The following is excerpted from the question-and-answer section of the transcript.
(Questions from industry analysts are provided in full, but answers are omitted - download the transcript to see the full question-and-answer session)
Question: Joseph Robert Spak - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division - Analyst
: I wanted to maybe follow on a little bit about the rightsizing of SS&M. And you had this comment about cash flow neutral for that business by '21.
And since it sounds like you shrinking it, obviously, the CapEx comes down. But does that also imply -- like that statement, you could sort of read
into it that maybe you get back to a positive EBITDA before that timeframe? Is that how you're thinking about the cadence of that? And this -- the
cash flow neutrality is maybe a little bit later?
Question: Joseph Robert Spak - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division - Analyst
: Yes. I guess the other -- maybe if you could've said something like is it -- it's been, it's a little bit unclear to me anyway in terms of the new recliner
series, and I think also the common architecture that you talked about in Europe. Like, it sounds like, though, that has cost -- that has weighed on
profits, so probably didn't come on as profitable as you imagined. And it seems like what you're saying is you actually need -- there's definitely
some improvements you can do internally, but you also sort of need the volumes higher. So I guess, I don't understand exactly what the turning
point is for those businesses from a volume perspective? And like how should we think about -- why time range for when you can sort of turn those
businesses or turn those new products, I guess, around?
Question: Joseph Robert Spak - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division - Analyst
: Good. So it's not necessarily a volume issue on the common architecture, it's a commercial issue and getting the pricing for the different variants
that evolved that you didn't initially expect.
|
