REGULATORY LANDSCAPE Archives

08/12/2017by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

China’s Cross-Border E-Commerce Sector Enjoying Government Support – But for How Long?

939views

It is a well-known fact that China, today, is the largest and fastest growing e-commerce market globally. Accounting for close to half of the global e-commerce sales, China’s e-commerce industry is witnessing a double-digit growth, rising by about 26% in 2016. Leading the growth in China’s e-commerce sector is cross-border e-commerce (CBEC), which is currently witnessing close to double the growth compared with the overall industry and is expected to continue to grow robustly over the next five years. The government has not only been charging favorable duty to promote CBEC, but has also created special customs-clearing zones in 13 cities to support cross-border trade. However, in 2016, the government came up with a new set of taxation and a list of items that were allowed to be only imported. Following a significant industry pressure, the government has pushed the implementation of these rules to the end of 2018, and it now remains to be seen whether the industry will continue to receive government support which is instrumental for it to flourish.

Cross-border e-commerce (CBEC) has been creating quite a buzz globally, and leading this global trend is China, one of fastest growing markets with respect to CBEC. A plethora of social factors such as improved standards of living, increased awareness about foreign products through greater international travel as well as access to information online, increased quality consciousness among consumers, limited options available locally (especially in product categories such as infant milk formula and health supplements) have resulted in escalated demand for international products in China. All these factors, along with the ease of buying through e-commerce and the growing tendency of Chinese people to use their mobile phones to shop, have resulted in exponential growth of the CBEC sector in the country.

China’s CBEC Industry – At a Glance

Retail Sales and Growth: The industry was estimated at US$85.8 billion in sales in 2016 and is expected to double up sales to about US$158 by 2020. The number of CBEC customers in China is estimated to rise from about 181 million in 2016 to close to 292 million in 2020.

Trade Partners and Goods: The UK, USA, Australia, France, and Italy are some of China’s largest trading partners with regards to CBEC. Cosmetics, food and healthcare products, mother and child solutions (including infant formula), clothing and footwear are the most shopped categories through CBEC.

Consumer Profile: About 65% of the customers are male and 75% are between the age of 24 and 40. Most of the customers are well-educated, with three-fourth of them having at least a graduate degree. The ticket size for about half of these purchases ranges between US$15 and US$75 (RMB100-500).

Leading Players: Most cross-border online sales are undertaken through third-party online marketplaces such as TMall Global (owned by Alibaba group) and JD Worldwide (owned by JD Group, China’s second largest e-commerce player). Global e-commerce leader, Amazon is also becoming increasingly active in China.

The government has also provided immense support to the CBEC sector, a fact that has been critical to the market growth. As an effort to weed out the illegal grey market imports and to promote e-commerce, China’s government relaxed cross-border e-commerce rules and the applicable custom rates (close to 15 to 60% depending on the item). Moreover, custom duty amounting to less than US$7.5 (RMB50) was exempted. The government also created 13 CBEC zones across the country in order to expedite custom clearing of foreign items ordered online. These zones house large warehouses where foreign brands and retailers stock items, which, upon being ordered, are put through custom clearance (under relaxed rules). This way the consumer receives foreign goods within few days of ordering it.

While this has been greatly benefiting the Chinese consumers who now have an access to a range of products that were once seemingly out of reach for the public at large, it is also revolutionizing how foreign players are operating in China. Traditionally, foreign companies (brands) required to have a legal entity in China (subsidiary, partner, or own manufacturer) to import goods through the general trade channels. These legal entities had the task to clear import customs and pay duties on goods imported into the country. However, under the CBEC channel, these foreign players are freed from the requirement of establishing a local entity before selling their goods in the Chinese market. This also relieves companies from several compliance procedures that they were required to follow in case they were entering the market through offline trade channels. Therefore, several players, who shied away from China in the past (owing to cumbersome product registration and approval process), are looking at this as their entry strategy in the market. Simpler compliance checks and reduced import taxes have also made it easy for companies to experiment and launch a host of products (on a hit and miss basis) in the Chinese market without much investment.

