OEM- Financial Analysis FY 19 - ACMA

www.pwc.com

OEM- Financial Analysis FY 19

Strictly private and confidential

March 2020

PwC

March 2020Strictly private and confidential

Draft

List of Companies and Ratios 3

1 List of companies 4

2 Ratios used 5

Macro Economic Climate in India 6

OEM Financial analysis 10

1 Ashok Leyland 11

2 Atul Auto 15

3 Bajaj Auto 19

4 Escorts 23

5 Force Motors 27

6 Hero Motocorp 31

7 Mahindra and Mahindra 35

8 Maruti Suzuki 39

9 SML ISUZU 43

10 Tata Motors 47

11 TVS 51

Contents

2

OEM- Financial Analysis

To navigate this report on-screen (in pdf format)

From any page – click on the section title in the header navigation bar

From this Contents page – click on the title of the section or sub-section

From the contents listing on any section divider –click on the title of the sub-section

OEM Financial analysisMacro Economic Climate in IndiaList of CompaniesContents

PwC


Draft

List of Companies and Ratios

3


List of Companies and Ratios 3

1 List of companies 4

2 Ratios used 5


PwC


Draft

List of companies included in the analysis

4


1 List of companies

Ashok Leyland

Force Motors

Escorts

Hero MotoCorp

Mahindra & Mahindra

SML ISUZU

Tata Motors

Maruti Suzuki

TVS Motor Co.

Bajaj Auto

Atul Auto


PwC


Draft

Ratios used

5


2 Ratios used

EBITDA margin (EBITDA-other income)/Net Sales

EBIT margin (EBIT-other income)/Net Sales

PBT margin (PBT-other income)/Net Sales

PAT margin (PAT-other income)/Net Sales

Inventory Turnover Net sales/Inventory

FATO Annual Net sales/Annual net fixed assets

Average days payable outstanding

Payables/(COGS/Days)

Working capital cycle days

Working capital/(Net Sales/Days)


PwC


Draft

Macro Economic Climate in India

6



India-key economic indicators A steady growth is expected in the foreseeable future

➢ India economic growth picked up pace again in FY 18, having recovered from the effects of the implementation of demonetisation and the Goods and Services Tax.

➢ Growth is expected to subsequently stabilize, supported by a sustained recovery in private investment and private consumption.

➢ The industrial production index growth increased due to low base effect and due to good performance of infrastructure and construction goods sector and consumer durables production.

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

0

35

70

105

140

175

210

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

India: Industrial Production Index2013 – 2020F (points)

YoY Growth Rate (R-Axis)


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

16 17 20F18 19 21F 22F 23F 24F

+9.2%

India: GDP | Real USD Bn2016-2024F

Source: IMF Source: IHS

India-key economic indicators The private demand indicators also show a promising scenario for batter growth prospects

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

2015 2017 2019 2021 2023

India: Unemployment Rate2015 – 2023 (percentage)

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

800

850

900

950

1,000

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

India: Working Age Population2016 – 2025 (millions)


0%

3%

5%

8%

10%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

India: Real Private Consumption2013 – 2024F (Real, US$ (billions))


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2014 2016 2018

India: GNDI per capita2014 – 2019 (Real, Rs Cr)



