor of Chavez, and Henrique Capriles, the governor of Miranda State, vying to be the next president.

Nicolas Maduro, who served as a foreign minister under Chavez for six years, is a right-wing activist. A loyalist to Chavez, Maduro pledges to follow Chavez’s policies. Given his closeness to Chavez, Maduro also enjoys the support of military.

On the other hand, Henrique Capriles, who came closest to beating Chavez in the last elections in 2012 (bagging 44% votes), vows to adopt pro-business policies, which include de-politicization of the oil sector and opening-up Venezuela to foreign investments. Capriles does recognize that actions taken during the Chavez era cannot be undone over a short period of time.

Driven by the emotions linked with Chavez’s death, initial polls widely tip Maduro to win the upcoming elections. But given the economic condition of Venezuela, would this be a right choice? Even if Capriles wins, will the government be stable enough to guide Venezuela to development? Will the Venezuelan oil sector open for global trade? One can only speculate.

Irrespective of who comes to power, one thing will stay unchanged. The oil sector will remain critically important in either continuing to aid the path towards a fully-socialist state or changing the course to a more market-oriented economy.

01/04/2013by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Will Shale Gas Solve Our Fuel Needs for the Future?

363views

At first glance, shale gas might look too good to be true: large untapped natural gas resources present on virtually every continent. Abundant supplies of relatively clean energy allowing for lower overall energy prices and reduced dependence on non-renewable resources such as coal and crude oil. However, despite this huge potential, the shale gas revolution has remained largely limited to the USA till now. Concerns over the extraction technology and its potentially negative impact on the environment have hampered shale gas development in Europe and Asia on a commercial scale. However, increasing energy import bills, need for energy security, potential profits and political uncertainty in the Middle East are causing many countries to rethink their stand on shale gas extraction development.

How Large Are Shale Gas Reserves And Where Are They Being Developed?

An estimation of shale gas potential conducted by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) in 2009 pegs the total technically recoverable shale gas reserves in 32 countries (for which data has been established) to 6,622 Trillion Cubic Feet (Tcf). This increases the world’s total recoverable gas reserves, both conventional and unconventional, by 40% to 22,622 Tcf.

Continent	Shale Gas Reserves and Development
North America	Technically Recoverable Reserves: 1,931 Tcf Till now, almost whole commercial shale gas development has taken place in the USA. In 2010, shale gas accounted for 20% of the total US natural gas supply, up from 1% in 2000. In Canada, several large scale shale projects are in various stages of assessment and development. Despite potential reserves, little or no shale gas exploration activity has been reported Mexico primarily due to regulatory delays and lack of government support.
South America	Technically Recoverable Reserves: 1,225 Tcf Several gas shale basins are located in South America, with Argentina having the largest resource base, followed by Brazil. Chile, Paraguay and Bolivia have sizeable shale gas reserves and natural gas production infrastructure, making these countries potential areas of development. Despite promising reserves, shale gas exploration and development in the region is almost negligible due to lack of government support, nationalization threats and absence of incentives for large scale exploration.
Europe	Technically Recoverable Reserves: 639 Tcf Europe has many shale gas basins with development potential in countries including France, Poland, the UK, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden. However, concerns over the environmental impact of fracturing and oil producers lobbying against shale gas extraction are holding back development in the region with some countries such as France going as far as banning drilling till further research on the matter. Some European governments, including Germany, are planning to bring stringent regulations to discourage shale gas development. Despite this, countries such as Poland show promising levels of shale gas leasing and exploration activity. Several companies are exploring shale gas prospects in the Netherlands and the UK.
Asia	Technically Recoverable Reserves: 1,389 Tcf China is expected to have the largest potential of shale gas (1,275 Tcf). State run energy companies like Sinopec are currently evaluating the country’s shale gas reserves and developing technological expertise through international tie-ups. However, no commercial development of shale gas has yet happened. Though both India and Pakistan have potential reserves, lack of government support, unclear natural gas policy and political uncertainty in the region are holding back the extraction development. Both Central Asia and Middle East are also expected to have significant recoverable shale gas reserves.
Africa	Technically Recoverable Reserves: 1,042 Tcf South Africa is the only country in African continent actively pursuing shale gas exploration and production. Other countries have not actively explored or shown interest in their shale gas reserves due to the presence of large untapped conventional resources of energy (crude oil, coal). Most potential shale gas fields are located in North and West African countries including Libya, Algeria and Tunisia.
Australia	Technically Recoverable Reserves: 396 Tcf Despite Australia’s experience with unconventional gas resource development (coal bed methane), shale gas development has not kicked off in a big way in Australia. However, recent finds of shale gas and oil coupled with large recoverable reserves has buoyed investor interest in the Australian shale gas.

