Third Bridge专家访谈讨论麦格纳业务剥离、ADAS利润率与汽车零部件行业压力

[[00:01:40]]
What were your initial thoughts on Magna International's April 2026 announcement to divest the lighting and rooftop systems business for approximately EUR 1.1bn? Do you think there are other non-core or low-margin business units that the company can divest?

[[00:02:09]]
Yes. I think in general, the automotive situation globally is very challenging and Magna as well as other tier 1s have had and will have a difficult time for some more in the future as well, I would say. Magna is a very big company. Of course, they continuously look at the different groups, the portfolios, how can they collaborate together, the margin levels, etc. I was not surprised that this happened. Then from my point of view, it was not super clear. The rooftop was pretty clear, I would say. For the Lighting business, that was not something that I fully saw coming, but that something was divested that I was quite convinced about. The margin levels are very challenging. Now mainly coming from the ADAS section where we still have a very high investment level on technology to be a step ahead or to take market shares. Of course, also the other parts of the car needs to be competitive. As I said, it's extremely challenging with the margins, and you need to find new ways of how to sell, how to put up your business models, etc, to make sure you reach the margins expected from the market.

[[00:03:45]]
Were there any other business units that could be divested? Or, as you mentioned, was Magna just looking for one key divestiture?

[[00:03:57]]
I think it can. Depending on how the future is developing, it could also be that more parts needs to be divested. My view is not that that will happen very soon if Magna is not forced to it depending on the cost situation and the new business inflow that comes.

[[00:04:26]]
Could you discuss Magna's corporate structure? How does it affect the risk profile when one programme or segment underperforms compared to competitors that are more pure-play in one segment?

[[00:04:42]]
I would say a player such big as Magna with all these different groups, it gives them some flexibility. They can accept periods with lower margins in some segments and cover up with the more higher-margin groups. That balances it out a bit. I would say that from that perspective, the risk level is lower for a company like Magna. On the other hand, all business needs to be healthy at the end. During some period of time, you can balance it like that. I would say that Magna as a company is also driven very much group by group. If you have a group that are not performing, then you are always under the microscope and checked if this should be continued or not or what needs to be done to improve the margins. Of course, for some time periods, they have the flexibility and can cover it or balance it for some period of time compared to a smaller tier 1 that, of course, if you don't show the margins in your product portfolio, it hits you immediately. Of course, that is a big difference in the risk level. As I said, Magna is tracking their groups separately and are looking as them at more or less free-standing companies. They definitely have their eyes on it and the push to run it as a healthy business overall.

[[00:06:29]]
Are there any key enhancements to Magna's structural or organisational direction? Do you think the company should continue operating with its current product groups, or are there any sharp pivots that it needs to make?

[[00:06:47]]
I think there are some, but I think also the main thing with Magna is that a few years ago before Swamy joined, they worked even more like separate companies. Even inside each group, each site, production site, etc, is also handled or was handled quite separately. When Swamy came in, he wanted to make Magna International more like one company, still with the full responsibility in each group, but to find the synergies and make that more efficient and find both collaborations in technology between the groups, but also ways of working and things like that. This is always a balance, I would say the challenge and what Magna needs to think about is that they cannot both have the cake and eat the cake. If they want to run the group separately as own companies, then I think you need to choose that road. If they want to do it more as one company, one Magna, they need to work it like that because otherwise, you end up with the customers and suppliers in a tricky situation at the end. Where you try to pick and choose when you want to be one big Magna and when you want to be separate companies in the company. I think they need to be a bit careful there and be clear with customers and suppliers about how Magna is run and what the customers, especially the customers can expect from it.

[[00:08:35]]
What are the risks to customers and suppliers from those two structural approaches?

[[00:08:53]]
Some examples is since they are running it as separate groups with the customers, if you do that one week and in some negotiations and are clear that the groups are separate, and we don't bunch things together. If you, for example, have the semiconductor shortage situation that we had or other situations and then suddenly try to bundle things with the customers, then it is very difficult because that's what I mean with have the cake and eat the cake. You can do that of course, if it's positive for the customers, but if you do it when you want to pick and choose as a supplier, that makes it very difficult for the customers. It also makes it difficult for the different groups in Magna to know when are we doing things on a full company level, Magna International as one company and when are we doing it per group. With a company like Magna of 180,000 employees, it's difficult for the teams as well if you one day should run it as one company and one day should run it as a separate one.

I think Magna can definitely have good benefits of both getting the synergies, the lessons learned from each other, help each other in some situations, but it needs to be crystal clear with the customers if they are working with one company or five companies. Then, of course, with some of the customers, they can also bundle business from start. You get a combination between the groups and they work together. For example, they have the mirror and the camera looking at the driver, the driver monitoring system in the mirror, which is a very good example of two groups in Magna have worked together as one supplier. It needs to be clear that that is what's happening. It's more the interfaces and how you handle this with the customers and suppliers in that case. Suppliers, I would say, is a bit different because there Magna can have benefits of bunching purchases together, of course, because then the volumes are going up, etc.

[[00:11:27]]
Magna's strong free cash flow generation gives it flexibility. What are the company's priorities around capital allocation? What's the balance between organic and inorganic growth?

