Impact of global trade agreements on the auto industry and its supply chain – terminating nafta

There are hardly any complex consumer products in the market that are truly made in one region. The auto industry is no exception. Even the TESLA Model S and X, the only vehicles claiming 100% assembly in the U.S., use outside suppliers for components such as the Canadian Auto Parts supplier, Magna International and Mexican Lithium miners Bacanora Minerals. 5

Global trade may date back as far as the silk road or perhaps prior, but more structured trade agreements have been put in place in the 20 th century between 2 or more regions allowing for import and export of goods to provide consumers with broader product options and at times lower prices. One of these key agreements was put in place in January of 1994 between the three North American nations, Canada, United States and Mexico. The agreement is known as NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement).

The United States commenced bilateral trade negotiations with Canada more than 30 years ago, resulting in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, which entered into force on January 1, 1989. In 1991, bilateral talks began with Mexico, which Canada joined. The NAFTA followed, entering into force on January 1, 1994. Tariffs were eliminated progressively and all duties and quantitative restrictions, with the exception of those on a limited number of agricultural products traded with Canada, were eliminated by 2008. 6

Starting in 2015, NAFTA became a household name as it was a key topic in the center of then, Republican presidential candidate and current U.S. president, Donald Trump. His beliefs are that NAFTA has brought more harm to the U.S. economy than benefit and should be terminated. The key reason being the loss of manufacturing jobs in U.S. as many automotive companies have moved operations outside of U.S. under this agreement. 1

Many industry leaders however believe that NAFTA, though not perfect, has been a key contributor the growth of trade in U.S. over the span of its quarter of a century existence and demolishing it without considering all the consequences will cause significant harm to the auto industry and the U.S. economy as a whole. This is a view shared not only by key automakers in the U.S. (i.e. Ford, GM, Toyota, etc.), but also the sector’s key suppliers, such as Magna International. 2,3,4 (Exhibit 7)

Magna International Inc.

Magna, a Canadian company, is a leading global automotive supplier with 328 manufacturing operations and 99 product development, engineering and sales centers in 29 countries employing over 163,000 individuals, of which, 160 facilities and over 75000 employees work in the NAFTA region (Exhibit 1). Magna is positioned in the middle of the overall auto industry supply chain as it needs to source parts and supply parts to companies within the NAFTA region. 7

One of the key strategic factors contributing to Magna’s growth and success in the industry has been its agility and flexibility to serve its customers. Their manufacturing sites are often within close proximity of their key suppliers and as a result, they have expanded beyond Canada and have opened many facilities in US & Mexico to serve customers in those regions (i.e. BMW in SC, GM & potentially BMW in San Luis Potosi, MX). 8

Impact of demolishing NAFTA

Due to the existence of NAFTA, automakers have been able to leverage the lowest parts and labor cost in manufacturing and providing the consumer with the most value for the product. If NAFTA was to demolish and high tariffs were to be added to products imported to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada, the exports would take a hit as well. For example, Magna announced in December of 2016 that it had won BMW’s business for seating products in South Carolina and they plan on opening a 4 th manufacturing location in that state employing up to 480 people. 7

Magna also has facilities in Mexico which will likely supply the BMW facility in San Luis Potosi, MX. 8 U.S. will import BMW 300 series from Mexico while exporting BMW SUV’s produced in South Carolina to Mexico and Canada. In the short to medium term, Magna will continue operations as is and if tariffs are risen, they will have to pass the cost on to the consumers as moving numerous facilities will result in massive capital expenditure and will not be feasible.

My recommendation would be for Magna to actively work with the auto industry in North America to use their collective voice and work with law makers at the state level to ensure the agreement is improved rather than terminated as it will be the only win-win situation.

Historical trade data from the United States Census Bureau shows the direct correlation between Import & Export and is kept by country on a monthly basis. Tables and graphs in Exhibits 2 through 6 capture this data since 1990. 9 Arguably reducing import from NAFTA regions will not yield higher jobs in the U.S. and eventually higher exports.