However, while CBEC has greatly supported the cause of promoting e-commerce and aiding international companies in accessing the Chinese markets, it has seriously hampered the business of several domestic players (especially in the cosmetics and health supplements industry) who have been protected from foreign competition in the past owing to strict import rules. Moreover, it has resulted in a major disadvantage for conventional retailers with a brick and mortar setup as goods sold through the CBEC route are levied with a lower number of taxes compared with similar goods sold through traditional trade channels in China.

Owing to these factors, in April 2016, the government revised the taxation rates for CBEC goods resulting in a marginal increase in taxes for few categories. Under the new rules, products would be temporarily levied with 0% import tariff but would be taxed at 70% of the applicable VAT and consumption tax rate, which changes based on the product category. For instance, cosmetics worth RMB500 (US$75) ordered through CBEC would be taxed 0% import tariff + VAT at 11.9% (i.e. 70% of applicable VAT rate for cosmetics – 17%) + consumption tax at 21% (i.e. 70% of applicable consumption tax for cosmetics – 30%), thereby, making the total amount equal to RMB664.5 (US$100). In addition to the changes in taxation, the government removed the waiver of custom duty of up to US$7.5 (RMB50) and set a limit of US$302 (RMB2,000) on a single transaction and of US$3,020 (RMB20,000) on purchase by a single person per year. It also released a list (termed as a ‘positive list’) of 1,293 products that were allowed to enter the Chinese market through CBEC. While the goods under the ‘positive list’ are exempted from submitting an import license to customs, few products from this list that come under China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA), such as cosmetics, infant formula, medical devices, health supplements, etc., require registration before import. This entails the same tedious registration or filing requirements required for products imported through the traditional trade channels. This greatly limits the inherent benefits of the CBEC model for these products.

While the government had initially intended and aimed for immediate implementation of these new regulations, protests and pressure from Chinese e-commerce companies and the ultimate objective of promoting the country’s e-commerce sector resulted in the government agreeing to a one-year transitional phase for these rules (which was to end in 2017). However, in September 2017, the government decided to extend the transitional period until the end of 2018 and to set up new trade zones for CBEC, reinforcing its support for the cross-border e-commerce sector. While changes in the regulation do seem to be a certainty in the future, the timeline for their introduction remains ambiguous as several industry analysts anticipate that they may get pushed off again.

EOS Perspective

The cross-border e-commerce sector in China has been witnessing exponential growth and despite the looming new regulations, is expected to continue to grow at least over the next five years. While leading e-commerce companies in China (such as Alibaba group and JD group) have acted swiftly to benefit from this growing space, the greatest benefit has been for the foreign players who now have an easy access to Chinese consumers without the need of setting up a shop in the country. However, these benefits may be short-lived considering the new set of regulations. Few product categories such as infant formula, cosmetics, and health supplements (which have in actuality been the most popular categories for CBEC) will be subject to registration and filing requirements, thereby their so-called ‘honeymoon phase’ in the country is likely to end. Although a lot of products do not have to comply with registration/filing requirements and are only subject to a marginal increase in taxes (as per the new rules), this does not guarantee that future regulations will not impact their presence and sales in China. Therefore, while CBEC may be the smartest way for companies to test their products with limited investment in China, they may need a back-up plan in case the government further regularizes the industry to create a level-playing field for the traditional retail.

30/11/2016by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Mobile Cuisine in Mexico and Brazil: Are Food Trucks Ready to Roll?

1.6kviews

Food trucks, a new trend in food service combining gourmet cuisine and low cost establishment, have been increasingly rolling around the world. The concept originated in the USA, where feeding consumers from trucks has been gaining popularity with the market CAGR expected at 17% between 2012 and 2017. Around 2012, this business model reached Mexico and Brazil, appearing as an attractive option for entrepreneurs to invest in the eatery business. But no matter how promising this niche may appear, inadequate regulations, lack of licenses, and poor infrastructure represent major roadblocks for the mobile cuisine business to pick up in these geographies. Do food trucks stand a chance to become the new wheels to the Mexican and Brazilian gastronomy industries?

