1Cash on the road

Cash on the road

₹

Working capital management in the automotive supply industry 2014

Summary 3

Improvement in WC performance in 2013 4

Reductions in C2C since 2007, but with variations between regions and countries 6

Wide variations in current WC performance across regions 9

Size matters in WC performance 11

Opportunities going forward 12

Case studies 13

Driving working capital excellence 14

How EY can help 15

Methodology 15

Glossary 15

Contents

3Cash on the road

The results from our analysis of the top automotive suppliers in 2013 show an improvement in working capital (WC) performance from the previous year. Cash-to-cash (C2C) dropped by a further 2% from its 2012 levels, after a fall of 3% the year before.

However, our 2013 research also reveals wide regional variations in the degree of change in C2C, exacerbated by contrasting production growth trends. In general, companies in North America and Europe reported better WC results, while those in Japan saw their performance deteriorate.

These findings for 2013 mean that the automotive supply industry as a whole has managed to reduce its C2C by 6% since 2007, in marked contrast to the flat performance reported in the previous five years (2002–07). However, these overall results also mask significant variations between regions and countries.

Today, WC performance varies widely between automotive supply companies in different regions. While the wide performance gaps between automotive supply companies in different regions may partly be as result of variations in business models and customers served, they also highlight fundamental differences in the relative sharpness of management focus on cash and the effectiveness of WC management processes.

Our research indicates that the leading 50 automotive suppliers have up to US$51b of cash unnecessarily tied up in WC. This figure is equivalent to 10% of their combined sales.

To realize these WC benefits, automotive suppliers will need to drive continuous operational and structural improvements, addressing

“root and branch” aspects of WC policies, processes and metrics. Key initiatives should include:

• Managing WC as a strategic initiative, including aligning executive compensation with appropriate performance measures

• Further streamlining of manufacturing and supply chains

• Closer collaboration and process alignment with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and suppliers

• Better coordination between supply, planning, manufacturing, procurement and logistics functions and processes

• Improvements in billing and cash collections and in dispute management and more effective management of payment terms; intensification of spend consolidation and standardization

• Implementation of more robust supply chain risk management policies

• Active management of the trade-offs between cash, cost, service levels and risks

Addressing this opportunity would boost the automotive supply industry’s return on capital, while also offering the potential for higher cash returns to shareholders. In addition, those companies that constantly manage their business with a view to achieving improved or top-tier WC performance will send a positive signal to capital markets, and are likely to be rewarded with a higher valuation in comparison with their peers.

Cash on the road is the latest in a series of working capital management reports based on EY research.

Summary

3Cash on the road

4 Cash on the road

Improvement in WC performance in 2013

The results from our analysis of the top automotive suppliers in 2013 show an improvement in WC performance from the previous year. C2C dropped by a further 2% from 2012 levels, after a fall of 3% the year before.However, our 2013 analysis also reveals wide variations in the degree of change in C2C between and within different regions. These reflect companies’ different responses to challenges, including diverging regional automotive production patterns, continuing pricing pressures from OEMs, an ongoing shift in global demand towards rapidly-growing markets and volatility in commodity prices and exchange rates.

Source:

Table 1. Change in WC metrics across the industry, 2012-13

All regions 2013 Change 13/12

DSO 56 2%

DIO 37 -2%

DPO 45 3%

C2C 48 -2%

C2C 2013 Change 13/12

North America 33 -5%

Europe 54 -4%

Japan 55 4%

All regions 48 -2%

Cash on the road4

5Cash on the road

Note: DSO (days sales outstanding), DIO (days inventory outstanding), DPO (days payable outstanding) and C2C, with metrics calculated on a sales-weighted basis

Source: EY analysis, based on publicly available annual financial statements

Table 2. Number of companies within each region and % change in C2C, 2013 vs. 2012

The overall improvement in WC performance in 2013 largely arose from a combination of lower DIO (down 2%) and higher DPO (up 3%), partially offset by a higher DSO (up 2%).

Of the three main regions and countries analyzed, Japan was the only one reporting worse results. In contrast, both North America and Europe posted an improvement in WC performance.

North America: Automotive production in North America in 2013 reached a new high, up 5% compared with 2012. Against this backdrop, suppliers in this region reported a further reduction in C2C, driven by a fall in both DIO and DSO (down 4% and 1%, respectively). DPO remained unchanged. Overall, three-quarters of the companies analyzed reported a year-on-year improvement in WC performance.