Source: IHSSource: IHS

Source: IHSSource: RBI

PwC


Draft

OEM Financial analysis

10


OEM Financial analysis 10

1 Ashok Leyland 11

2 Atul Auto 15

3 Bajaj Auto 19

4 Escorts 23

5 Force Motors 27

6 Hero Motocorp 31

7 Mahindra and Mahindra 35

8 Maruti Suzuki 39

9 SML ISUZU 43

10 Tata Motors 47

11 TVS 51


PwC


Draft

Ashok Leyland

11


1 Ashok Leyland OEM Financial analysisMacro Economic Climate in IndiaList of CompaniesContents

Ashok Leyland

Manufacturing Sites in India

Ennore-TN Hosur-TN

Bhandara-MH Alwar-RJ

Pantanagar-UK160 K

160 K 160 K

95% 103% 128%

120 K

130 K

140 K

150 K

160 K

170 K

180 K

190 K

200 K

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19

Installed Capacity Utilisation %

Prod. 151 K 165 K 205 K

Capac. 150 K 160 K 160 K

**

** This map is not to scale. It is an indicative outline intended for general reference use only.


PwC


Draft

Ashok Leyland

Trends in aggregates, profitability and costs

13


1 Ashok Leyland

20172015 2016 20192018

19.4

13.9

20.5

26.829.4

+39% +6%

+21%

+31%+10%

20192015 2016 2017 2018

1.31.6

2.0

3.1 3.2+25%+28%

+26%

+56% +2%

Net Sales

EBITDA

Aggregates (INR ‘000 Cr)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

4.7%

7.6%

5.5%

-1.1%

8.4%

2.4%3.8%

10.0% 10.4%

6.4%

EBITDA Margin

PAT Margin

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

8.5%

72.0%

7.2%

0.6%

71.9%70.3%

0.6%

7.3%

0.8%Power & Fuel Cost 0.8%

64.1%

7.0%

0.9%

73.5%

7.3%

Material Cost

Employee Cost

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2.8%

3.0%1.3%

2.2%2.5%

0.6%0.8%

2.5%

0.2%

2.1%Interest

Depreciation

Profitability

Direct costs

Other costs

Margins (% of net sales)


PwC


Draft

Ashok Leyland

Trends in efficiency

14


1 Ashok Leyland

1.6

3.7

3.53.9 3.9

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fixed Asset Turnover Ratio

➢ Ashok Leyland had the saw a strong improvement in average days payable outstanding.

➢ Ashok Leyland had an 18% market share in the Commercial Vehicles space.

1

17-4 -3

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

-44

Days Working Capital (Days)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

37

32

46

26

33

Inventory Turnover days

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

7274

5055

61


Higher = Better

Lower = Better Lower = Better

Lower = Better

In FY 19


PwC


Draft

Atul Auto

15


2 Atul Auto OEM Financial analysisMacro Economic Climate in IndiaList of CompaniesContents

Atul Auto


Rajkot, GJ60 K 60 K 60 K

65%

71%

84%

0 K

10 K

20 K

30 K

40 K

50 K

60 K

70 K

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19


Prod. 39 K 43 K 50 K

Capac. 60 K 60 K 60 K

**



PwC


Draft

Atul Auto


17


2 Atul Auto

2018

0.56

2015 2016 2017 2019

0.49 0.480.53

0.67

+8%-10%

+8%

+17%+20%

20162015 2017 2018 2019

0.10.10.1

0.1

0.1

+19%-20%

+8%

+21%+18%

Net Sales

EBITDA


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

11.7%

7.3%6.7%

8.7%

12.5%

14.4%13.0%

7.8%

12.2%

6.9%

EBITDA Margin

PAT Margin

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

6.1%

72.9%

0.4%

74.5%73.1%

0.6%

75.8%

0.6%

7.7%6.6%

0.6%

72.3%

6.7%

0.6%

6.7%

Material Cost

Employee Cost

Power & Fuel Cost

2015 2016 2017 2018 20190.1%

1.1%

0.1%

1.0%

0.1%

0.9%

0.1%

1.1%

0.1%

0.8%

Interest

Depreciation

Profitability

Direct costs

Other costs



PwC


Draft

Atul Auto


18


2 Atul Auto

4.2 4.23.6

4.04.4

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


2746

56

46

49

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

3534

20

25

31


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

20

26

31

37 36


Higher = Better


Lower = Better

➢ Atul Auto is the only OEM in the list of 11 studied as part of this report with majority operations in the 3-wheeler segment.

➢ Atul Auto has the lowest EBITDA of the 11 OEMs.