In 1974, an ice cream truck was converted into the first taco truck in east Los Angeles in the USA, and by 2010, food trucks became a prospering industry spreading across almost all major cities in the country, as well as in other large cities globally. But it is Mexico and Brazil which seem to be promising markets with an increasing amount of investors venturing into cuisine on wheels as a prosperous and flourishing business.

Mexico, where over five million people ate on the street every day in 2014, has witnessed a remarkable growth of the food truck sector, boosted mainly by the country’s increasing unemployment rate and economic slowdown. A similar situation has been happening in Brazil, where since 2014, a deepening crisis has hit the country’s economy allowing food truck businesses to become increasingly successful. In both these countries, an increased demand for cheap food has been driving the growth of food truck businesses, which are proliferating due to the low initial investment required to start such an endeavor.

Despite the fact that food trucks businesses seem to be profitable and low risk, their growth is challenged by deficient regulatory frameworks, poor street infrastructure, and inadequate scope of licenses to operate. Both in Mexico and Brazil, food trucks can only circulate and sell their food in a private circle, i.e. specialized fairs, events, concerts, food parks, pre-assigned parking lots, and in some cases, business owners have to pay high fees just to park in these events.

EOS Perspective

Food trucks markets in Mexico and Brazil show an immense potential due to a growing appetite for low-priced food options from the expanding price-sensitive consumer segment. This demand, paired with low investment required to enter the food truck business, makes the food truck concept an attractive option for investors and entrepreneurs looking for profitability in food service businesses.

However, the issues of inadequate regulation and lack of government encouragement for the industry in both markets continue to hamper the industry growth. An introduction of appropriate legislation would likely push the sector up on its growth trajectory. For instance, if regulations allowed food trucks to circulate anywhere in Mexico, it is estimated that the business could triple its earnings up to US$19,000 a month. Further, if dedicated laws were developed to regulate food trucks operations, business owners would be likely to pay a set fee to obtain permits and licenses to function, instead of paying varied high fees to work in a private space (which currently makes it more expensive and less transparent to operate such a business). In Brazil, some prefecture authorities have sanctioned regulations allowing food truck owners to operate in already assigned slots, however, not allowing food trucks to circulate on the city streets. Many of these assigned spaces are usually occupied by private cars, since they are not properly marked, making it difficult for food trucks owners to reach new customers, which in turns hinders the industry growth.

There is no doubt that authorities in both countries need to update and implement proper regulations and permits designed specifically for food trucks sector, as only regulation that clearly establishes operating fees and free circulation for food trucks is likely to translate into a growing market. Further, only by setting proper regulations specific to the food truck sector, local authorities would be able to guarantee consumers all sold food is safe for human consumption. Moreover, government investment in street infrastructure (e.g. electricity, running water) is required to attract new entrants, who are likely to be lured to business concept due to the low initial investment, also boosting market growth. Considering the economic situation in both countries, it is clear that the authorities should be motivated to look for any possible avenue of revenue and employment growth, taking advantage of consumers’ demand for good quality low-priced food.

12/10/2016by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Sharing Economy Needs Regulator Support

568views

Sharing economy works on a business model where individuals have the ability to borrow or rent goods or services owned by someone else. The concept has been widely accepted in a short span of time and companies such as Uber and Airbnb have become well known among consumers. The sharing economy sector has witnessed tremendous growth with aggregate valuation of the companies operating in this market reaching US$ 140 billion in 2015. The industry has already started causing a shift in the employment sector and is said to have far-reaching implications which are likely to disrupt the traditional rental business model, particularly for companies in hotel and transportation sectors. The growth potential of sharing economy has become of considerable interest to policy makers around the globe as well, and the industry has recently come under scrutiny of various governments and regulators, and is likely to face regulatory barriers affecting its potential to scale up.

