By on November 8, 2010

Chrysler lost $84m last quarter on an operating profit of $239m, showing slow but consistent progress from last quarter’s $172m loss [Press release here, slides here, both in PDF]. Chrysler has lost $453m since the beginning of this year. Overall deliveries and sales were down slightly compared to Q2 2010, but thanks to a strong launch for the profit-generating Grand Cherokee, revenues were up just over 5 percent to $11b. As the slide above proves, “Mix and Net Price” accounts for one of the biggest contributions to operating profit, and that’s largely thanks to the new Grand Cherokee which (at 12,721 units last month)  is the second-best selling vehicle in Chrysler’s lineup after Ram pickups. That’s a good sign for the future of a company that needed a hero, but there are some troubling signs under the surface.

But before we get to the negatives, it’s important to put Chrysler’s mix and pricing trends in context. Yes, it’s improved compared to 2009, but it’s actually declined since 2009 even as sales have remained largely flat. And with remaining launch vehicles largely falling into the category of refreshes and are occurring in less-profitable segments, it’s not clear that Chrysler can expect more strong growth in transaction price.

For one thing, launching new products costs money. Launch costs were reduced from Q2, adding to the Q3 bottom line, but they’re expected to zoom up to about one hundred million in the final quarter of the year. In support of those launches, Chrysler will spend a billion dollars in the final three months of the year on capital expenditures, up from $1.7b over the first three quarters.  If the products  launched with that money have the same effect as the Grand Cherokee,it will be money well spent. But will refreshed Sebrings and Journeys have the same result as an all-new, well-executed product in a profitable segment like the JGC? Only the future will tell.

Cash improved by $419m, but gross debt climbed upwards for Chrysler by about $800m, and net debt increased by $400m to $3.8b. That debt cost Chrysler $308m in the third quarter, and net interest expense has amounted to $899m year-to-date.

But the real question is what happens to sales. Through the first three quarters of this year, 82 percent of Chrysler’s sales were 2010 models and 18 percent were the new 2011 models. As a result, sales have been flat and Chrysler has struggled to turn small operating profits into real net profit. Improvement, as it comes, has been based on mix, specifically an ever-growing dependence on Ram and Grand Cherokee profits. The market has been kind to trucks and SUVs in 2010, but this posture leaves Chrysler especially vulnerable to short-term fuel price volatility. More fuel-efficient offerings are on the way, but their profitability will not make up for any eventual decrease in Ram and Grand Cherokee volume.

And even Ram is underperforming. As Marchionne put it, the truck market is recovering, but Ram isn’t capturing the share of that recovery that it should “We got our nose bloodied going into the recession,” he said, “and we’re not getting enough back on the way out.” But Marchionne also noted that the competition enjoys “historical advantages,” likely referring to Ford’s immense success this year with its F-Series line. Marchionne seemed unclear about how to upset the truck order without killing profitability, and seemed to accept that Ram would remain the third player in the truck market.

Despite modest results, Chrysler increased its guidance for full-year results. Chrysler did note that net debt could increase to $5.3b and even as much as $6.3b by year-end, and combined with increased expenditures, this could cause even modest improvements in Modified EBITDA and operating profit to result in losses. In the end though, Chrysler is surviving, which we’ve always said was its major goal for this year. But it’s been close: had the market not been accepting of less fuel-efficient offerings like Ram and Grand Cherokee, Chrysler would be in a world of hurt. The major question for this final quarter is whether the refreshed products create the kind of financial benefits that Grand Cherokee has, and whether fuel price volatility attacks this profit center (not to mention Chrysler’s forthcoming less-efficient models like Durango, Charger, and 300). Chrysler’s walked three quarters on a high-wire, and it hasn’t tumbled yet… but sooner or later, momentum will have to be built.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

11 Comments on “Carried By New Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Loses $84m In Q3...”


  • avatar
    obbop

    Plymouth…..  “Like a rock.”

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    The next 300 looks like a big Ho Hum as well.
    Hopefully the next minivan will be something to refrsh and enliven the line.

    I am not looking forward to much from Chrysler at the LA show in a few weeks.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    I wonder if the fact Ram branched off of Dodge is a non-factor in sales, or if “dropping the Dodge”, so to speak, has hurt one or both brands…

  • avatar
    mjz

    New 300, Charger and Durango will all be cash cows for Chrysler like JGC. The rest of the line-up not so much, until the truly all-new replacements arrive. Hopefully the revamps will be enough to at least give them consideration in those segments. Not sure that dropping the Dodge from Dodge RAM was such a good idea, maybe it will still gel.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    Bring over the Lancia Ypsilon as the high-fuel-price-insulating, CAFE-appeasing Chrysler 100.

    The Lancia Delta could be re-branded as the next PT Cruiser.

    Of course, bringing one or both over would probably cost more than Marchionne is willing to spend, with no guarantee of success.

  • avatar
    mtr2car1

    3 quarters in and it’s easy to see how razor thin their margin for error was this year.  Gas has remained stable, credit has opened somewhat and they’ve been relatively close to their 95K monthly targets thanks to fleet sales – everything else being equal, about breaking even was not something I thought they could achieve.
    The hurdle for 2011 is shifting a good amount of 2010’s fleet sales into retail sales with their updated products which should improve their price mix and profits. 

    After a dismal 2009 in overall fleet sales and a stronger than normal 2010, I don’t see how there will be the same need next year and given Chrysler’s reliance on them in the past – it puts them agian on the razors edge for 2011

  • avatar
    abgwin

    Hmmmmm…….. “Chrysler lost $84m last quarter on an operating profit of $239m, showing slow but consistent progress from last quarter’s $172m loss ”
    Cutting a loss in half in one quarter isn’t best described as “slow” in my mind.

  • avatar
    marauder_pilot

    I feel it’s worth mentioning that a lot of people are probably holding off until 2011 models are available, since even the least car-inclined people are well aware of how many changes are being done for 2011-IE, how much worse the 2010 models will be in comparison.
    I mean, pretty much every refreshed Chrysler has been mentioned in news and papers and internet news, car blogs completely notwithstanding, at least a few times. How many people are going to buy a Sebring when the 200 is right around the corner? I mean, trace the sales records for the Grand Cherokee for the last few months-granted, the GC has far more exposure then any other Chrysler refresh, but the principle is the same.
    I am truly worried for the workers of Toledo South building Wranglers based solely on the fact that they’re running at 100% as is, and there are hordes of people waiting on 2012 Wranglers with Pentastar engines…

  • avatar
    jpcavanaugh

    The refreshed minivans should earn their keep for 2011.  The last couple of years, these vehicles have sold on price, but Honda and Toyota have been chipping prices too because of their aged offerings.  Now that the Honda and Toyota are brand new and the Chrysler vans will be new-ish, there should not be as much competitive pressure on prices, and transaction prices should improve.

    I think that an improved Journey could do very well.  Theoretically, it is aimed at a much broader market than the JGC.  The combination of the Journey and Durango should do well.

    And I would not count the 300/Charger out. 

  • avatar
    AJ

    So what happens if this is still going on in five years?

    Someone save Jeep!


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States