North America Equity Research 13 October 2008 D3 Merger Talks Surface GM/Chrysler Tie-Up is Risky, But May Have UAW/Liquidity Benefits • Weekend press reports suggest GM/Ford and GM/Chrysler had or are Automobile Manufacture having merger discussions. These reports suggest GM approached Ford Himanshu Patel, CFAAC but was rebuffed, and Cerberus approached GM about swapping (1-212) 622-3906 Chrysler-auto for GM’s 49% GMAC stake, but these talks have [email protected] supposedly been put on hold given recent market turmoil. Investor Rahul Chadha reaction to any of these potential combinations is likely to be initially (1-212) 622-3549 negative for legitimate execution concerns. [email protected] Ryan Brinkman • GM’s View -- We await to hear more financial details of any proposed (1-212) 622-4137 transaction before passing judgment, but our initial bias is that a [email protected] GM/Ford combination offers better longer term strategic risk/reward for J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. GM than a GM/Chrysler combination, although the benefits of a GM/Chrysler tie-up may offer near-term liquidity- and UAW-related benefits that could be substantial. Aside from the obvious buckets of procurement/engineering savings, Ford offers GM cost synergies on a global scale and a partner that offers sizable pricing synergies in select segments if not most at least in NA and Europe. • Ford’s View -- We suspect pairing up with GM represents un-needed risk from Ford’s view given the latter’s stronger balance sheet, former’s less favorable UAW contract, and its arguably greater need to downsize. But GM does offer Ford access to the Volt (plug-in extended range electric vehicle) technology, proven low-cost global small car capabilities (GM-DAT), and potentially wider Chinese market access. Our recent conversations with a senior GM R&D executive suggest GM has already received serious interest from other OEMs in sharing its Volt technology. This debate is particularly salient today given the now- funded $25B in federal auto loans for fuel efficient vehicles – GM may very well have the best chances among the D3 of tapping these loans in the short term. • Cerberus’ View – Taking full ownership of GMAC would allow for obvious back-office savings with Chrysler finance. Further, having 100% of the combined entity de-linked from any auto company may help borrowing costs, and it may also make it easier to sell the combined company to an investment grade financial institution in the future. Selling Chrysler auto would also have indirect value for Cerberus (as owner of Chrysler finance) if such a deal improved the odds of Chrysler auto surviving as a going concern. See page 4 for analyst certification and important disclosures. J.P. Morgan does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision. Himanshu Patel, CFA North America Equity Research (1-212) 622-3906 13 October 2008 [email protected] Weekend press reports (WSJ, New York Times, and others) suggest GM/Ford and GM/Chrysler had or are having merger discussions. These reports suggest GM approached Ford but was rebuffed, and Cerberus approached GM about swapping Chrysler auto for GM’s 49% GMAC stake, but these talks have supposedly been put on hold given recent market turmoil. Investor reaction to any of these potential combinations is likely to be initially negative for legitimate execution concerns. We await to hear more financial details of any proposed transaction before passing judgment, but our initial bias is that a GM/Ford combination offers better longer term strategic risk/reward for GM than a GM/Chrysler combination, although the benefits of a GM/Chrysler tie-up may offer near-term liquidity- and UAW-related benefits that could be substantial. GM + Chrysler? It is not clear from media reports if any financial consideration would be paid by either party in this potential deal, but our initial sense would be that GM should be compensated by Cerberus in such a transaction as GM’s 49% GMAC stake would be worth $3B if it was valued at 75% of Q2-ending book excluding Rescap (or 50% of book including Rescap), while Chrysler-auto is arguably nearly worthless on a stand- alone basis. While a $3B payment for 49% of GMAC may sound optimistic when one considers GM’s supposedly weak bargaining position, it is worth considering that a transaction that involves Chrysler auto being sold has value to the owner of Chrysler finance (Cerberus) if the auto-co’s chances of remaining a going concern are increased, which such a transaction probably achieves. From GM’s perspective, two perhaps overlooked motivations for doing a Chrysler acquisition, despite its obvious risks, may be a) UAW concessions, and