The concept of sharing economy, also known as peer-to-peer economy, facilitates a direct contact between consumers and service providers and is centered around the use of privately owned, unused inventory. Technology is key to the growth of this type of economy, which has already witnessed the emergence of several sharing platforms enabling consumers to share products and services such as cars and houses.

EOS Perspective

Companies such as Uber and Airbnb have become the talk of the town, due to their tremendous growth achieved thanks to a simple business model: providing consumers the ability to monetize idle inventory and rent an asset, instead of purchasing it. Sharing economy also meets consumers’ desire for social interaction, lower costs, and technology-based access to goods and services. However, the sudden and overwhelming rise in its popularity has shaken the governments’ ability to appropriately and sufficiently regulate this economy. Weak legal frameworks hampering consumer’s safety and tax collection have led to debates around the benefits of sharing economy.

Implementation of the traditional regulatory frameworks in the sharing economy sector is likely to upend the peer-to-peer business model. Inclusion and implementation of monetary employee benefits, tax obligations, and safety regulations in the sharing economy can be expected to lead to an increase in the cost of services offered by these companies, thereby defeating the purpose of the existence of sharing economy. Thus, instead of imposing regulations originally developed and meant for traditional rental sector, there arises a vital need to develop a new policy framework best suited to the peer-to-peer business model.

Instead of completely imposing bans on these services and eliminating the opportunity to make use of idle inventory, governments should work alongside these companies and create regulations tailored to their regions to encourage safe business conduct. For instance, Airbnb signed an agreement with the City of Amsterdam to promote responsible home sharing in 2015. The agreement includes a set of rules for the hosts to be followed before activating their listing, and also stipulates the collection and remittance of tourist tax by Airbnb on behalf of the hosts. In addition, the agreement also includes a partnership with Airbnb to collect content from the company’s database to shutdown illegal hotels. These efforts are expected to ensure the hosts receive clear information on renting their homes and promote consumer safety.

Sharing economy has the potential to make a tremendous impact on the traditional rental sector and is likely to create opportunities across various different economic activities. However, from a legal perspective, it cannot be ignored that the model lacks a strong regulatory support, which over time will continue to put pressure on this newly emerged sector. The peer-to-peer model will be required to address these imperatives in the near future in order to scale to new heights.

18/09/2016by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Bayer-Monsanto Deal to Genetically Modify the Agriculture Industry

After its abandoned attempt to acquire Syngenta in October 2015, Monsanto stated it would continue its search for best acquisition targets within the agriculture industry claiming that “consolidation is inevitable”. The statement turned out to be prophetic. The agriculture industry has seen a signification M&A activity throughout 2016 – first with ChemChina acquiring Syngenta in a US$43 billion deal, followed by a planned merger of Dow and DuPont (probably two of the largest agrochemical companies), and now with Bayer announcing a US$66 billion deal to acquire Monsanto – putting further pressure on the already competitive and consolidated industry.

Every deal can bring positives and negatives, depending on from whose point of view the deal is looked at. While some may see positives in the Bayer-Monsanto deal, indicating it as the logical step of vertically integrating in the agriculture supply and value chain, others see it as a risk, and a desperate move by Bayer to remain competitive in a consolidating industry, especially when Monsanto has a not-so-good reputation among consumers.

Investors’ point-of-view

The joint portfolio of Bayer and Monsanto will surely allow the combined entity to move to the forefront and become a leader in seeds and pesticides market (holding more than a quarter share in the segment post the acquisition), which will allow the company to dictate terms in the market – definitely a positive from the investors’ point of view. Further, a cash-only deal, financed by the company’s cash reserves and new debt, display Bayer’s optimistic expectations about the company position in the near future, acting as a sweetener for the investors.

The combined Bayer-Monsanto entity is also expected to achieve improved operational efficiencies. Bayer claims the merger will result in annual synergies of US$1.5 billion after three years, bringing in operational costs reduction. Consolidation of R&D expenditure is also likely to result in further cost savings.