In FY 19


PwC


Draft

Bajaj Auto

19


3 Bajaj Auto OEM Financial analysisMacro Economic Climate in IndiaList of CompaniesContents

Bajaj Auto


Aurangabad-MH Pantnagar-UK

Chakan-MH6000 K

6060 K

6240 K

65%

60%

80%

5000 K

5200 K

5400 K

5600 K

5800 K

6000 K

6200 K

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19


Prod. 446 K 640 K 777 K

Capac. 600 K 660 K 840 K

Prod. 3209 K 3391 K 4233 K

Capac. 5400 K 5400 K 5400 K**



PwC


Draft

Bajaj Auto


21


3 Bajaj Auto

25.2

20182015 2016 2017 2019

21.6

30.2

22.6 21.8

+5%-4%

+9%

+16%+20%

5.9

2018

5.6

2015 20172016 2019

4.4

6.17.0

+34%-4%

+12%

+8%+14%

Net Sales

EBITDA


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

20.3%

10.3%

17.5%19.1%

21.2%

16.5%

12.0%12.6%

11.0%

8.9%

EBITDA Margin

PAT Margin

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

4.0%4.6%

69.0%

0.5%

3.9%

0.5%

66.4%67.4%

0.4%0.4%

4.2%

69.0%

72.3%

4.2%

Power & Fuel Cost 0.4%

Material Cost

Employee Cost

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

0.0%

1.4%

0.0%

1.2%1.2%

0.0% 0.0%

1.4%

0.0%

0.9%

Interest

Depreciation

Profitability

Direct costs

Other costs



PwC


Draft

Bajaj Auto


22


3 Bajaj Auto

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

4.7

5.35.1

5.6

7.0


2

-9

7

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

-13

10


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

11

13

12

11

11


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

31

27

47

37

45


Higher = Better


Lower = Better

➢ Net sales at Rs 30,000 Cr is the company’s highest ever annual sales recorded.

➢ Among all 11 OEMs studied as part of this report, Bajaj continues to enjoy the highest profit margins (EBIT %, EBITDA %, PAT %).

➢ Days working capital and fixed asset turnover ratio both saw substantial increases in FY 19

In FY 19


PwC


Draft

Escorts

23


4 Escorts OEM Financial analysisMacro Economic Climate in IndiaList of CompaniesContents

Escorts


Faridabad-HR Rudrapur-UK

Prod. 65 K 81 K 101 K

Capac. 99 K 99 K 100 K

**


99 K 99 K 100 K

66%

82%

101%

0 K

10 K

20 K

30 K

40 K

50 K

60 K

70 K

80 K

90 K

100 K

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19



PwC


Draft

Escorts


25


4 Escorts

20172015 2016

5.0

2018 2019

3.44.0 4.1

6.2-16%+22%

+12%

+22%

+24%

0.6

0.2

201720162015 2018 2019

0.8

0.20.3

+6%+62%

+44%

+85%

+35%

Net Sales

EBITDA


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

1.0%

-1.9%EBITDA Margin

4.4%

0.8%2.5%

6.6% 5.7%

11.0% 11.8%

6.3%

PAT Margin

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

11.6%

Material Cost

9.8%

1.1%

69.4%

1.1%

70.1%

0.7%

69.4%

11.9%

0.9%

67.8%

Power & Fuel Cost

8.8%

71.7%

7.6%

0.7%

Employee Cost

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

0.3%

1.5%

1.4%

1.7% 1.5%1.5%

1.7%0.8%

0.6%

1.4%

Interest

Depreciation

Profitability

Direct costs

Other costs



PwC


Draft

Escorts


26


4 Escorts

1.71.4

1.72.0

2.4

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


162 1

42

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

30


37

37 2934

40

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

65

52

43

50 51


Higher = Better


Lower = Better

➢ Escorts is the only OEM, in this list of 11, to have significant portion of its revenue contributed to by the tractors segment alone.