Europe: In contrast with North America, automotive production in Europe in 2013 fell by a further 1% from its level in 2012, but rebounded in the last months of the year (+5% in Q4), benefiting from improved consumer confidence and a favorable basis of comparison. Suppliers in Europe managed to reduce C2C by a further 4%, following a fall of 8% in the previous year. DIO was down 2%, partly owing to the positive impact of lower commodity costs. DPO was up 5%, reflecting larger purchases to support higher production levels in Q4. DSO was up 2%. Two-thirds of the companies surveyed reported an improvement in WC performance.

Japan: In 2013, domestic automotive sales declined for the first time in two years. However, overseas sales for Japanese OEMs (two-thirds of the total) increased significantly, boosted by the positive impact of a much weaker yen against other major currencies. For our sample of automotive suppliers headquartered in Japan, sales increased by as much as 14% in 2013 relative to

2012, with an acceleration in growth in Q4 (+20%). C2C was up 4% from its level in 2012, owing to a combined increase of 5% and 1% in DSO and DIO, respectively, partially offset by a rise of 3% in DPO. Ten out of 16 companies reported a deterioration in WC performance.

For every region, currency movements and weaker commodity prices also played a role in driving reported WC performance, each having varying impacts on different companies within each region. These impacts can be summarized as follows:

Currency movements: Variations in exchange rates played a significant role in driving WC performance in 2013. The strength of the euro against the US dollar and the Japanese yen at the end of 2013, compared with its average level during the year, had a positive impact on the European automotive suppliers’ WC performance. In contrast, the weakness of the US dollar against the euro during the same periods was a negative factor for those headquartered in the US. The sharp fall in the Japanese yen against the US dollar and the euro had a negative impact on the WC performance of Japanese automotive suppliers.

Weaker commodity prices: Prices in 2013 for many of the raw materials used by the automotive supply industry (including steel, aluminum and other metallic materials, as well as rubber and petrochemical-based products) were generally much lower than in 2012, resulting in lower inventory levels balances for the automotive supply industry. Note that while agreements in the automotive supply industry usually include price adjustment provisions, the sharing of costs remains a subject for negotiations with customers.

C2C

North America Europe Japan All regions

Reduction >5% 9 6 3 18

0-5% 3 5 3 11

Increase >5% 4 2 7 13

0-5% 1 4 3 8

6 Cash on the road

Reductions in C2C since 2007, but with variations between regions and countries

The findings for 2013 show that the automotive supply industry as a whole has managed to reduce its C2C by 6% since 2007. However, the overall improvement masks significant variations between regions and countries.

Table 3. Change in WC metrics across the industry, 2007-13

3035404550556065

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013DSO DIO DPO C2C

All regions 2013 Change 13/07

DSO 56 -6%

DIO 37 2%

DPO 45 1%

C2C 48 -6%

20

30

40

50

60

70

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013North America Europe Japan All

C2C 2013 Change 13/07

North America 33 -9%

Europe 54 -15%

Japan 55 10%

All regions 48 -6%

Cash on the road6

Source:

7Cash on the road

Table 4. Number of companies within each region and % change in C2C, 2013 vs. 2007

Variations in WC performance overall and for each componentThe automotive supply industry has undergone a period of considerable change in recent years. These changes have been caused by a number of factors, including consolidation of vehicle platforms; accelerating shift of demand to rapidly-growing markets; growth of alliances and arrangements among competing OEMs, including shared purchasing of components; growing importance of electronics in the automotive supply chain and rising product complexity; supply chain globalization; industry consolidation; and continuing pricing pressures from OEMs.

Against this highly challenging background, automotive suppliers have managed to reduce their C2C by 7% since 2007. In the same period, DSO was much lower (down 6%) and DPO slightly higher (up 1%). In contrast, DIO rose by 2%. Overall improvement in WC performance can be primarily attributed to progress in billing and cash collection, as well as to more efficient manufacturing, supply chain and procurement operations.

It is worth noting that these latter WC results are in marked contrast to the flat performance reported in the previous five years (2002–07).

Better receivables performance: In addition to the continuing benefits of greater attention to billing and cash collection, the primary cause of the overall change in DSO can be found in diverging trends in payment terms with OEMs over time. In both Europe and Japan, OEMs appear to have paid early or negotiated shorter terms since 2007. In contrast, North American OEMs have extended terms or paid late. Some have terminated supplier fast-pay programs and have changed terms, for example, from pay on shipment to pay on receipt. A gradual change in the geographical sales mix has also influenced receivables performance.