What Are The Potential Negative Impacts Of Shale Gas Production?

Despite the large scale exploration and production of shale gas in the USA, countries around the world, especially in Europe, remain sceptical about it. Concerns over the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, lack of regulations and concerns raised by environmental groups have slowed shale gas development. Though there is no direct government or agency report on pitfalls of hydraulic fracturing, independent research and studies drawn from the US shale gas experience have brought forward the following concerns:

Will Shale Gas Solve Our Future Energy Needs?

Rarely does an energy resource polarize world opinion like this. Shale gas has divided the world into supporters and detractors. However, despite its potential negative environmental impact, shale gas extraction is associated with a range of unquestionably positive aspects, which will continue to support shale gas development:

Shale gas production will continue to increase in the USA and is expected to increase to 46% of the country’s total natural gas supply by 2035. USA is expected to transform from a net importer to a net exporter of natural gas by 2020.
Despite initial opposition, countries in Europe are opening up to shale gas exploration. With the EU being keen to reduce its dependence on imported Russian piped gas and nuclear energy, shale gas remains one of its only bankable long-term options. Replicating the US model, countries like Poland, the Netherlands and the UK are expected to commence shale production over the next two-five years and other countries are likely to follow suit.
Australian government’s keenness to reduce energy imports in addition to the recent shale gas finds has spurred shale gas development the country. Many companies are lining up to lease land and start shale gas exploration.
More stringent regulations from environment agencies are expected to limit the potential negative environmental impact of shale gas exploration.
Smaller energy companies that pioneered the shale gas revolution in the USA are witnessing billions of dollars worth of investments from multinational oil giants such as Exxon Mobil, Shell, BHP Billiton etc. are keen on developing an expertise in the shale gas extraction technology. These companies plan to leverage this technology across the world to explore and produce shale gas.The table below highlights major acquisitions and joint venture agreements between large multinational energy giants and US-based shale gas specialists over the last three years.

Major Deals in Shale Gas Exploration

Company	Acquisition/Partnership	Year	Investment
Sinopec	Devon Energy	January 2012	USD 2.2 billion
Total	Chesapeake Energy	January 2012	USD 2.3 billion
Statoil	Brigham Exploration	October 2011	USD 4.4 billion
BHP Billiton	Petrohawk	July 2011	USD 12.1 billion
BHP Billiton	Chesapeake Energy	February 2011	USD 4.75 billion
Shell	East Resources	May 2010	USD 4.7 billion
Exxon Mobil	XTO Energy	December 2009	USD 41.0 billion
Source: EOS Intelligence Research

Shale gas production is expected to spike in the coming three-five years. Extensive recoverable reserves, new discoveries, large scale exploration and development and technological improvement in the extraction process could lead to an abundant supply of cheap and relatively clean natural gas and reduce dependence on other conventional sources such as crude oil and coal For several countries including China, Poland, Libya, Mexico, Brazil, Algeria and Argentina, where the reserves are particularly large, shale gas might bring energy stability.