➢ It experienced the second largest inventory turnover ratio of the companies studied, second only to SML ISUZU

In FY 19


PwC


Draft

Force Motors

27


5 Force Motors OEM Financial analysisMacro Economic Climate in IndiaList of CompaniesContents

Force Motors


Pune-MH Pithampura-MP

Urse-MH Chennai-TN

Chakan-MH

99 K 99 K 99 K

30% 31%27%

95 K

96 K

96 K

97 K

97 K

98 K

98 K

99 K

99 K

100 K

100 K

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19


Prod. 27 K 27 K 23 K

Capac. 75 K 75 K 75 K

Prod. 3.6 K 3.2 K 3.8 K

Capac. 24 K 24 K 24 K**



PwC


Draft

Force Motors


29


5 Force Motors

2015 20192016 2017 2018

2.43.0 3.1

3.4 3.7

+28% +1%

+11%

+12% +7%

0.40.4

20162015 2017 2018 2019

0.30.2

0.3

+62% +2%

+14%

-5% +7%

Net Sales

EBITDA


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

7.8%8.7%

6.2%

9.1%

1.5%3.5%

2.3%PAT Margin

3.1%

7.6%

1.8%

EBITDA Margin

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

69.4%

1.5%

74.0%

69.7%

11.7%

1.6%

10.1%11.4%

1.5%

77.1%76.2%

11.3%

1.4%

11.4%

1.3%

Material Cost

Employee Cost

Power & Fuel Cost

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

0.2%0.3%

3.4% 3.7% 3.8%

0.2%

3.0%

0.2% 0.4%

4.1%

Interest

Depreciation

Profitability

Direct costs

Other costs



PwC


Draft

Force Motors


30


5 Force Motors

1.51.6

1.5 1.61.4

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


62

81

47 51

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

63


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

43

49

40

38 38


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

30

4345

37

44


Higher = Better


Lower = Better

➢ The OEM had the lowest Fixed Asset Turnover ratio of all the studied companies.

➢ Force Motors had the second highest employee cost of all the studied companies.

In FY 19


PwC


Draft

Hero Motocorp

31


6 Hero Motocorp OEM Financial analysisMacro Economic Climate in IndiaList of CompaniesContents

Hero MotoCorp


Haridwar-UK Dharuhera-HR

Gurgaon-HR Neemrana-RJ

Vadodara-GJ Cauca-Colombia

8130 K

9200 K 9200 K

82% 83%80%

7000 K

7500 K

8000 K

8500 K

9000 K

9500 K

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19


Prod. 6613 K 6646 K 7831 K

Capac. 8130 K 9200 K 9200 K

**

Cauca-

Colombia



PwC


Draft

Hero Motocorp


33


6 Hero Motocorp

20192015 2016 2017 2018

27.6 28.4 28.532.2 33.7

+3%0%

+5%

+13% +4%

2015

4.9

2016 2019

3.9

2017 2018

5.85.2

5.6

+26% +6%

+10%

+13%-3%

Net Sales

EBITDA


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

9.8%

16.4%

12.3%

16.3%

6.9%

9.6%

15.7%

10.0%

14.7%

8.0%

EBITDA Margin

PAT Margin

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

0.6%

66.6%

71.7%

4.8%4.3%

67.9%

4.6% 4.9%

0.4% 0.4%

67.8%

0.4%

69.4%

5.1%

0.5%

Material Cost

Employee Cost

Power & Fuel Cost

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

0.0%

2.0%

0.0%

1.5% 1.7%

0.0% 0.0%

1.7%

0.0%

1.8%

Interest

Depreciation

Profitability

Direct costs

Other costs



PwC


Draft

Hero Motocorp


34


6 Hero Motocorp

3.43.1

2.7 2.9 2.9

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


-10 -15

9

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

-12-12


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

10

12

13

10

11


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

39 40

50

45

42


Higher = Better


Lower = Better

➢ Hero Motocorp had the second highest profit margins bettered only by Bajaj across EBITDA %, EBIT % and PAT %.

➢ Among these OEMs, Hero Motocorp also demonstrated the best average inventory turnover days at 13 for FY 19.

➢ It had the lowest rate of raw material cost as a % of net sales.

