In this briefing:
- Chinese Telcos: Rising Capex Expectations a Risk. Downgrade China Mob and China Tel to Neutral.
- Tesla–The Struggle to Stay Afloat in 2019
- Olympus Corporation (7733 JP): Overvalued with Too Many Controversies
- TRACKING TRAFFIC/Containers & Air Cargo: December Box Rates & Volume Firm
- Subaru: Continuing Quality Issues and Employee Suicide Point to Sustainability Issues
1. Chinese Telcos: Rising Capex Expectations a Risk. Downgrade China Mob and China Tel to Neutral.
We have been positive on the Chinese telcos, in part due to our thesis that peak 5G capex expectations were too high for China Mobile. That has largely played out as capex expectations have come down and the stock has performed well. The telcos see a steady state approach to 5G capex as the best way forward given the lack of a current business case. However, there are larger forces at work which imply higher capex – the need to support Huawei/ZTE (763 HK) given the moves against Chinese equipment manufacturers internationally, and the likelihood of economic stimulus packages.
We have downgraded China Mobile (941 HK) and China Telecom (728 HK) to Neutral as the risk now is that capex expectations start to rise again. China Unicom (762 HK) remains a BUY as it trades at a much lower multiple. We reiterate our preference for China Tower (788 HK) which is exposed positively to rising telecom capex.
We have increased our 2020 capex expectations for Chinese Telcos. China Mobile most affected (RMB bn)
2. Tesla–The Struggle to Stay Afloat in 2019
Profit Warning for Q4 2018 and Q1 2019: Two Fridays ago, Elon Musk warned that Q4 profits came in lower than Q3’s, despite an 8% QoQ rise in vehicle sales during Q4. He also announced a 7% cut in Tesla’s workforce, as Tesla is now facing “a tiny profit” in Q1 that will be achieved with “great difficulty, effort and some luck”. These are extremely bearish comments from a perennial optimist like Musk. If true, however, it kills the growth story at Tesla. And with the average 15% price cut of the Model 3 in the US and 17% in China, it also shows that Tesla may have misread the demand environment for its high-priced electric sedan.
Model 3 Demand in the US has Clearly Been Exhausted: September 2018 saw peak monthly sales of 22,250 units in the US, which fell to an average monthly rate of 18,039 units in Q4. There are no more wait lists for the Model 3 at current prices: Tesla’s website says delivery can be made in under 2 weeks. In the January 18th profit warning, Musk admitted that Tesla must now sell its lowest-end version for $35,000 from May, or see production fall. At this price, Tesla’s Model 3 probably just breaks even, by our estimates.
Weak Model 3 Launch in Europe: It was hoped that the Model 3’s European launch this March would make up for waning demand in the US. But since opening up configurations for reservation holders on December 7th, Tesla only received 13,773 orders, which is a whopping 24% lower than recent monthly sales in the US. Musk was forced to open up configurations to non-reservation holders, but this led to only 2,436 extra orders over the following 2 weeks. In the US, Tesla opened up the Model 3 floodgates to non-reservation holders 12 months after launching the car. In Europe, it took less than 4 weeks.
No Hopes for Tesla in China Either in 2019: Tesla’s registrations in China for October and November 2018, combined, fell by 72% YoY and overall auto demand is weakening there. Musk proclaimed that Tesla would start production of the Model 3 in Shanghai by 2019-end. The factory site is a barren plot of land (see Figure-5). It took VW 23 months to build its latest factory in China and Toyota’s new Alabama plant will require 28 months. Why should we believe that Tesla only needs 11 months?
Watch the Competition for Tesla in 2019: Tesla will face true competition this year for its first time as 4 new European EVs hit the market. During Q4 of 2018, Jaguar’s new I-Pace outsold Tesla’s Models S and X, combined, in the Netherlands–Tesla’s number two market after the US. Audi’s e-Tron SUV–due out next month–had over 20,000 orders as of December 7th last year. Porsche’s new Taycan–a powerful rival for Tesla’s Model S–has sold out its first year of production, with most orders coming from Tesla owners. The Models S/X provided 50% of automotive gross profit in the 2H of 2018, by our estimates. A fall in volume will heavily impact profits.
Spending Will Spike in 2019 and Lead to Negative FCF: Tesla was able to squeeze out a profit during the 2H of 2018 largely because of suppressed spending on R&D and infrastructure. In order to roll out the new Shanghai plant and bring the new Model Y to market, both capex and R&D must rise significantly in 2019. Our list of “spending needs” (see Figure-1) shows that capex should nearly double to $4.5bn in 2019. Including debt obligations and payables, Tesla’s total cash needs in 2019 come to $9.3bn, which is over twice its equity. A highly dilutive public share offering appears inevitable.
