Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UBS Estimates MAX Break-even At 200 Frames  
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30641 posts, RR: 84
Posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8269 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While much has been written of late on how Boeing is giving "unprecedented" discounts to their best customers (or even any customer) on their 737 MAX purchases, UBS Securities yesterday released a note stating that they believe Boeing will break-even on the program with their 200th delivery.

UBS estimates Boeing is booking margins on 737 NG around 20% on a pre-R&D basis and that while that initial 737 MAX deliveries will be booked at a lower margin, within 1000 frames the 737 MAX should be booking the same 20% margin.

Of course, this is but one analysis and they could be totally wrong. But then again. they could be totally right. I guess we'll know when Boeing announces their financial results in the quarter they deliver their 1000th MAX.

Leeham.net has reproduced the note on their blog.

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21478 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8006 times:

I don't believe it. May frame 200 is cash positive, but can't see all the development and ramp up costs recovered by 200.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinecuban8 From Kiribati, joined Sep 2009, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7901 times:

I think it could very well be true. The 737 MAX is supposed to get most of its evolution through the new engines. Since this is not a clean sheet project and most of the changes will come through structure reinforcements and lighter materials, I don't expect the 737 MAX to become a huge investment project.

User currently offlinebringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7889 times:

I guess this is given they are selling it at their advertised price since know one really knows how much discount the first 200 frames are going for ??

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7822 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
I don't believe it.

I don't either. It's either cash flow positive like you say or it's at list prices, which Boeing would do well to get 50-55% for actual sales.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineflyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 699 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7740 times:

Let's assume a list price of 100 million dollars. Let's assume Boeing sells them for 50% discount. We're left with 50 million USD per plane. 200 planes makes 10 billion USD. If the margin is 20%, B is left with 2 billion USD. All these numbers are highly optimistic and this is simplifying many things. How large is the investment to develop the 737 MAX?

"in March 2010, Mike Bair, vice president of business strategy & marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said in an interview the estimated cost to re-engine the 737 would be $2bn-$3bn, including the portion for engine development contributed by CFM, said an industry source"

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ax-development-cost-report-367504/

Considering the track record of airline manufacturers when it comes to estimating project cost, I would be highly surprised if a number given more than 2 years ago would still be valid. Also, Boeing has decided to implement other improvements as well, not just a re-engine that Mike Bair talks about.

Thus, I doubt that Boeing has recovered their development costs at the moment when MAX #200 is going out the door. Nevertheless (and despite the name), the MAX will be a highly profitable airliner.

[Edited 2012-06-15 10:23:28]

User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 303 posts, RR: 44
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7659 times:

Quoting flyingAY (Reply 5):
Let's assume a list price of 100 million dollars. Let's assume Boeing sells them for 50% discount. We're left with 50 million USD per plane. 200 planes makes 10 billion USD. If the margin is 20%, B is left with 2 billion USD. All these numbers are highly optimistic and this is simplifying many things. How large is the investment to develop the 737 MAX?



So let's be wildly pessimistic and put the program cost at $4B. Discount 60% on the list price ($95M for the 737-8 as per the Boeing web site). Margin of 10% on the first 1000 frames.
So the net margin for each frame is about 4 million dollars, meaning B needs to deliver only 1000 frames to recoup their costs in an overly pessimistic scenario, based on my simplistic calculation.

Why "only" ? Because this is not the 787 or A380, but a mature program already pumping out frames at 40/month, so even 1000 planes is just 2 years worth of production.
So whatever the case, Boeing (and Airbus with the NEO) should be making money with every delivered frame within two years of the first delivery. And more probably within mere months. And as both manufacturers have chosen not to make new designs, and as demand is high and supply is capped, these upgrades should sell very well for years and years beyond that.


So while I agree 200 for breakeven is on the optimisitic side, I don't think it's really important to argue whether the programs will break even* after 200 or 1000 deliveries (meaning 6 to 24 months of production). Because both companies are set to make a fortune with these programs in a very short time !


*(even if I know that program breakeven arguments are an a-net favourite  )



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9979 posts, RR: 96
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7648 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyingAY (Reply 5):
"in March 2010, Mike Bair, vice president of business strategy & marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said in an interview the estimated cost to re-engine the 737 would be $2bn-$3bn, including the portion for engine development contributed by CFM, said an industry source"

The thing is, we don't know how much of the bill will actually be borne by Boeing.
If CFM have put up all bar say $1Bn, 200 could well be an achieveable break-even.

Certainly as far as the A320 NEO goes, its pretty clear that the engine makers have stumped up the bulk of the development cost (Pratt in particular), and that the cost of the wing work around the sharklets is being borne by the A320 classic.
(It'll probably break even for Airbus when the first one is on its delivery flight   )

Certainly, unlike the new programmes (like A380, 787, A350), I don't see a big capital investment programme associated with the development of either the A320NEO or the MAX.