In FY 19


PwC


Draft

Mahindra and Mahindra

35


7 Mahindra and Mahindra OEM Financial analysisMacro Economic Climate in IndiaList of CompaniesContents

Mahindra & Mahindra


Haridwar-UK Kandivali-MH

Zaheerabad-AP Nashik-MH

Chakan-MH Pithampura-MP

Prod. 498 K 549 K 618 K

Capac. 968 K 920 K 940 K

Prod. 274 K 318 K 338 K

Capac. 376 K 376 K 376 K

Prod. 57 K 33 K 7 K

Capac. 750 K 750 K 750 K **


2094 K

1670 K

2066 K

40%

54%47%

1200 K

1400 K

1600 K

1800 K

2000 K

2200 K

2400 K

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19


Capacity includes production capacity for Construction Equipment.


PwC


Draft



37


7 Mahindra and Mahindra

201820172015 2016 2019

53.6

38.4 40.9 44.148.7

+6% +8%

+9%

+11%+10%

20172016 2019

7.7

2015 2018

5.4 5.56.4

8.3+3%

+16%

+12%

+20%+8%

Net Sales

EBITDA


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

9.7%10.9%

5.6%

12.8%

3.5%4.7%

11.3%

5.6% 5.9%

11.2%

EBITDA Margin

PAT Margin

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

6.2%

0.6%

71.9%

5.7%

72.8%

6.0%

0.6%

72.7%

0.5%

69.7%

5.8%

0.5%

73.1%

5.6%

0.5%

Material Cost

Employee Cost

Power & Fuel Cost

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2.54%3.46% 3.04%

0.46%0.56%

2.61%

0.36% 0.23% 0.21%

3.47%

Interest

Depreciation

Profitability

Direct costs

Other costs



PwC


Draft



38


7 Mahindra and Mahindra

3.33.0 2.8 2.9

2.6

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


67

0 0

9

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2424

22

25

28


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

47

56

63

53

63


Higher = Better


Lower = Better

➢ Out of all the 11 OEMs under study, Mahindra & Mahindra had the second highest EBITDA under study after Maruti Suzuki.

➢ Among these OEMs, Mahindra & Mahindra operated at the second highest average days payable outstanding at 63 days.

In FY 19


PwC


Draft

Maruti Suzuki

39


8 Maruti Suzuki OEM Financial analysisMacro Economic Climate in IndiaList of CompaniesContents

Maruti Suzuki


Gurgaon-HR Manesar-HR

Hansalpur-GJ

1750 K 1750 K 1750 K

90%101%

104%

0 K

200 K

400 K

600 K

800 K

1000 K

1200 K

1400 K

1600 K

1800 K

2000 K

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19


Prod. 1581 K 1768 K 1825 K

Capac. 1750 K 1750 K 1750 K

**



PwC


Draft

Maruti Suzuki


41


8 Maruti Suzuki

2015 20182016 2017 2019

50.057.5

68.079.8

86.0+15%

+18%

+15%

+17% +8%

2015 2017 20192016 2018

13.6

7.510.3

12.714.1

+37%+22%

+16%

+12%-4%

Net Sales

EBITDA


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

6.8%

EBITDA Margin13.4%

5.8%

15.4%

7.1%

15.2%

7.4%

15.1%

5.7%

12.8%

PAT Margin

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Material Cost

3.6% 3.8%

71.1%

0.8%

3.2% 3.4%

1.4%

67.2%

69.2%

3.4%

1.2%

68.9%

0.8%

69.8%

1.0%Employee Cost

Power & Fuel Cost

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

0.4% 0.1%

4.9%

0.4%0.1%

Depreciation 3.5%

4.9%3.8%

0.1%

3.5%

Interest

Profitability

Direct costs

Other costs



PwC


Draft

Maruti Suzuki


42


8 Maruti Suzuki

1.9

3.8 3.6 3.73.3

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


-25-33

-39

-28

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

-24


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2022

16

20

16


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

52

41

51

55

45


Higher = Better


Lower = Better

➢ Maruti Suzuki saw a fall in PAT in FY 19 due to higher foreign exchange volatility, higher commodity prices and depreciation expenses.

➢ Maruti Suzuki had the highest EBITDA margin of the 4-wheeler manufacturers in FY 19.