Overall, 60% of the companies analyzed reported an improvement in receivables performance since 2007.

Broad inventory performance deterioration: Suppliers have been increasingly taking on design and manufacturing roles that were previously carried on by OEMs. As a result, there has been a significant shift of industry inventory towards upstream suppliers. Extended supply chains (with increased levels of inventory in transit) and continuing instability in OEMs production schedules have also contributed to the deterioration in inventory performance. Simultaneous over-capacity in mature markets and growth in rapid-growth markets also made supply chains harder to manage. This has been partly mitigated by progress made by suppliers in streamlining their own supply chains and passing on the cost further up the supply chain. Overall, 60% of the companies analyzed reported an deterioration in inventory performance since 2007.

Stronger payables performance: Progress in this area continued to be supported by better management of the procurement and payables process. Companies are seeking to drive greater efficiencies by leveraging and consolidating spend, changing payment terms, standardizing processes and working more closely with their own suppliers. Consolidation in the automotive supply industry has also created larger Tier 1 suppliers. Their increased buying power enables them to extract better cash terms from suppliers further upstream. However, the degree of change varied between companies, reflecting variations in strategies and tactics. For example, some companies chose to stretch terms with their main suppliers, or reduced their supplier base to achieve greater leverage in negotiations. Others opted for faster payment in return for enhanced cash discounts. Overall, only one-third of the companies analyzed reported an improvement in payables performance since 2007.

C2C

North America Europe Japan All regions

Reduction >5% 8 10 5 23

0-5% 1 2 0 3

Increase >5% 8 4 9 21

0-5% 0 1 2 3

Source: EY analysis, based on publicly available annual financial statements

8 Cash on the road

Variations in WC performance by regionOf the three main regions and countries, Europe reported the biggest reduction in C2C since 2007. North America also showed better results. In contrast, WC performance for Japan deteriorated.

Europe reported a drop of 15% in C2C since 2007, with an accelerated rate of reduction compared with the previous five years. Each WC component contributed to this improved performance. DSO and DIO were down 8% and 3%, respectively, while DPO was up 8%. The performance in receivables benefited particularly from the decisions by European OEMs to ease terms or pay early. Seventy percent of the companies analyzed in Europe reported lower C2C.

North America saw a fall of 9% in C2C since 2007, but the pace of reduction has been uneven over this period. DSO was lower (down 5%), thanks to improvements made in billing and cash collection and to positive changes in payment policies among certain OEMs. These more than offset the negative impact of some US OEMs stretching terms with their suppliers. DPO was also higher (+3%), but this was offset by an increase in DIO (up 2%). A majority

of companies analyzed in North America reported lower C2C. It is also important to note that in addition to the economic and financial challenges mentioned above, the profound restructuring of the US automotive industry in recent years has had a significant impact on the supply industry’s WC.

Japan, in contrast with other regions, reported a much higher C2C in 2013 than in 2007 (+10%), which more than wiped out the progress made in the previous five years. DSO was lower (-3%), benefiting from more favorable payment terms with OEMs, but this was largely offset by a combination of an increase in DIO (up 9%) and a decline in DPO (down 10%). 70% of the companies analyzed in Japan reported a deterioration in WC performance. WC performance in Japan over time has been severely affected by a number of external factors, including movements of the yen against other currencies and the impact of natural disasters and anti-Japanese protests in China. In contrast with most suppliers in other regions, Japanese suppliers’ performance continues to be closely tied to the operating and financial conditions imposed by a limited number of domestic customers.

9Cash on the road

Wide variations in current WC performance across regions

WC performance in the automotive supply industry varies widely across and within regions. These performance gaps are partly down to variations between different countries’ customer bases and payment practices, and partly to the differences in the commercial, manufacturing and logistics strategies deployed by the companies analyzed within each region.Comparing the WC performances of different regions needs to be approached with a particular nuance in mind. Since some of the business done by North American, European and Japanese suppliers takes place outside their home regions, their WC results to some degree reflect global market conditions as well as those in the regions where they are based.

Looking at 2013 performance, North American automotive suppliers exhibit by far the lowest C2C (33 days), owing to superior performance in each WC metric. In contrast, European and Japanese automotive suppliers carry much higher C2C (54 days and 55 days, respectively).