However, there are some critical voices as well. Historically, Monsanto has had a bad reputation for its aggressive policies, and was rated the third most hated company in the USA in 2015. Acquiring such a company could backfire on Bayer. Moreover, certain investors feel that pursuing the cash only deal may put pressure on Bayer’s core pharmaceutical business.

Market’s point-of-view

If the Bayer-Monsanto deal, as well as the Dow-DuPont merger, get the regulatory approvals, they will effectively end up consolidating more than 75% of the agricultural supplies market in the hands of four companies (Bayer-Monsanto, Dow-DuPont, ChemChina-Syngenta, and BASF). This presumably is likely to leave smaller companies at a very disadvantageous position, fighting for their survival.

A number of regulatory authorities (30 in case of Bayer-Monsanto deal) will engage in a long drawn process (lasting the entirety of 2017) to ensure the market remains competitive, and that must be enough for smaller companies and consumers to cling onto.

Consumer point-of-view

Experts feel the Bayer-Monsanto merger might lead to poorer choice and lower number of product options for consumers to choose from. This may lead to a rise in prices of agricultural supplies, which is not likely to go down well with the consumers, as the agricultural commodity prices and incomes have dropped to their lowest levels in the past couple of years. Any increase in raw material prices is likely to leave consumers scraping for margins.

EOS Perspective

Which of these positive and negative outcomes actually materialize will likely depend on how the industry behaves in the next year and a half, as Bayer and Monsanto wait to get the required regulatory approvals. If the deal gets a green light, the nature of competition in the agricultural supplies industry is undoubtedly destined to be ‘genetically modified’.

30/08/2016by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Uncertain Impact of the 2016 FDI Reforms on the Civil Aviation Sector in India

549views

Indian aviation industry is aiming high and intends to grow at a fast pace. Studies forecast that India could become world’s third largest aviation market by the end of this decade. In June 2016, the Indian government opened doors to 100% foreign investments in the Indian aviation sector. With an aim to establish one of the most FDI liberal economies across the globe, the government has taken steps to ensure easy and smooth inflow of foreign currency to India. This move has triggered mixed reactions – some raised their eyebrows while others welcomed the change.

With the objective of driving growth in the local aviation market, spurring airport infrastructure improvements, as well as giving the employment sector a push and creating new jobs in the country, the Indian government announced amendments to the FDI policy for the aviation sector. Under the new regulations, 100% FDI is allowed for both greenfield and brownfield projects through the automatic route. Regulations have been updated also in other categories of aviation operations. In Scheduled Air Transport Service/ Domestic Scheduled Passenger Airline Service, though Non-Resident Indians continue to be allowed to invest up to 100% FDI without any approval, foreign investment is capped at 49% under the automatic route and any investment beyond this share must go through the government approval route, however allowing for the possibility of 100% FDI by only non-airline players. This effectively maintains the previous limitation for foreign airlines to bring in only up to 49% of the capital in Indian carriers operating scheduled and non-scheduled air transport services.

Under substantial ownership and effective control, any foreign airline that invests in domestic carriers via non-airline investors, is bound to have an Indian chairman and at least two-thirds of its directors of Indian origin, so that majority of the ownership rights are vested in the hands of Indian nationals. Indian Civil Aviation Ministry say that though the new provisions allow full investment of foreign parties in the national aviation sector, 100% foreign ownership dominated airlines will still not enjoy the freedom to fly internationally. International investors can own full stakes only in domestic airlines but will have to bear the heat of the government procedures and approvals to fly overseas. Though the new changes in the policy give hope to increase the ease of doing business in the country thus increasing FDI inflow, a question still remains why an international carrier would enter the Indian market to operate primarily on the domestic front. Also, owing to heavy debt, high input costs, and rigid competition, most of the domestic players are already registering business losses, so whether a new entrant in this segment would earn profits is rather questionable.

EOS Perspective

Foreign air carriers face various hindrances when planning to enter the Indian civil aviation landscape. The leverage offered currently by the Indian Civil Aviation Ministry allowing 100% foreign direct investment in the sector may look rosy but it comes with fine print, i.e. despite allowing 100% FDI, the regulators still kept several limitations, effectively reducing the attractiveness for foreign players to invest in India.