In FY 19


PwC


Draft

SML ISUZU

43


9 SML ISUZU OEM Financial analysisMacro Economic Climate in IndiaList of CompaniesContents

SML ISUZU


Ropar-PJ

9 K9 K

11%

51%

157%

5 K

6 K

6 K

7 K

7 K

8 K

8 K

9 K

9 K

10 K

10 K

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

FY 15-16 FY 17-18 FY 18-19


Prod. 1.26 K 12.1 K 14.1 K

Capac. 9 K 24 K 9 K

**

24 K



PwC


Draft

SML ISUZU


45


9 SML ISUZU

20162015 2017 2018 2019

1.1 1.21.4

1.1

1.4

+6%+16%

+6%

-16%+24%

2017

0.05

20162015

0.09

2018

0.11

2019

0.080.07

+25%

+23%

+1%

-58%

+63%

Net Sales

EBITDA


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

EBITDA Margin

8.1%

3.9%2.5%

5.9%

7.4%

1.1%

4.3% 4.0%

0.5%

5.3%

PAT Margin

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

10.3%Employee Cost

10.9%

76.9%

0.9%

10.7%

0.9%

76.7%

71.3%

0.8%

11.8%

79.7%

12.9%

1.0%

79.8%

0.8%

Material Cost

Power & Fuel Cost

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

0.9%0.5%

2.5%

0.5%

1.8%

0.4%

1.8%1.7%1.1%

2.7%

Interest

Depreciation

Profitability

Direct costs

Other costs



PwC


Draft

SML ISUZU


46


9 SML ISUZU

4.74.1

5.7

2.7 3.0

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


70 47

78 72

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

66


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

93

103

83

103

106


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

6665

52 54

62


Higher = Better


Lower = Better

➢ Improvement in sales was helped by stronger passenger vehicle demand and launch of the new ‘Global Series’ truck range.

➢ Light Commercial Vehicle sales grew thanks to demand from e-commerce and last mile delivery.

➢ SML Isuzu had the highest average days payable outstanding and inventory turnover.

In FY 19


PwC


Draft

Tata Motors

47


10 Tata Motors OEM Financial analysisMacro Economic Climate in IndiaList of CompaniesContents

Tata Motors


Pune-MH Sanand-GJ

Lucknow-UP Jamshedpur-JH

Pantanagar-UK Dharwad-KN1757 K

1570 K 1569 K

26%

36%

45%

1500 K

1550 K

1600 K

1650 K

1700 K

1750 K

1800 K

1850 K

1900 K

1950 K

2000 K

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19


Prod. 170 K 195 K 225 K

Capac. 704 K 516 K 516 K

Prod. 352 K 377 K 488 K

Capac. 1053 K 1053 K 1053 K**

** This map is not to scale. It is an indicative outline intended for general reference use only.** Total production capacity has been segregated into PV and CV capacity in the ratio of production volumes for the year.


PwC


Draft

Tata Motors


49


10 Tata Motors

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

44.336.3

42.8

57.969.2

+18% +3%

+18%

+31%+20%

2015 20182016 2017 2019

0.2

3.9 3.92.3

7.3+1,505%

-42%

+135%

+73%

+87%

Net Sales

EBITDA


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

-6.1%

-4.5%

-18.2% -7.7%

5.7%

-3.4%

2.9% 2.4%6.4%

-1.3%

EBITDA Margin

PAT Margin

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

76.9%

8.7%67.9%

1.1%

7.4%

1.0%

8.5%

71.3%

1.1%

6.2%

72.3%

0.9%

6.9%

72.9%

0.9%

Material Cost

Employee Cost

Power & Fuel Cost

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

5.4%4.4%

7.2%

3.5%3.7%

6.9%5.4%

3.0%Depreciation

2.6%

4.5%

Interest

Profitability

Direct costs

Other costs



PwC


Draft

Tata Motors


50


10 Tata Motors

1.1 1.1 1.11.3

1.5

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


-23-46

-41-34

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

-30


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

36

21

31

3330


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

46

3133

4649


Higher = Better


Lower = Better

➢ Tata Motors had to contend with issues with its Jaguar Land Rover division, as well as restructuring following the shutdown of

manufacturing in Thailand.