More specifically, North American automotive suppliers carry the lowest DIO (29 days). This can be attributed to companies in this region having simpler manufacturing and supply chain structures, while their counterparts in Europe tend to have their operations dispersed across a large number of different countries. Vendor-managed inventory arrangements (VMIs) are also less widely used outside North America.

A further regional difference is that suppliers in North America exhibit much higher DPO than their peers in Europe and Japan. While trade terms are generally longer in Europe and Japan, the trend toward globalization in sales and procurement may have dampened the effect of regional payment practices. Some companies also choose to pursue extended payment terms rather than opting to pay faster in return for cash discounts.

In contrast with DIO and DPO, variations in DSO between different regions were more limited. This reflects the global and highly concentrated nature of the industry’s customer base, with most automotive suppliers realizing a significant proportion of their sales outside the region where they are headquartered.

Our analysis also shows a wide spread of C2C performance among companies within each region. Using standard deviation as a measure, North America has the lowest spread (19 days) of the three regions, while Europe has the highest (41 days).

9Cash on the road

10 Cash on the road

Table 5. WC metrics by region, 2013

Table 6. C2C performance distribution by company within region, 2013

*Weighted

C2C by region

Source: EY analysis, based on publicly available annual financial statements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

North America Europe Japan

Days

Bottom quartile

Top quartile

Weighted average

North America Europe Japan All regions

DSO 55 56 57 56

DIO 29 43 38 37

DPO 51 45 39 45

C2C 33 54 55 48

C2C Average* Top quartile Bottom quartile Standard deviation

North America 33 26 57 19

Europe 54 37 79 41

Japan 55 31 66 27

11Cash on the road

Size matters in WC performance

Our analysis also reveals that large automotive suppliers not only carry much lower WC requirements than their smaller peers, but that the WC performance gap between the two sub-groups has been widening since 2007.In 2013, large automotive suppliers’ C2C was between 10% and 30% lower than that of their smaller peers across different regions. In 2007, C2C of large automotive suppliers in North America and Europe was lower than that of their smaller peers by 8% and 4%, respectively, while being 7% higher for those based in Japan.

These overall results confirms that their higher scale has provided larger companies with better opportunities to resist pressure from OEMs, negotiate favorable payment terms, and drive greater efficiency in manufacturing, supply chain and procurement operations.

Table 7. C2C differential between large companies and their smaller peers, 2013 and 2007

Source: EY analysis, based on publicly available annual financial statements

C2C differential

North America Europe Japan

2013 -30% -12% -10%

2007 -8% -4% 7%

11Cash on the road

12 Cash on the road

Opportunities going forward

The wide variations that our research reveals in WC performance between different automotive suppliers in each region point to significant potential for improvement — amounting to an aggregate US$51b of cash for the top 50 automotive suppliers. Part of the performance gap between companies within each region may be as a result of differences in country and customer sales mix, manufacturing and supply chain infrastructure, the degree of vertical integration and the nature of supply contracts. Yet, on their own, these factors are not sufficient to explain the size of the gap. This suggests that there are fundamental differences in the degree of management focus on cash and process efficiency between companies within each region.

Our benchmarking analysis suggests that the leading 50 automotive suppliers have between US$21b and US$51b of cash unnecessarily tied up in WC processes, equivalent to between 4% and 10% of their aggregate sales. Note that the range of cash opportunity identified in 2013 is close to the level calculated a year before.

This gap has been calculated by comparing the WC performance of each company within each region with that of the average (low estimate) and the upper quartile (high estimate) of its peer group. Even at the top of each range, our experience across many projects, industries and geographies shows that a dedicated focus on WC management can often realize results at or above this level.

Table 8. WC cash opportunity, 2013

Source: EY analysis, based on publicly available annual financial statements

Case studies

Cash opportunity

Value (US$b) % WC scope* % Sales

Average Upper quartile

Average Upper quartile

Average Upper quartile

US 4 13 5% 18% 2% 7%

Europe 9 23 11% 28% 4% 11%

Japan 8 15 14% 24% 5% 9%

Total 21 51 11% 25% 4% 10%

*WC scope = sum of trade receivables, inventories and accounts payable

Source: EY analysis, based on publicly available annual financial statements

Cash on the road12

13Cash on the road

A global Tier 1 automotive supplier pursued a number of initiatives to improve receivables management during the past few years, but felt that performance could be much improved. A EY project team was engaged to review the existing processes and design an action plan to implement leading practices. The planned steps included: setting up a collection and dispute management process; designing a receivables management organizational structure that clearly defines roles and responsibilities; introducing reports and metrics to monitor and assess progress; and putting in place the right incentives to motivate and change internal behaviors.