Exhibit 1 Magna’s Facility & Employee Distribution in NA

Headquarter Manufacturing / Assembly Engineering / Sales / Product Development Employees
CANADA 1 50 11 21575
UNITED STATES 1 58 13 24900
MEXICO 0 31 1 29125

Source: Company Website

Exhibit 2 US Historical Import Export – Global

TABLE 1: US Global Trade Value ($ millions USD)
YEAR EXPORTS IMPORTS BALANCE
2016 1,451,011 2,187,805 (736,794)
2015 1,503,102 2,248,183 (745,082)
2014 1,621,874 2,356,356 (734,482)
2013 1,578,517 2,267,987 (689,470)
2012 1,545,821 2,276,267 (730,446)
2011 1,482,508 2,207,954 (725,447)
2010 1,278,495 1,913,857 (635,362)
2009 1,056,043 1,559,625 (503,582)
2008 1,287,442 2,103,641 (816,199)
2007 1,148,199 1,956,961 (808,762)
2006 1,025,968 1,853,938 (827,971)
2005 901,082 1,673,454 (772,372)
2004 814,875 1,469,705 (654,830)
2003 724,771 1,257,121 (532,350)
2002 693,101 1,161,366 (468,265)
2001 729,101 1,140,998 (411,898)
2000 781,918 1,218,023 (436,105)
1999 695,797 1,024,616 (328,819)
1998 682,139 911,897 (229,758)
1997 689,180 869,703 (180,523)
1996 625,073 795,287 (170,213)
1995 584,740 743,545 (158,805)
1994 512,625 663,252 (150,627)
1993 465,090 580,656 (115,566)
1992 448,165 532,662 (84,497)
1991 421,730 488,453 (66,723)
1990 393,592 495,311 (101,718)
AVERAGE 931,184 1,405,875 (474,691)
Source: United States Census Bureau – Foreign Trades
Note: Figures are not seasonally adjusted

Exhibit 3 US Historical Import Export – Mexico

TABLE 2: US Trade Value w/Mexico ($ millions USD)
YEAR EXPORTS IMPORTS BALANCE
2016 229,702 294,056 (64,354)
2015 236,204 296,401 (60,197)
2014 241,007 295,730 (54,723)
2013 225,954 280,556 (54,602)
2012 215,875 277,594 (61,719)
2011 198,289 262,874 (64,585)
2010 163,665 229,986 (66,321)
2009 128,892 176,654 (47,762)
2008 151,220 215,942 (64,722)
2007 135,918 210,714 (74,796)
2006 133,722 198,253 (64,531)
2005 120,248 170,109 (49,861)
2004 110,731 155,902 (45,170)
2003 97,412 138,060 (40,648)
2002 97,470 134,616 (37,146)
2001 101,297 131,338 (30,041)
2000 111,349 135,926 (24,577)
1999 86,909 109,721 (22,812)
1998 78,773 94,629 (15,856)
1997 71,389 85,938 (14,549)
1996 56,792 74,297 (17,506)
1995 46,292 62,100 (15,808)
1994 50,844 49,494 1,350
1993 41,581 39,918 1,663
1992 40,592 35,211 5,381
1991 33,277 31,130 2,148
1990 28,279 30,157 (1,878)
AVERAGE 119,766 156,196 (36,430)
Source: United States Census Bureau – Foreign Trades
Note: Figures are not seasonally adjusted