➢ Tata Motors saw a 30% improvement in Inventory Turnover in FY 19.

In FY 19


PwC


Draft

TVS

51


11 TVS OEM Financial analysisMacro Economic Climate in IndiaList of CompaniesContents

TVS


Hosur-TN Mysore-KN

Solan-HP4050 K 4500 K

5100 K

72%

78%

77%

1000 K

1500 K

2000 K

2500 K

3000 K

3500 K

4000 K

4500 K

5000 K

5500 K

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19


Prod. 68 K 99 K 156 K

Capac. 150 K 150 K 150 K

Prod. 2853 K 3395 K 3770 K

Capac. 3900 K 4500 K 4950 K**



PwC


Draft

TVS


53


11 TVS

2015

10.0

201820172016 2019

12.1

18.2

11.1

15.2

+11% +9%

+16%

+25%+20%

2015 20192016 2017 2018

0.60.9 1.0

1.31.4

+43% +13%

+23%

+24%+13%

Net Sales

EBITDA


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

7.7%7.1%

6.0%

3.2% 3.6%

7.3%

3.7%3.5% 3.2%

7.9%

EBITDA Margin

PAT Margin

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

71.2%

73.4%

5.9%

73.6%

5.9%

0.9% 0.8%

5.7%6.1%

0.7%

73.6%

0.7%

76.4%

5.1%

0.6%

Material Cost

Employee Cost

Power & Fuel Cost

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2.2%

1.5%

0.3% 0.4% 0.4%0.4%

2.1%2.4%

0.4%

2.2%

Interest

Depreciation

Profitability

Direct costs

Other costs



PwC


Draft

TVS


54


11 TVS

3.6

1.1 1.1 1.3 1.5

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


9

0 -1

-9

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-4


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

30

24

30

2524


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

58

53

62

54

63


Higher = Better


Lower = Better

➢ TVS saw improved sales over FY 19, partly supported by a strong increase in exports.

➢ After improving its inventory turnover days by 27% over FY 18, but saw a slight decline in FY 19.

➢ The end of the license Raj helped assist strong 3-Wheeler sales in FY 19.

In FY 19


This document has been prepared solely for [ACMA] Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India, being the express addressee to thisdocument. PwC does not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any use of or reliance on this document by anyone, other than (i)ACMA, to the extent agreed in the relevant contract for the matter to which this document relates (if any), or (ii) as expressly agreed by PwC in writing inadvance.

This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional advice. You should not act upon theinformation contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to theaccuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, PwC, its members, employees and agents acceptno liability, and disclaim all responsibility, for the consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained inthis publication or for any decision based on it.

This publication contains certain examples extracted from third party documentation and so being out of context from the original third party documents;readers should bear this in mind when reading the publication. The copyright in such third party material remains owned by the third parties concerned, andPwC expresses its appreciation to these companies for having allowed it to include their information in this publication. For a more comprehensive view oneach company’s communication, please read the entire document from which the extracts have been taken. Please note that the inclusion of a company in thispublication does not imply any endorsement of that company by PwC nor any verification of the accuracy of the information contained in any of the examples.

This publication contains various companies’ forward looking statements, which by their nature involve numerous assumptions, inherent risks anduncertainties, both general and specific, and risks that predictions, forecasts, projections and other forward looking statements will not be achieved. We cautionreaders of this publication not to place undue reliance on these forward looking statements, as a number of important factors could cause actual future results todiffer materially from the plans, objectives, expectations, estimates, and intentions expressed in such forward looking statements.

PwC contacts for ACMA Knowledge Partnership- Kavan Mukhtyar, Partner & Leader-Automotive, PwC India - [email protected] / +912261198735- Somnath Chatterjee, ACMA Knowledge Partnership Manager –[email protected] / +91124620724

Disclaimer

© 2020 PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited. All rights reserved. In this document, “PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited (a limitedliability company in India), which is a member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each member firm of which is a separate legal entity

Documents

OEM- Financial Analysis FY 19 - ACMA