The relaxation in the FDI norms is likely to attract many overseas carriers to invest in existing airlines that were looking to expand their operations in India. The deteriorating financial condition of domestic players is expected to improve with investment from foreign players.

Improved service standard, professionalism, and adoption of industry best practices are likely to be seen in existing air services within the country. Nevertheless, a doubt still remains whether these amendments in the FDI regulations that aim at boosting the aviation sector will really be fruitful.

26/08/2015by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Flying LATAM Skies on a Low Cost Carrier: Dream or Reality?

417views

With 600 million population, Latin America still remains highly unexploited by low cost carriers (LCC). The region is dominated by only six homegrown low cost airlines, which makes it a promising growth market for discount carriers. With growing middle class, flourishing trade and commerce, and appetite for travel, Latin America is destined to become a discount air travel hub. However, even with such substantial opportunities, LATAM region is yet to overcome the hovering hurdles standing in its way to fulfill its potential as a dynamic market for low cost airlines.

Some regions housing emerging economies such as South East Asia have grown to accommodate 22 low cost airlines while Latin America is stalled with only six — Azul, Gol, Interjet, Volaris, VivaAerobus, and VivaColumbia. Currently, travelers flying across only Brazil, Columbia, and Mexico have the privilege to book their tickets with a low fare airline. Other potential markets such as Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela remain unexplored by LCCs with minuscule penetration or complete absence of any discount carriers. Some of the roadblocks hindering LCC development in the region include high costs of operation, government bureaucracy, economic headwinds, etc.

Obstacles faced by new entrants and existing LCCs in LATAM

Is there any growth prospect for LCCs in Latin America?

The emerging Latin American countries offer an array of opportunities for low cost airline industry, leading to new LCCs slowly starting to enter the market with recent example including the Southwest Airlines, an American low cost carrier, which in March 2015, started operating flights between Costa Rica and Baltimore (USA).

Currently, Latin American travelers typically opt for long haul buses, which are an economically viable, yet time-consuming option, to travel long distances. However, the advent of LCCs in the region could completely change the landscape for time and money conscious travelers. The LCCs could offer cost effective travel in a much shorter time.

New emerging customers

The burgeoning demand for air travel is increasingly accompanied with favorable conditions such as the growing middle class and signs of recovery in GDP growth, which collectively are likely to push low cost airlines’ growth in the near future. Presently, the middle class represents about 34% of the population in Latin America, approximately 200 million people, and is likely to grow resulting in higher demand for no frills airlines. The growing middle class, possessing the required financial means, is likely to push intra-regional travelling, as these people will want to travel for tourism and work. This section of the population is prone to consider travel options that are more expensive but less time consuming than long haul buses, but would still not be able to afford mainline airlines fares. Hence, they would prefer flying with a low cost airline.

As in 2015, the Latin American economy is forecast to show signs of recovery from years of slow GDP growth, the overall economic growth in the region is likely to increase investments in the LCC market and put higher disposable income in hands of the middle class population. This might lead to higher spending on vacation, thus, pushing the interest in LCCs. Economic growth is likely to pick up in countries such as Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Brazil, and Panama. In 2015, Brazil is forecast to grow at 1.4% from 0.3% in 2014. Chile is expected to rebound witnessing a 3.3% GDP growth in 2015 after slowing to 1.9% in 2014. Mexico’s GDP growth is likely to accelerate from 2.4% in 2014 to 3.5% in 2015.

Cost cutting and revenue generation

LCCs are seeking opportunities to reduce cost of operation and generate more revenue. For ticket reservation, LCCs are switching to direct sources (airline website) or metasearch engine (a search tool that takes input data from other search engines to produce its own results) instead of relying on Online Travel Agencies (OTA) such as Despegar, which sell various airline tickets. While the OTAs are perceived as a convenient platform for travelers to compare prices and book airline tickets, they seek a healthy cut from airline ticket sales. Switching to direct sources or metasearch engines could help LCCs cut intermediaries and boost profits.