The need for energy security and desire to reduce dependence on energy imports from the Middle East and Russia (and hence to increase political independence), are likely to outweigh potential environmental shortfalls of shale gas production, and some compromise with environment protection activist groups will have to be worked out. Though the road to achieving an ‘energy el dorado’ appears to be long and rocky, it seems that with the right governments’ support, shale gas could become fuel that could significantly contribute to solving the world energy crisis over long term.

08/03/2013by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

South Korea – At the Crossroads!

319views

South Korea is the world’s fifth largest automobile manufacturer, behind China, Japan, the US and Germany. Automobile sales in South Korea breached the 8 million units mark for the first time in its history in 2012. The surge was mainly on account of strong overseas demand for locally-made models – exports accounted for 82% of these sales while domestic sales (accounting for the remaining 18%) actually contracted 4.2% to 1.4 million units in 2012.

Contracting domestic demand for local companies is mainly due to lack of real income growth, increased debt repayment burden and slump in the housing market in Seoul Special City (houses are often bought in South Korea for investment purposes). Meanwhile, overseas sales, cars exported from South Korea and vehicles assembled in overseas plants, expanded 7.9% to 6.8 million units in the same year.

The South Korean market is dominated by Hyundai Kia Automotive Group which accounted for 82% of domestic sales and 81% of exports in 2012. GM Korea, Renault Samsung and Ssangyong (acquired by Indian company Mahindra and Mahindra in 2011) account for 10% of the domestic sales while rest of the market is catered to by imports. BMW, Daimler (Mercedez-Benz), VW, Audi, Toyota, Chrsyler and Ford are the leading importers.

Free Trade Agreements

South Korea has aggressively pursued FTAs, with the provisional enforcement of an FTA with the EU from July 2011 and the full enforcement of an FTA with the US from March 2012. In the automotive industry, tariffs on parts and components were abolished as soon as the agreements came into force, whereas tariffs on vehicles will be abolished between South Korea and the EU over a three-to-five-year period and those with the US in the fifth year after enforcement of the agreement.

As a result of the FTA, exports to the EU sky-rocketed and the double-digit growth trend continued until March 2012. However, as the EU economy weakened, exports declined and returned to pre-FTA levels. In case of the US, exports surged around the time of the enforcement of the FTA in March, even though the tariffs on vehicles are yet to be scaled down. This phenomenon was labelled as ‘announcement effect’.

An interesting trend that has emerged is that whereas the domestic sales of South Korean cars declined by about 6.3% in 2012, domestic sales of imported cars increased by 24.6% in the same year. Moreover, for the first time, imports accounted for 10% of domestic sales, which is in sharp contrast to the 2% share about a decade back. European automotive OEMs have benefitted the most from this surge in demand for vehicles. This increased market share for European vehicles is mainly due to the fall in prices; as part of FTA between South Korea and the EU, the tariffs on large vehicles reduced from 8% to 5.6%.

Thus it can be said that while the enforcement of FTAs has been effective in boosting exports, it has brought about structural changes in South Korea’s domestic market.

Labour Strife

After an almost 4-year gap, strikes by the labor union returned to plague automotive manufacturing in South Korea in the summer of 2012. The industrial action, which also hit car parts manufacturers and some other industries, revived memories of the days when strikes were chronic in South Korea. Workers went on strike in 21 of the first 22 years since the unions’ formation in 1987; however, unions’ political influence has dimmed in recent years with declining memberships.

Hyundai, Kia and GM Korea were affected by the strikes and suffered record losses – Hyundai alone is estimated to have lost more than USD 1 billion. The main points of contention were the abolition of graveyard shift, wage increase and to confirming of permanent positions to the high proportion of contract workers. Although the companies agreed to most of the demands of regular workers, discussions with contract workers are still ongoing.

To offset the loss suffered from such strikes, OEMs are diversifying their production bases. Hyundai for one has moved to reduce the dependence on domestic manufacturing plants by expanding production in the US, China, India, Brazil and Turkey during the last decade. South Korean plants accounted for 46% of Hyundai’s capacity in 2011, down from 60% in 2008, when the last strike took place and 93% in 2000. Although another objective for establishing a global production network is to make inroads into the global markets.

