1. CEF :1 4. CEF 90% 10% 5. CEF

Transcription

1 GE Capital Canada: Commercial Equipment Financing Division Present Date: April 15 th, 2003 You: Steve Rendi, assistant account manager for the Commercial Equipment Financing Division of GE Capital Canada Them: Clark Carriers Ltd. Clark Carriers Requesting: $ loan (to purchase two new 2003 Freightliner transport trucks, four new 53-foot trailers and four new mobile satellite systems to track the location of the transport trucks) GE Capital Comprised of 27 diversified businesses General Electric (parent company) was a publicly traded corporation with net earnings over $3.6 billion US in 2002 General Electric expected each of its divisions to generate a 20% after-tax profit, and if divisions fell below the goal, they would have to justify why this occurred Commercial Equipment Financing Majority of CEF s business was loans to medium and large-sized transportation and construction companies Loans from $30000 to $1 million were provided to purchase assets such as transportation trucks, trailers, paving equipment, and heavy machinery Motto: Find, Win, Keep -find new business, win new business, and keep new and existing clients As at April 1, 2003, less than one percent of CEF s portfolio of over 2000 accounts had been lost to bad debt Account managers were expected to generate $14 million in new loans each year without exposing GE Capital to unreasonable levels of risk Several minimum requirements had to be met before CEF would approve a loan: 1. CEF did not deal with any company that had been in business for less than three years 2. The company applying for the loan had to generate enough cash flow to cover the monthly interest payments of the new loan 3. The company s debt to equity ratio could not be greater than 4:1 when including the new loan 4. CEF would not finance more than 90% value of any asset thereby requiring the company to have enough cash to pay for at least 10% of the value of assets they wished to purchase 5. CEF considered the character of the business owners, economic conditions, and any company assets that could be pledged as collateral as additional factors in the loan request

2 The Transportation Industry in Southern Ontario Strong from 1985 to 1988, went through recession 1989, came back strongly in the mid 1990s which led to lots of competition By 2003, the transportation industry had experienced strong growth, but prices and profits remained low with trucking companies typically generating after-tax net incomes of less than 8% of revenue With low prices, trucking companies relied on higher volumes of business to generate profits One way to increase sales volume was to purchase more trucks and trailers and hire additional drivers (for every truck and trailer, a trucking company would typically generate $ to $ in annual sales), but required large loans Because so many trucking companies borrowed money to expand, it was important to maximize the amount of time a truck spent on the road generating sales, to cover not only operating expenses but also the loan payments New Legislation Mandatory that all trucks and trailers met safety standards Effective February 2, 1998, MTO had the right to impound any truck or trailer deemed critical defect (loose or broken lug nuts, cracked brake rotors, broken steering components, broken suspension components and tires with less than 25% of the tread remaining across any part of the tire) If defect found, impounded for 15 days and vehicle could not be operated until repaired (if same defect found during second inspection, 30 days impounded) MTO also charged fines ranging from $2000 to $20000 for equipment that did not pass inspection Thousands of trucks failed inspection and the MTO had impounded over 700 trucks from the inception of the program to October 2001

3 CLARK CARRIERS LTD. Background Founded in 1987 Began as a one-truck operation hauling freight for larger company that contracted work to independent drivers Doug was driver and wife Annette managed accounting Survived recession between 1989 to 1993 and operated until spring of 1996 when they began searching for exclusive hauling contracts March 2001, signed two-year contract (effective April 1, 2001) making it the exclusive carrier for a small auto parts manufacturer that supplied Ford Motor Co. assembly plant in Oakville (Ford required its suppliers to make deliveries according to just-in-time inventory schedules, which meant that CCL would haul multiple trailer loads several days a week) To accommodate new contract, CCL borrowed $ from Newcourt Credit on April 1, 2001, to finance the purchase of three new transport trucks and three new trailers (hired three drivers) As of December 31, 2002, CCl still owed $ on the loan from Newcourt (paid $7000 of this loan each month) In October 2002, CCL sought to financing to purchase two new trailers (loan for $38400 was arranged through GE Capital on October 1, 2002) As of December 31,2002, the current balance still owing to GE was $36000 (paid $800 each month) The New Contract In March 2003, signed a new supplier contract (effective May 1, 2003, with Ford) New contract reflected a 60% increase in trucking volcume CCL two-year contract with the auto parts manufacturer had expired on March 31, 2003, and had not yet been renewed In an effort to reduce it s own costs, the auto parts manufacturer was allowing several companies (including CCL) to bid for the new trucking contract If CCL hoped to win the new contract to expand its fleet to accommodate the higher trucking volume and to outbid competing trucking companies The New Contract To expand its fleet, CCL required approximate $ Since CCL was required to pay at least 10% of the cost in cash ($30000) it requested a $ loan to purchase two new 2003 freightliner transport trucks, four new 53-foot trailers and four new mobile satellite systems

4 In projecting its income 2003, CCL estimated revenues to be 30% to 60% than in 2002 Salaries and wages were expected to increase by $60000 to hire two new drivers, and general administration expenses were expected to increase by $13000 due to larger fleet Bank charges and interest expense on the new loan would be $ Depreciation expenses on the new assets would be $30000 Legal and accounting fees and rent and utilities were expected to remain at the same proportion of sales as they had been in 2002 No purchases of new assets were expected for 2003 Income tax rate was approximately 45% In projecting in balance sheets, CCL estimated the value of the new loan to be $270000, less the monthly payments t be made between May 2003 and December 2003 (monthly principal payment on the new loan would be $5625) No changes in the age of receivables or the age of payables Bank line of credit up to $50000 that it had never used Planned to use $30000 from line of credit to make the cash payment required by GE Capital (10% of new assets) Clarks had used $50000 in personal assets to secure the bank line of credit None of the assets on CCL s current balance sheet were pledged as collateral Main question for Rendl was whether CCL would show a cash surplus on its projected balance sheet (a cash surplus would indicate that CCL would be capable of making the required loan payments, whereas a cash deficit would indicate that CCL would be incapable of paying back the loan) Since profits remained low across the industry, the Clarks believed that continued growth would ensure their profitability If CCL lost this contract, the Clarks knew it would be difficult to find enough work to keep their fleet working at 100% capacity Doug and Annette has worked hard to grow their business and had never been late with a loan payment, despite having trailers impounded on two occasions Annette: We ve been through good times and bad and we ve expected before. I feel that this is the right thing to do. We can t afford to stay small!

5 Rendl s Decision New request would bring total of CCl s loans with GE Capital to $ Total loan amount exceeds his account manager s credit limit of $200000