Airlines are trying to drive revenues by selling ancillaries such as luggage, seats, hotel services, etc. by driving traffic to their own website. VivaColombia and VivaAerobus have refused to pay OTAs and have started distributing tickets through metasearch engine, Escapar, while Volaris has switched to Kayak (a US-based metasearch engine).

Further, airlines are focusing on international route expansion — particularly to the USA — to earn higher passenger yield (average earning of an airline generated by transporting passengers) and to take advantage of the growing international travel demand. In 2015, airlines such as Volaris, VivaAerobus, and Gol plan to bolster international network breadth. In H1 2015, Volaris increased international capacity by 33% and its traffic grew by 28%. By the end of 2015, Azul plans to start flights between Guarulhos (Brazil) and Orlando (USA) as well as Belo Horizonte (Brazil) and Orlando.

Despite the setbacks, jetting across Latin America on a low cost airline does seem like a reality in the foreseeable future

Presently, the low cost airline market in Latin America faces various challenges such as high cost of operation, currency depreciation, and regulatory hurdles. However, with new airlines starting to slowly enter the market, growing middle class pushing the demand for LCCs, and higher forecast GDP growth resulting in more disposable income in hands of people, the future of low cost airlines seems rather bright.

08/02/2013by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Mexico – The Next Automotive Production Powerhouse?

394views

As the first of our five part automotive market assessment of the MIST countries – Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Mexico as an emerging automotive hub, and the underlying potential in this strategically located gateway to both North and South America.

Emergence of Mexico as a major automotive production hub is the result of a series of events and transformations over the past decade. The most important of which is the growing trend among automotive OEMs and auto part producers to have production bases in emerging economies. And the earthquake in Japan in 2011 tilted the tide in favour of Mexico just as ‘near-shoring’ was already becoming a key automotive strategy in 2011.

Automotive production in Mexico increased by 80% from 1.5 million in 1999 to 2.7 million units per year in 2011, largely thanks to a significant boost in investment in the sector.

Between 2005 and 2011, cumulative foreign direct investment (FDI) in the automotive sector amounted to USD10.3 billion. In the last year, several automotive OEMs have initiated large scale projects in Mexico; some of these projects include

Nissan – building a USD2 billion plant in Aguascalientes; this was the single largest investment in the country in 2012 and should help secure the country’s position as the eighth largest car manufacturer and sixth largest car exporter in the world
Ford – investing USD1.3 billion in a new stamping and assembly plant in Hermosillo, New Mexico
Honda – investing USD800 million in a new production plant in Celaya, Guanajuato
GM – investing USD420 million at plants in Guanajuato and San Luis Potosi
Daimler Trucks – investing USD300 million in a new plant to manufacture new heavy trucks’ transmissions
Audi – has decided to set-up its first production facility across the Atlantic in Mexico; with planned investment outlay of about USD2 billion, this move by Audi represents a significant show of trust by one of the world’s leading premium car brands
Mazda – building a USD500 million plant in Guanajuato; it has reached an agreement to build a Toyota-branded sub-compact car at this facility and will supply Toyota with 50,000 units of the vehicle annually once production begins in mid-2015

Bolstered by this new wave of investment, Mexico’s vehicle production capacity is expected to rise to 3.83 million units by 2017, at an impressive CAGR of 6% during 2011-2017.

Why is Mexico attracting such large levels of investment from global automotive OEMs? Which factors have positively influenced these decisions and what concerns other OEMs have in investing in this North American country?

So, What Makes Mexico A Favourable Destination?