EY was engaged by another large Tier 1 automotive supplier to help implement a global supplier payments extension program. This involved segmenting the supplier base by industry and country; implementing changes to payment terms, trigger and frequency, while ensuring compliance with the latest 2011 European payment directive (including understanding the accepted exceptions to the rules based on location and industry); and documenting the related policies and processes. Recommendations on new standard terms are also based on a review of the median and third quartile receivables performance of the main suppliers, rounded to the nearest 15-day increment.

Case studies

13Cash on the road

14 Cash on the road

Driving working capital excellence

As the pace and scale of industry change continue to escalate, automotive suppliers seeking to achieve further progress in WC will need to focus on a number of key initiatives. These include:

Further streamlining of manufacturing and supply chains to drive greater efficiencies, optimize asset utilization and build higher responsiveness into systems and processes

Closer collaboration with OEMs, enabling enhanced visibility of demand and supply, improved forecasting accuracy and greater supply chain reliability

Better coordination between supply, planning, manufacturing, procurement and logistics functions and processes

Improvements in billing and cash collections by setting an effective organizational structure for collections and dispute management, tightening controls around terms and contracts and consolidating billing processes to accelerate invoice production

More efficient billing of costs incurred under engineering, tooling and R&D contracts

More effective management of payment terms for customers and suppliers, including renegotiation of terms

Intensification of spend consolidation and standardization, by increasing global sourcing while rationalizing the supplier base, expanding shared-services, developing e-sourcing and reducing complexity in products and processes

Increased use of VMI practices, enabling better ordering, production and delivery planning and scheduling for the supplier, and reduced inventory levels and risk of stock-outs for the customer

Alignment of business processes and information systems up and down the value chain to share real-time and accurate supply and demand information

Active management of the trade-offs between cash, cost, service levels and risks (choosing, for example, between customer payment terms and sales price rebates, supplier payment terms and early payment discounts, or inventory levels for consignment stock arrangements and customer service levels) that are sometimes required with various WC strategies

Implementation of more robust supply chain risk management policies, by improving network visibility, securing long-term supplies, ensuring dual sourcing and monitoring the financial viability of Tier 2 and 3 suppliers and their ability to perform as expected

Tracking and monitoring WC metrics and linking compensation to these metrics

Cash on the road14

15Cash on the road

Whether through process improvements, elevated execution of policies or changes to commercial terms, our professionals can help companies pinpoint and capitalize on improvement opportunities and realize the resulting benefits.

We can assist organizations in their transition to a cash-focused culture and help implement the relevant metrics. We can also identify areas for improvement in cash flow forecasting practices and then assist in implementing processes to improve forecasting and frameworks in order to sustain those improvements.

Companies that undertake working capital improvement initiatives often realize a high ROI. In addition to increased levels of cash, significant cost benefits may also arise from process optimization, through reduced transactional and operational costs and from lower levels of bad and doubtful debts and inventory obsolescence. Our working capital professionals are there to help wherever you do business.

EY’s global network of working capital professionals helps clients to identify, evaluate and prioritize realizable improvements to drive greater control over cash flows, as well as address working capital opportunities and challenges.

How EY can help

This report is based on a review of the WC performance of 50 of the largest automotive suppliers (by sales) headquartered in North America (17 companies), Europe (17) and Japan (16). Most of them are Tier 1 suppliers

Methodology

The North American companies are: American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings, BorgWarner, Cooper Tire & Rubber, Dana Holding, Delphi, Federal-Mogul, Gentex, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Johnson Controls, Lear, Magna International, Meritor, Modine Manufacturing, Superior Industries, Tenneco, TRW Automotive Holdings and Visteon.

The European companies are: Autoliv, Brembo, Continental, Faurecia, ElringKlinger, Georg Fischer, GKN, Grammer, Haldex, Leoni, Michelin, Nokian Tyres, Plastic Omnium, Robert Bosch, Sogefi, Trelleborg and Valeo.

The Japanese companies are: Aisin Seiki, Bridgestone, Calsonic Kansei, DENSO, Fuji Kiko, Ichiko Industries, Kasai Kogyo, Keihin, NHK Spring, Takata, Tokai Rika, Toyo Tire & Rubber, Toyota Boshoku, Toyoda Gosei, Yachiho Industry and Yokohama.

The review on which the report is based is both industry-, region- and country-specific. It uses metrics based on publicly available annual financial statements.