Another consequence of strikes is that production costs are expected to shoot up, mainly on account of increased wages and also due to the additional investments that the OEMs will now have to undertake to make up for the reduced working hours per day; along with the abolition of the graveyard shift, another demand of the workers was to reduce the number of hours being worked in the two shifts from 20 to 17 hours.

Currency Uncertainties

The Won has been strengthening against the Yen and the US dollar since mid-2012, increasing production costs while adding to currency conversion losses, as sales in foreign markets translate into fewer Won. This has significantly eroded South Korean automotive OEMs competitiveness; companies such as Hyundai and Kia have consequently ceded market share to Japanese OEMs which are enjoying resurgence on the back of a brightening export outlook.

The Yen is also on a two-year low against the US dollar while the Won was at the highest level against the dollar since August 2011 in January 2013. Toyota can now in principle offer a discount of more than 10% to its US customers whereas South Korea’s Hyundai Motor has to raise the dollar price by over 5% to keep up with the Won.

A December report by the Korean Automotive Research Institute (KARI) states that South Korean export would shrink by 1.2% annually for every 1% drop in the Yen against the Won.

Over the years, the strategy of the South Korean Automotive OEMs has revolved around exports and the companies have established global production network to cater to geographies around the world. However, the recent upheaval in the foreign exchange markets have raised serious doubts about the company’s short-medium term prospects.

With increasing competition from global OEMs both in the domestic and global markets (resulting from FTAs) and currency uncertainties nullifying cost advantages that the Korean car makers have traditionally relied on, it is perhaps time for country’s OEMs to shift focus from quantity to quality – stressing superior design and engineering over sales growth.

———————————————————————————————————————

In our fourth discussion in this series, we understand the automotive market dynamics of Turkey. Its proximity to Europe and cultural affinity to Asia has seen a growing presence of both European and Asian OEMs. Is Turkey a long-term growth market for automotive OEMs, or is the market as developed as most western countries?

Part I of the series – Mexico – The Next Automotive Production Powerhouse?
Part II of the series – Indonesia – Is The Consecutive Years Of Record Sales For Real Or Is It The Storm Before The Lull?

05/03/2013by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Ultimate Convenience Indian Style – Why Do Ready-to-eat Meal Producers Have a Difficult Job in India?

873views

After a long day at work, a tasty meal is every hard working man and woman’s dream. But, cooking such a meal late in the evening – more of a nightmare. Enter ready-to-eat meals. Throw a packet in the microwave and your main meal of the day is steaming hot in under five minutes. What could be faster, tastier, more convenient and cheaper than that? Many options, Indians respond.

The healthy growth of ready-to-eat (RTE) consumer meals (i.e. microwavable pouches containing ready dishes) has become a success story across many countries, where lifestyles are getting busier, disposable incomes are increasing and women are becoming an integral part of the workforce. The RTE industry is taking several emerging economies in Asia by storm, as dynamic demographic and economic transformations occurring in many of these economies drive increased interest in convenience sought in matters of food by the region’s inhabitants. The trend, though, is of uneven magnitude, with rural communities largely remaining deeply traditional about home-cooked food, besides having very limited financial capacity to afford RTE products or a microwave oven. However, the growing preference for such meals is so strong amongst middle class groups, that, overall, the RTE segment across Asian markets has become an attractive area of opportunity for food companies.

RTE foods sector is one of the most dynamic growth sectors in the packaged foods markets across Asia, and on a global scale, Asian consumers exhibit the highest interest in RTE meals. A 2007 AC Nielsen study revealed that seven out of top ten markets with the highest propensity to purchase RTE meals are Asian countries, with Thai consumers emerging as the world’s biggest fans of RTE products.