Trade Agreements – Mexico has Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with about 44 countries that provide preferential access to markets across three continents, covering North America and parts of South America and Europe. Mexico has more FTAs than the US. The FTA with the EU, for instance, saves Mexico a 10% tariff that’s applied to US-built vehicles, thereby providing OEMs with an incentive to shift production from the US to Mexico.
Geographic Access – Mexico provides easy geographical access to the US and Latin American markets, thereby providing savings through reduced inventory as well as lower transportation and logistics costs. This is evident from the fact that auto exports grew by 12% in the first ten months of 2012 to a record 1.98 million units; the US accounted for 63% of these exports, while Latin America and Europe accounted for 16% and 9%, respectively (Source – Mexican Automobile Industry Association).
Established Manufacturing Hub – 19 of the world’s major manufacturing companies, such as Siemens, GE, Samsung, LG and Whirlpool, have assembly plants in Mexico; additionally, over 300 major Tier-1 global suppliers have presence in the country, with a well-structured value chain organized in dynamic and competitive clusters.

The Challenges

Heavy Dependence on USA – While it is good that Mexico has established strong relations with American OEMs, it cannot ignore the fact that with more than 60% share of its exports, the country is heavily dependent on the US. The country needs to grow its export markets to other countries and geographies to hedge against a downturn in the American economy. For instance, during the downturn in the US economy in 2008 and 2009, due to decline in sales in the US, automotive production in Mexico declined by 20% from 2.17 million in 2008 to 1.56 million in 2009. Mexico has trade agreements with 44 countries (more than the USA and double that of China) and it needs to leverage these better to promote itself as an attractive export platform for automotives.
Regional Politics – Mexico is walking a tight rope when it comes to protecting the interests of OEMs producing vehicles in the country. In 2011, Mexican automotive exports caused widespread damage to the automotive industries in Brazil and Argentina and in a bid to save their domestic markets, both the countries briefly banned Mexican auto imports altogether in 2012. Although, later in the year, Mexico thrashed out a deal that restricts automotive imports (without tariffs) to its two South American neighbours rather than completely banning them, it does not augur well for the future prospects of automotive production in Mexico. One of the reasons automotive OEMs were expanding their capacity in the country was to be able to cater to the important markets in Latin America, particularly Brazil and Argentina. Now the Mexican government has the challenge of trying to keep everyone happy – its neighbours, the automotive OEMs and most importantly its own people for whom it might mean loss of jobs and income.
Stringent Regulatory Environment – The Mexican government, the Mexican Auto Industry Association and International Automotive OEMs are locked in a tussle over the government’s attempts to implement fuel efficiency rules to curb carbon emissions. Mexico has an ambitious target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020, and 50% by 2050. The regulations are similar to the ones being implemented in the USA and Canada, however, the association has complained that the proposal is stricter than the US version. Toyota went as far as filing a legal appeal against the government protesting the proposed fuel economy standard. Although the government eased the regulations to appease the automotive OEMs in January 2013, the controversy highlights resistance by the country’s manufacturing sector to the low-carbon regulations the government has been trying to introduce over the past few years. Such issues send out wrong signals to potential investors.

So, does Mexico provide an attractive platform for automotive OEMs? From the spate of investments in the country so far, it seems so – over the past few years, the country has finally begun to fulfil that potential and is now a key driver in the ‘spreading production across emerging economies’ strategy of companies looking to make it big in the global automotive market. However, there are still a few concerns that need to be addressed in order for Mexico to become ‘the’ automotive manufacturing hub in the Americas.

———————————————————————————————————————
In our next discussion, we will assess the opportunities and challenges faced by both established and emerging automotive OEMs in Indonesia. Does Indonesia continue to be one of the key emerging markets of interest for automotive OEMs or do the challenges outweigh the opportunities?

Who We Are

Connect With Us

Work With EOS

Who We Are

Connect With Us

Work With EOS

REGULATORY LANDSCAPE

China’s Cross-Border E-Commerce Sector Enjoying Government Support – But for How Long?

EOS Perspective

Mobile Cuisine in Mexico and Brazil: Are Food Trucks Ready to Roll?

Bayer-Monsanto Deal to Genetically Modify the Agriculture Industry

Uncertain Impact of the 2016 FDI Reforms on the Civil Aviation Sector in India

Flying LATAM Skies on a Low Cost Carrier: Dream or Reality?

Mexico – The Next Automotive Production Powerhouse?