In truth, it matters not. The b/e of the MAX could be 400 frames, and yet will still be printing cash for Boeing from early on in the programme for many years to come   

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30641 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7569 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Airbus estimates developing the A320neo airframe at one billion Euro, so Boeing estimating double that for the 737 MAX airframe does not strike me as a wild underestimation.

The 737NG is a very mature platform that both Boeing and their suppliers understand intimately and therefore R&D costs will be significantly lower than for a new plane (on the order of a factor of 10 per Boeing's CFO). Boeing and their suppliers will also will be able to leverage current 737 facilities, so there will not be the infrastructure costs of the 787.

Based on those margin figures and Average Sales Prices, Boeing could be making around $10 million on each 737NG delivery. As Boeing increases the production rate towards the current 42 planned in 2014, that will lower the production cost and increase the margin.

By the time the 737 MAX starts production, even with lower margins, if it brings in $10 million a frame on delivery, 200 frames would be $2 billion and that would indeed cover the costs.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9979 posts, RR: 96
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7531 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
By the time the 737 MAX starts production, even with lower margins, if it brings in $10 million a frame on delivery, 200 frames would be $2 billion and that would indeed cover the costs.

The margin on those first 200 frames could be $5M per frame, and it might still cover Boeing's portion of the costs of the programme - assuming things track ok of course

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30641 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7506 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 9):
The margin on those first 200 frames could be $5M per frame, and it might still cover Boeing's portion of the costs of the programme - assuming things track ok of course.

Indeed it may. It's all speculation at this point.

But as you - and others - have noted, both of these programs will be licenses to print money because whatever the final costs end up being, they're going to be minuscule in the face of the revenues the delivered products will bring their respective OEMs and partners.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6906 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This all assumes they don't f.... it up like they did with the last revamp of the 737 in the 90s and end up booking a billion or two in charges for their poor execution ramping up production of the new model!

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12905 posts, RR: 100
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6195 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Are we talking versus just offering the 737NG? Boeing would still have sold another 200 at some profit each... But that just extends the number a year or so...

Quoting astuteman (Reply 7):
The thing is, we don't know how much of the bill will actually be borne by Boeing.
If CFM have put up all bar say $1Bn, 200 could well be an achieveable break-even.

That is an amazing business case. It could be quite possible. Of course if GE is putting the money up front, they'll make more on each pair of engines sold.  

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently onlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6014 times:

I thought an element of the analysis was based upon the assumption the max is simply an extension of the NG program and as such some of the development costs can be costed against the profit margins on current NG sales.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30641 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5933 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting travelhound (Reply 13):
I thought an element of the analysis was based upon the assumption the max is simply an extension of the NG program and as such some of the development costs can be costed against the profit margins on current NG sales.

UBS does believe that the 737 MAX will be part of the 737NG accounting block, so Boeing might only need to add 200 units to that accounting block to...account...for the MAX costs.


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 699 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4922 times:

As others have pointed out, it would be important to understand the investments and margins for the different players (airframe and engine manufacturers), as they likely are different. The engine manufacturer is surely in a large role in a "re-engine" project. For all we know, there may also be agreements between the airframer and the engine manufacturer that change the flow of money between the players.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 7):
In truth, it matters not. The b/e of the MAX could be 400 frames, and yet will still be printing cash for Boeing from early on in the programme for many years to come   

  


User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4089 times:

To be honest I do not understand the point of this analysis. It is an absolute no-brainer that 737MAX will more than pay for its cost (and much more than that, unless Boeing royally screw up its production) and will become a cash cow for Boeing just as 737NG did. It is like saying a new generation iPhone or Android flagship phone will sell a lot and will justify investments in them.

User currently offlinesharktail From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3498 times:

I think we are looking at this wrong: For accounting purposes, every plane gets allocated a certain amount of the development cost. That amount per plane goes down as there are more orders, bringing down the cost per plane.New tooling and new processes have a learning curve as well. The first planes will then get lower prices because of launch discounts. So what this is saying is that Boeing shareholders should expect to have a negative contribution margin on the first 200. And by the delivery of nr 1000, we have the same margin per plane we have today.

Nr 1,000 will not have a $0 development cost allocation. It will just be lower than nr 1-200. But you have to count training of engineers, changing of production facilities and the speed at which the new planes can be made initially as well. It does not start @ $10 million per. It may start @ $60 million for the first 5 development planes. Then go to $30 million for the next 5, then $25 million for the next 40, $22 million for the next 50...

"We expect initial MAX production to come through at lower margins than Boeing is currently booking on NG, diluting BCA (Commercial Airplanes) margins. The inclusion of lower margin initial MAX production in the 737 block will also negatively impact EPS relative to expectations as Boeing will need to book a lower average (program) margin on its current 737 deliveries. We expect MAX costs to improve at a fairly rapid pace with our assumed breakeven program quantity at 200 implying that unit margins approach 737 NG type levels near the end of our assumed 1,000 unit accounting quantity (two years of production)"

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 16):
To be honest I do not understand the point of this analysis

So you can run a model to see how much profit to expect in the future for Boeing, giving you an earnings forecast. That's what analysis are supposed to do. So you know if Boeing shares are cheap or expensive given the amount of earnings to expect.