Why 2019 Could Be the End of Tesla: Tesla proved in 2018 that, even with higher sales volumes and lofty pricing for the Model 3, it could only attain an estimated 2H operating margin of 1.7%, excluding environmental credits, one-offs, and stock-based compensation. 2019 will be incredibly harder as 1) Tesla faces stiff competition for the first time since its inception; 2) a lower-priced Model 3 will not generate enough profit to cover falling profitability of the Models S/X; and 3) most significantly, a steep rise in capex and R&D will lead to higher losses and negative FCF. Tesla may need a bailout by a deep-pocketed suitor this year. But this could only occur at a much lower share price.
3. Olympus Corporation (7733 JP): Overvalued with Too Many Controversies
Olympus Corporation is currently trading at JPY4,525 per share which we believe is overvalued based on our EV/EBIT valuation. The company generates nearly 80.0% of its revenue from its Medical Business where it is the global market leader for gastrointestinal endoscopes. Despite Olympus’ market share and technology leadership, the segment has been hit by investigations related to its duodenoscopies and has been fined for violating safety regulations. In addition, the Medical Division is also subject to several bribery-related investigations by the US Department of Justice and could risk losing its market share if the allegations are proven given the industry is highly competitive. Meanwhile its Imaging Business which offers cameras and lenses, is operating in a contracting market, where the segment continues to see declining revenues and is loss making.
To add to all of the above, the company is under scrutiny for governance-related issues such as lack of board diversity as well as poor corporate culture. On the positive side, the management has announced a plan to transform its business, including appointing three new (non-Japanese) directors to its board, all due to the pressure from its largest shareholder ValueAct Capital. The Management has mentioned that they will be proposing one of the partners of ValueAct as one of the three new directors at its shareholder meeting in April 2019, which is encouraging. However, that being said, we are yet to witness any tangible improvement in the way the company has conducted itself since the exposure of its accounting fraud in 2011 and has not been able to stay free of controversy. Hence, in our opinion the hefty premium at which the shares are currently trading is not justified suggesting to us that the potential turnaround in governance quality is being priced in too fully at this point. It is uncertain what other skeletons may be in Olympus’ closets and it seems premature to afford the stock a premium valuation.
4. TRACKING TRAFFIC/Containers & Air Cargo: December Box Rates & Volume Firm
Tracking Traffic/Containers & Air Cargo is the hub for all of our research on container shipping and air cargo, featuring analysis of monthly industry data, notes from our conversations with industry participants, and links to recent company and thematic pieces.
Tracking Traffic/Containers & Air Cargo aims to highlight changes to existing trends, relationships, and views affecting the leading Asian companies in these two sectors. This month’s note includes data from about twenty different sources.
In this issue readers will find:
- An analysis of December container shipping rates: Our proprietary index suggests average container shipping rates firmed again in December. Firmer rates in Q418, combined with a moderation in fuel prices, probably lifted carrier margins in the period, and this improvement is likely to spill over into Q119.
- A look at December air cargo activity, which slumped, again: The five Asia-based airlines we track reported a ~2% Y/Y decline in air cargo handled. After growing by a healthy +6.3% Y/Y in H118, air cargo demand at these five carriers has shown a consistent monthly decline, growing by just 1% in Q418 and shrinking slightly in November and December.
- For container carriers and airlines, fuel price increases have continued to moderate. As of mid-January, the price of bunker fuel was up just 4% Y/Y, and the price of jet fuel had declined by around 7%. Throughout much of 2018, fuel prices had risen 20-40% Y/Y, or more.
- Japanese carriers’ December quarter earnings on the horizon: We will soon find out whether improving conditions in container shipping showed up in the carriers’ P&Ls, as the three major Japanese shipping companies are set to report December quarter results at the break on January 31.
Although slowing demand growth is unlikely to generate impressive top-line improvements, firmer pricing combined with lower fuel costs should support an ongoing improvement in profitability for container carriers in the near-term. Meanwhile, the slump in air cargo demand has not yet hit air cargo yields, but it’s becoming clearer that an economic slowdown is hurting demand for this relatively expensive mode of transport.
5. Subaru: Continuing Quality Issues and Employee Suicide Point to Sustainability Issues
Our thesis on Subaru has maintained for some time that margins were inflated due to under-spending and that these costs would surface in one form or the other over time.
As it turns out, the costs were incurred through recalls as Subaru downgraded its FY OP guidance from ¥300bn to ¥220bn on 5 Nov. What continues to concern us is the constant stream of negative news flow on quality and sustainability-related issues. While the latest announcements do not imply excessive direct costs for the company, they continue to raise the question of whether corners were being cut and thus create doubt about the formerly excellent and still very high OPMs generated by Subaru.
We remain negative on Subaru as we expect margins to remain under pressure and believe top line may stagnate or shrink over the next one to two years.
Get Straight to the Source on Smartkarma
Smartkarma supports the world’s leading investors with high-quality, timely, and actionable Insights. Subscribe now for unlimited access, or request a demo below.