Surprisingly though, India does not feature in the list of top 10 RTE markets. Unquestionably, the country does enjoy most of the RTE foods market growth prerequisites – fast developing economy, expanding modern retail channels, dynamically growing middle and upper class, rising nuclear family format, soaring participation of women in workforce, rapidly rising incomes and the growing reality of hectic lifestyles driving the demand for convenience.

So where is India in this picture? Why does its name not appear in the list of attractive RTE meals markets? Why do India-made RTE food products have a bigger market internationally than domestically? What are the challenges that RTE producers such MTR Foods, ITC Foods, Heinz India or Haldiram’s face in their home territory?

The fact is that although there is a market for RTE products in India, its size is modest and its growth is slowing down. AC Nielsen estimates the Indian RTE market growth slowed from 44.9% in 2010 to 28.1% in 2011 (reaching INR 506 crore, or about USD 110 million). In comparison, the Thai RTE market grew by 105% during 2005-2010, with a strong, upwards trend that is set to persist.

The reasons for such differing dynamics are many, largely due to cultural background and the Indian consumer’s mindset. Here are six key reasons why RTE foods producers have a difficult job in the Indian market, reasons, that might make them reconsider RTE expansion plans:

Traditionally, Indians are accustomed to hot fresh food served straight from sizzling pots, mainly because of easy and cheap access to domestic help and primary cooking ingredients easily available for purchase. RTE meals, despite their convenience, have a hard job competing with home cooked food.
Busy Indian consumers look for speed and convenience, and there’s plenty of options in the food services sector – countless cheap order-in and take-out options, that also offer great advantages over RTE meals, especially as these are freshly cooked, a factor of great importance to Indian consumers.
Unlike in many other countries, RTE foods in India are more expensive than most order-in and take-out options. This, paired with the preference for freshness, tends to put RTE products at a disadvantageous position.
Despite growth in modern retail format, majority of Indians still do their food shopping in traditional stores, which have limited space and interest in carrying novelties such as RTE foods (organised food retail is estimated to still account for only about 3-5% of the total retail market).
Considering the hot climate, Indian consumers tend to be reluctant to trust the safety of a ready meal that has been stored and transported out of temperature-controlled supply chain, especially given the largely inefficient supply chain management.
Some RTE meals, which do require cold storage, also fall prey to inefficient supply chain management and frequent power cuts, which lead to rise in production costs, in turn translating into higher RTE product prices resulting in lower demand for such products.

In spite of the many challenges, the Indian RTE market is growing, though at much slower rate than once anticipated. Indian attitude towards meal from a pouch is changing, with growing social acceptability to consume such foods and to prepare meals in the microwave.

Producers are optimistic, as the mere size of the potential customer base offer vast opportunities, even with slower y-o-y growth. But they also remain cautious, citing improvements in supply chain and distribution management, growth in modern retail format, continuous growth in consumers’ disposable incomes as the main changes needed to occur for the Indian RTE market to actually take off. However, given that many of these transformations have been occurring over the past years, perhaps these form just a secondary problem. Perhaps the key prerequisite for RTE market growth is the change in the Indian consumer’s mindset – change that is the slowest to occur and hardest to influence by producers.

13/02/2013by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Production Re-shoring – a Great Idea That Won’t Materialize?

After years of shifting American production capabilities to China as the primary low-cost location, the trend might be somewhat changing. As costs increase in this previously cheap destination, American executives have started to question whether it still makes economic sense to spend more and more on Chinese labour and transport the products back half across the world to the final customer.

With estimations that Chinese wages double every four years, it is clear that the cost benefit of off-shoring to China is narrowing and the country might start losing its competitive edge. It has been, and will continue to be, a very slow process, and we will surely hear stories of another industry giant opening another production facility in this ‘global manufacturing centre’. Yet, the concept of re-shoring, i.e. shifting manufacturing capabilities, once off-shored in search for decreased costs, back to the USA, has been the story of several American producers for the past couple of years. While reasons vary, cost element is probably a key deciding factor, as cited to be the reason behind the re-location of some of the capabilities by Apple or General Electric.