The WC performance of individual companies is not disclosed.

Glossary• DSO (days sales outstanding): year-end trade receivables net

of provisions, including VAT and adding back securitized and factored receivables, divided by full-year pro forma sales and multiplied by 365 (expressed as a number of days of sales, unless stated otherwise)

• DIO (days inventory outstanding): year-end inventories net of provisions, divided by full-year pro forma sales and multiplied by 365 (expressed as a number of days of sales, unless stated otherwise)

• DPO (days payable outstanding): year-end trade payables, including VAT and adding back trade-accrued expenses, divided by full-year pro forma sales and multiplied by 365 (expressed as a number of days of sales, unless stated otherwise)

• C2C (cash-to-cash): equals DSO, plus DIO, minus DPO (expressed as a number of days of sales, unless stated otherwise)

• Pro forma sales: reported sales net of VAT and adjusted for acquisitions and disposals when this information is available

EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory

About EYEY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities.

EY refers to the global organization and may refer to one or more of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com.

How EY’s Global Automotive Center can help your business The global recession reset the automotive sector landscape. As the sector recovers, automotive companies across the value chain must focus on profitable and sustainable growth, financial and operational stability, investments in new technologies and seizing opportunities in high-growth markets. If you lead an automotive business, you need to anticipate trends, identify implications and make informed decisions that support your business goals. Our Global Automotive Center enables our worldwide network of more than 7,000 sector-focused assurance, tax, transaction and advisory professionals to share powerful insights and deep sector knowledge with businesses like yours. These insights, combined with our technical experience in every major global automotive market, will help you to accelerate strategies and improve performance. Whichever segment of the automotive sector you are in — from component suppliers to commercial or light vehicle manufacturers or retailers — we can provide the insights you need to succeed.

© 2014 EYGM Limited. All Rights Reserved.

EYG no. ED0116 CSG/GSC2014/1375387 ED None

In line with EY’s commitment to minimize its impact on the environment, this document has been printed on paper with a high recycled content.

This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as accounting, tax, or other professional advice. Please refer to your advisors for specific advice.

ey.com/automotive

Name Telephone number Email

Americas

Steve Payne +1 212 773 0562 steve.payne@ey.com

Asia

Alvin Tan +65 6309 8030 alvin-cy.tan@sg.ey.com

Australia

Wayne Boulton +61 3 9288 8016 wayne.boulton@au.ey.com

Benelux

Danny Siemes +31 88 407 8834 danny.siemes@nl.ey.com

Canada

Simon Rockcliffe +1 416 943 3958 simon.rockcliffe@ca.ey.com

Chris Stepanuik +1 416 943 2752 chris.stepanuik@ca.ey.com

Finland

Gösta Holmqvist +358 207 280 190 gosta.holmqvist@fi.ey.com

France

Benjamin Madjar +33 1 55 61 00 67 benjamin.madjar@fr.ey.com

Germany

Dirk Braun +49 619 6996 27586 dirk.braun@de.ey.com

Bernhard Wenders +49 211 9352 13851 bernhard.wenders@de.ey.com

India

Ankur Bhandari +91 22 6192 0590 ankur.bhandari@in.ey.com

Latin America

Matias De San Pablo +54 11 4318 1542 matias.de-san-pablo@ar.ey.com

Sweden

Johan Nordström +46 8 5205 9324 johan.nordstrom@se.ey.com

Peter Stenbrink +46 8 5205 9426 peter.stenbrink@se.ey.com

Switzerland

Thomas Pallgen +41 58 286 40 08 thomas.pallgen@ch.ey.com

UK&I

Jon Morris +44 20 7951 9869 jmorris10@uk.ey.com

Matthew Evans +44 20 7951 7704 mevans1@uk.ey.com

Paul New +44 20 7951 0502 pnew1@uk.ey.com

Marc Loneux +44 20 7951 3784 mloneux@uk.ey.com

US

Edward Richards +1 212 773 6688 edward.richards@ey.com

Peter Kingma +1 312 879 4305 peter.kingma@ey.com

Mark Tennant +1 212 773 3426 mark.tennant@ey.com

Eric Wright +1 408 947 5475 eric.wright@ey.com

Global Automotive Center contacts

Mike Hanley

Global Automotive Leader

+1 313 628 8260 michael.hanley02@ey.com

Mark Short

Global Automotive TAS Leader

+1 313 628 8760 mark.short@ey.com

Contacts