User currently onlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 16):

I think their analysis is intended for the large institutional investors such as pension funds, funds managers, etc. The relevance of the analysis is simply a statement or opinion that the 737MAX program is relatively low risk. I think it would be fair to say that UBS had been briefed by Boeing before undertaking the analysis and as such their assumptions are properly qualified.

The flip side of the relatively rossie outcomes of the program are that in it's development years Boeing's earnings could be materially affected.

Another positive is in the years beyond 2020 the program will probably fully paid for and as such Boeing should have a fair amount of financial flexibility to undertake other NB programs.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12905 posts, RR: 100
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2576 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sharktail (Reply 17):
That amount per plane goes down as there are more orders, bringing down the cost per plane.New tooling and new processes have a learning curve as well. The first planes will then get lower prices because of launch discounts. So what this is saying is that Boeing shareholders should expect to have a negative contribution margin on the first 200. And by the delivery of nr 1000, we have the same margin per plane we have today.

Good point. However, I think Boeing will be doing very well with the margin by ln# 1000. I would expect very well. You probably have it correct.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineairportugal310 From Palau, joined Apr 2004, 3587 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2490 times:

It amuses me on how everyone on a.net is smarter than UBS or the other banks/financial institutions that make this their business...

Let's not let their analysis get in the way of a good discussion, ya?  



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2367 times:

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 20):

It amuses me on how everyone on a.net is smarter than UBS or the other banks/financial institutions that make this their business...

Although I certainly concurr that the a.net (and the internet) may have an over-representation of armchair experts, the specific case of industry "experts" at banks/financial institutions is not the general case. You'd probably be surprised how many of them know less than your average a.net member. These are the same geniuses who were "experts" on the mortgage sector.

Tom.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12905 posts, RR: 100
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2208 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 21):
You'd probably be surprised how many of them know less than your average a.net member.

I wouldn't be. I had friends who were the analysts at banks just after graduation. They were smart individuals who are now far richer than I. But they had little time with each business to analyze and then they went on to the next. They would switch industries every 3 to 6 months based on the newest focus of that bank. They worked hard and developed a fine understanding of money, financial risk, and such. But few if any understood how manufacturing really worked (none were from 'hands on the tools' families).

So in terms of aircraft financing, if I get to pick the names, I would pick a team of a.netters over *one* analysis. Our bonus isn't on the line.  

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7075 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2183 times:

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 20):
It amuses me on how everyone on a.net is smarter than UBS or the other banks/financial institutions that make this their business...

Good to be an expert when ghovernments the world over are puring massive billions in to cover your mistakes  
Quoting travelhound (Reply 18):
I think their analysis is intended for the large institutional investors such as pension funds, funds managers, etc. The relevance of the analysis is simply a statement or opinion that the 737MAX program is relatively low risk.

IBM was once regarded as a safe bet in stocks, perhaps folks are also looking at Boeing?


User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2069 times:

Quoting sharktail (Reply 17):
Quoting travelhound (Reply 18):

Thank you! I guess I wasn't expressing myself properly. I understand that the report is supposed to provide investment information etc. I was just perplexed why UBS chose to analyse such a slam-dunk case rather than something less certain, such as when the next financial crisis is going to hit (The rate it is going, next Monday would not be a bad guess!).


User currently offlinesharktail From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1744 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 24):
I was just perplexed why UBS chose to analyse such a slam-dunk case rather than something less certain, such as when the next financial crisis is going to hit

Just like you need police looking at murder investigations as well as people looking at traffic violations. For UBS, they make money off all analysis, so they have different people assigned to different types of analysis.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2! posted Sun Oct 22 2006 23:13:36 by Gilesdavies
Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420 Aircraft posted Thu Oct 19 2006 13:17:06 by Leelaw
EOS Claims Loads At 'break-even' Point. posted Tue Jun 20 2006 15:02:02 by 7LBAC111
Will The 787 Break Even? And When? posted Thu Jun 7 2012 11:25:29 by abba
A380 Break Even In 2014/2015 posted Tue Nov 30 2010 05:23:11 by rheinwaldner
What's A Typical Break-even Factor For WN posted Tue Oct 5 2010 21:45:18 by lv
WN's Break Even Load Factor? posted Sun Apr 25 2010 20:30:17 by bigsky09
Boeing 787 Break-even Point, Where Is It Now? posted Tue Jul 29 2008 14:59:34 by Keesje
Who Will Survive And Perish If Oil At 200.00? posted Sat Jun 7 2008 18:16:00 by AirCanada014
Q400 Break Even Load Factor? posted Fri Aug 3 2007 23:27:16 by Tsra