b) perhaps, counter-intuitively, liquidity. UAW – If GM is deemed to be “saving” Chrysler, GM’s leverage with the UAW could rise considerably, and that could be useful to achieve what we think are three broad areas of much-needed mid-contract concessions: 1) a reduction in the (previously agreed) 68 cents/dollar VEBA healthcare deal funding level (every 10 cent reduction would save GM $4.7B) since GM’s long-dated bonds now trade at 24 cents/dollar (and healthcare benefits are pari with unsecured bonds); b) lower tier wages could be introduced across the entire workforce instead of being just confined to “core [20% of total] workers”; and c) faster plant shutdowns. Liquidity – Such a deal could result in a financial consideration being paid to GM ($3B?). Further, relative to its hitherto modest cash burn rate as reported in the media (which could accelerate), Chrysler’s ~$10B cash balance could also be attractive to cash-strapped GM (although some of this cash may be “restricted” for residual risk- sharing reimbursements to Chrysler financial). In short, a deal as described above may offer GM as much as $13B in immediate liquidity in exchange for a) taking on a company (Chrysler) with ~$4B in annual cash burn but b) also the chance to improve GMAC-auto’s long-term borrowing costs (and hence reduce GM’s subvention costs) as GMAC would become completely delinked from GM and the combined GMAC/Chrysler finance may even eventually be sold to an investment grade financial company, which could further help borrowing costs. 2 Himanshu Patel, CFA North America Equity Research (1-212) 622-3906 13 October 2008 [email protected] GM + Ford? Aside from the obvious buckets of procurement/engineering savings, Ford offers GM cost synergies on a global scale and a partner that offers sizable pricing synergies in select segments if not most at least in NA and Europe. From Ford’s perspective, pairing up with GM represents sizable risk given the latter’s weaker balance sheet, less favorable UAW contract, and arguably greater need to downsize. But GM does offer Ford access to GM’s Volt (plug-in extended range electric vehicle) technology, low-cost global small car capabilities (GM-DAT), and potentially wider Chinese market access. Our recent conversations with a senior GM R&D executive suggest GM has already received serious interest from other OEMs in sharing its Volt technology. This debate is particularly salient today given the now-funded $25B in federal auto loans for fuel efficient vehicles – GM may very well have the best chances among the D3 of tapping these loans in the short term. 3 Himanshu Patel, CFA North America Equity Research (1-212) 622-3906 13 October 2008 [email protected] Analyst Certification: The research analyst(s) denoted by an “AC” on the cover of this report certifies (or, where multiple research analysts are primarily responsible for this report, the research analyst denoted by an “AC” on the cover or within the document individually certifies, with respect to each security or issuer that the research analyst covers in this research) that: (1) all of the views expressed in this report accurately reflect his or her personal views about any and all of the subject securities or issuers; and (2) no part of any of the research analyst’s compensation was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views expressed by the research analyst(s) in this report. Important Disclosures Explanation of Equity Research Ratings and Analyst(s) Coverage Universe: J.P. Morgan uses the following rating system: Overweight [Over the next six to twelve months, we expect this stock will outperform the average total return of the stocks in the analyst’s (or the analyst’s team’s) coverage universe.] Neutral [Over the next six to twelve months, we expect this stock will perform in line with the average total return of the stocks in the analyst’s (or the analyst’s team’s) coverage universe.] Underweight [Over the next six to twelve months, we expect this stock will underperform the average total return of the stocks in the analyst’s (or the analyst’s team’s) coverage universe.] The analyst or analyst’s team’s coverage universe is the sector and/or country shown on the cover of each publication. See below for the specific stocks in the certifying analyst(s) coverage universe. Coverage Universe: Himanshu Patel, CFA: American Axle (AXL), ArvinMeritor, Inc (ARM), AutoNation (AN), Autoliv (ALV), Borg Warner Inc. (BWA), Cooper Tire & Rubber (CTB), Dana Corporation (DAN), Ford Motor Company (F), General Motors (GM), Gentex Corporation (GNTX), Genuine Parts Company (GPC), Goodyear Tire & Rubber (GT), Group 1 Automotive, Inc (GPI), Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.