But it is not only the cost that is forcing companies to think of bringing manufacturing capabilities back home. There is a range of reasons indicated as strong factors that should force American manufacturers to consider re-shoring:

Slowly, but gradually the cost benefit of off-shored production will narrow, given the faster rise in labour costs in locations such as China
Shipping costs associated with long-distance logistics are also increasing, e.g. shipping rates, cutbacks in logistics infrastructure, are estimated to have caused an average hike of 70% in shipping costs between 2007-2011
Quality inconsistency issues, both real and perceived, continue to resurface in Asia-manufactured products – flawed production lots, inaccurate specifications, as well as end customers’ continued scepticism towards the ‘made in China’ label
Production is increasingly executed in small lots to ensure responsiveness to fluctuations in demand volume and structure, customization requests, and to mitigate the risk of reduced liquidity with cash trapped in inventory
Supply chains are found to be more and more vulnerable to disruptions caused by ‘beyond control’ factors, from natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis in Asian locations) to political disruptions affecting smooth and timely shipping
Weaker dollar requires US-based companies to spend more bucks on the same foreign-based production and transportation services
While economic result matters most, producers also consider the customers patriotic interest to buy products that are ‘local’ to them – in terms of appeal as well as the production location, which can be an extra public relations benefit for the company re-shoring its manufacturing jobs back to the USA.

While reasons are varied and not mutually exclusive, there is still a question whether re-shoring is actually a strong trend, and whether jobs will return to the USA. The question cannot be ignored – if re-shoring turned out to be a persisting trend, it could be a well-needed kick to this crisis-shaken American economy.

Not long ago, in mid-2012, Forbes published an article, in which it asked whether re-shoring is actually a trend or more of a trickle. A simple survey conducted amongst MFG.com members, an online marketplace space for the manufacturing industry, proved that re-shoring can be a real trend, as a number of American executives indicated new contracts being awarded to them – contracts that had previously been off-shored. The re-shoring trend seems to be further confirmed by the frequently quoted 2010 Accenture report, which indicated that around 60% of manufacturing executives surveyed considered re-shoring their manufacturing and supply capabilities. The trend could be additionally supported by tax incentives proposed by Barack Obama for companies re-shoring back to the USA, as well as drives such as The Reshoring Initiative, founded by Harry Moser in 2010, aiming at promoting the concept amongst American businesses and tracking the phenomenon. According to Moser, re-shoring brought some 50,000 jobs back to the USA during the period of 2010-2012.

But, with all these points being legitimate reasons for American companies to re-think their off-shoring, perhaps the big believers in the return of the ‘Made in the USA’ era, should curb their enthusiasm just yet. It is quite unlikely that low-cost producers will return to the American soil for good – on a scale large enough to have a positive impact on American economy.

First of all, China will still hold enough advantage over the next couple of years – an unbeatable advantage of a large pool of workers available for $2 an hour wage, which, even if increases, will still be far lower than in the USA. And it is not only about the cost, but also about the relatively high elasticity of low-cost Chinese labour supply (in terms of wage accepted and workers volumes available), which even at its lower productivity, makes it still more economical to stick to factories based in China, than re-shoring on big scale to the US market. The public relations dimension of bringing back jobs has to be approached realistically too, keeping in mind that much higher productivity of American workers means that for each 4-5 Chinese jobs being cut, American market would gain probably not more than 1, making the job creation benefit much more modest than hoped for. And even if, over long term, the increasing labour cost squeezes the cost benefit tight enough to make the producers leave China, it is highly unlikely that they will turn to American workers as first priority. There are more economical options available across Asia and other geographies (perhaps at higher cost than in China but still well below American levels). We might see some of these manufacturing jobs fly to India, Bangladesh, and the emerging African continent.

It seems that this big re-shoring move might be just wishful thinking, which will translate to a few jobs brought back to the USA, in numbers not significant enough to actually make much difference.

Who We Are

Connect With Us

Work With EOS