Exhibit 4 US Historical Import Export – Canada

TABLE 3: US Trade Value w/Canada ($ millions USD)
YEAR EXPORTS IMPORTS BALANCE
2016 266,797 277,756 (10,958)
2015 280,855 296,231 (15,375)
2014 312,817 349,286 (36,469)
2013 300,755 332,504 (31,749)
2012 292,651 324,263 (31,613)
2011 281,292 315,325 (34,033)
2010 249,257 277,637 (28,380)
2009 204,658 226,248 (21,591)
2008 261,150 339,491 (78,342)
2007 248,888 317,057 (68,169)
2006 230,656 302,438 (71,782)
2005 211,899 290,384 (78,486)
2004 189,880 256,360 (66,480)
2003 169,924 221,595 (51,671)
2002 160,923 209,088 (48,165)
2001 163,424 216,268 (52,844)
2000 178,941 230,838 (51,897)
1999 166,600 198,711 (32,111)
1998 156,604 173,256 (16,653)
1997 151,767 167,234 (15,467)
1996 134,210 155,893 (21,682)
1995 127,226 144,370 (17,144)
1994 114,439 128,406 (13,967)
1993 100,444 111,216 (10,772)
1992 90,594 98,630 (8,036)
1991 85,150 91,064 (5,914)
1990 83,674 91,380 (7,706)
AVERAGE 193,166 227,516 (34,350)
Source: United States Census Bureau – Foreign Trades
Note: Figures are not seasonally adjusted

Exhibit 5 US Historical Import Export – NAFTA Region

TABLE 4: NAFTA Trade Value ($ millions USD)
YEAR EXPORTS IMPORTS BALANCE EXPORT % GLOBAL IMPORT % GLOBAL
2016 496,499 571,812 (75,312) 34% 26%
2015 517,059 592,632 (75,572) 34% 26%
2014 553,824 645,016 (91,192) 34% 27%
2013 526,709 613,060 (86,351) 33% 27%
2012 508,526 601,857 (93,331) 33% 26%
2011 479,580 578,198 (98,618) 32% 26%
2010 412,921 507,622 (94,701) 32% 27%
2009 333,550 402,903 (69,353) 32% 26%
2008 412,370 555,433 (143,063) 32% 26%
2007 384,806 527,771 (142,964) 34% 27%
2006 364,378 500,691 (136,313) 36% 27%
2005 332,146 460,493 (128,347) 37% 28%
2004 300,611 412,261 (111,650) 37% 28%
2003 267,336 359,655 (92,319) 37% 29%
2002 258,393 343,704 (85,311) 37% 30%
2001 264,721 347,606 (82,885) 36% 30%
2000 290,290 366,765 (76,475) 37% 30%
1999 253,509 308,432 (54,923) 36% 30%
1998 235,376 267,885 (32,509) 35% 29%
1997 223,155 253,172 (30,017) 32% 29%
1996 191,002 230,190 (39,188) 31% 29%
1995 173,518 206,470 (32,952) 30% 28%
1994 165,282 177,900 (12,618) 32% 27%
1993 142,025 151,134 (9,109) 31% 26%
1992 131,187 133,841 (2,654) 29% 25%
1991 118,427 122,194 (3,767) 28% 25%
1990 111,953 121,537 (9,584) 28% 25%
AVERAGE 312,932 383,712 (70,781) 33% 27%
Source: United States Census Bureau – Foreign Trades
Note: Figures are not seasonally adjusted

Exhibit 6 U.S. Import/Export Trends

Source: Graph created using US Census Bureau Historical Trade Data 9

Exhibit 6 (Cont.) U.S. Import/Export Trends

Exhibit 7 U.S. President & Auto Industry Leaders’ view on NAFTA

“The worst trade deal ever made” Donald J Trump – US President 1

“NAFTA agreement has made the overall sector much more competitive on a global basis” Bob Shanks – CFO Ford Motor Co. 2

“NAFTA has been around a long time, and it probably needs to be modernized, but it has been positive overall for America” Jim Lentz – CEO Toyota Motor NA 3

“I think anybody that is contemplating any big investment over the long term is probably either waiting or going to be biased to invest more in the U.S. until there is an outcome here” Don Walker – CEO Magna International 4

Endnotes & References

Tables and graphs in the Exhibits 2 through 6 were generated using the annual trade figures reported by the US Census Bureau