[[00:11:50]]
I would say that when Magna bought Veoneer Active Safety, it was one of the biggest acquisitions that they have made during all years. I know they have had a few bigger ones before, but this was really a big one. It was also clear at that point of time that this is not something that they will do often. Of course, smaller acquisitions could be of interest. To do this more complex or really big acquisitions is not what I believe that they will do. I think that they will maybe do some smaller ones and together with organic growth.

[[00:12:43]]
ADAS [advanced driver-assistance systems] customers frequently request premium, high-cost components, but also want or demand lower overall prices. How does Magna's electronics segment structurally protect its margins when OEMs hold high negotiating leverage over high-cost merchant chips?

[[00:13:12]]
In general, as I mentioned in the beginning, it's extremely important in the ADAS world, how you build up your business models and not just continue as the automotive business has done for many years to have a hardware product, you add your margin and then you have the price. It's a lot of software included in this. It's a lot of system solutions generations, things like that. As a tier 1 supplying ADAS, you definitely need to find business models with licence agreement with subscription solution, things like that. It's not easy to push it in with the customers that are used to work in this different way since before. I would say that that is crucial to survive and find the solutions for the customers that really add value so that they can add on their side, the price adds for these solutions. That is one thing. Then I would say also definitely a lot of customers are very clear that they want to have a specific chip or a specific solution or a specific supplier.

With Magna that are big and are targeting very wide range of customers, both the high-end ones and the low-end ones and different price levels, etc, and different customers globally. I think that they really need to form offers for the different segments that they are targeting to try to have one offer that fits both the high-end cars mainly with the OEMs that knows exactly what they want to do, together with having the more big volume cars where they want an easy solution that they can put in the car. This also balance a bit because sometimes the suppliers can also fight each other a bit there. Magna needs to build up these different offers, I would say, so that they can continue to target a wide range of OEMs. That, together with these business models with licence subscriptions, to actually get paid for the software portion and the features that are generated and delivered to the customer, I think that would be the successful way forward.

[[00:15:59]]
What is the current customer reception of paying separate recurring licensing or software monetisation fees for system-level perception software rather than having a one-time component price? Are OEMs successfully pushing back against that software monetisation strategy?

[[00:16:21]]
I would say it's a mix. Some customers are definitely pushing back and just want to have a one-time payment for the solution. More and more customers are actually opening up for this licence-based things or subscriptions, mainly licence, I would say, subscriptions is still tough. We also see that many of the OEMs are doing this same thing with their customers at the end. The end users of the car, you just connect the car and you buy your apps, you can buy it for a day or a week or an upgrade or for a specific trip. Here, I think the tier 1 really need to find how they could do this in a balanced way.

I said before that you can form your offer, not just here, you have a hardware with a software on it doing everything but instead have a hardware with a basic software portion, but then you can also have these add-ons and pay extra for. A number of customers are already there. It's more easy, I would say. They see that this is the new way of doing business. Some are not. There, I think also even if the customer don't want to have a licence payment or a licence cost when they are buying it, you can still bake it in and still find it in the price from the start, mainly, I would say, for low-end cars. For the high end, I would say they are more open for this type of business models.

[[00:18:20]]
Magna targets a 6.5% EBIT margin in 2026. What are the difficulties in reaching that, specifically for the ADAS segment?

[[00:18:36]]
I would say that it's not so much related to electric vehicles compared to combustion engines, but it definitely can impact how different platforms are released and the timing of these type of things. Then, of course, again, back to what I said before, this with finding the business models with the licence fees, etc, because if you continue to just sell ADAS as a product with a one-time payment, it's extremely difficult to be competitive in the market today. You need to find these smart ways of making an offer that could be a bit of cherry picking, so the customers can say, "I want this, but I don't need this one, but I need this one." Adjust their package to something that fits with their customer base at the end. I would say, from a risk perspective, definitely the risk that the timing of different platforms or releases can impact, can be a risk. The global situation, of course, with that we have today can impact. It's more the unknowns that you still need to handle, but that's the same for everyone. You end up mainly in this how you sell the products. You can still be competitive and win the business at the same time as you can have these add-ons to make sure you increase the margins. 6.5% from my perspective in ADAS is still challenging, but it can definitely be done if you do it in the right way.

[[00:20:39]]
What's a realistic margin ceiling for Magna's ADAS and electronics business over the next 2-3 years? What structural changes must happen to achieve that in the medium term?

[[00:20:57]]
I'm not sure I can give you an exact number of what's reachable, but definitely positive margins. Again, I think going back to what we talked about before with this adjusted offers for the different segments in the market, that I think is definitely needed because if you try to sell the same product to high end and low end, you will definitely not win all the business and you will not get the margins you need. You need to find the right level for each customer at the end, not doing just customer-specific solutions, but make sure you develop smart solutions with a base package. I still think you need to have two different branches or two different offers or maybe more than two, but for the low end and high end so that you can choose the more expensive components, chips, solutions for the high end that they require, but you also have a more low-cost solution, so you can balance it in that way.

To have this because then you can really work with the margins for each customer segment. There, I also see the potential in the high-end segment to actually have a higher amount of these add-ons or licence additional things that can be sold and that could really increase the margins. On the low-end ones, usually, it's higher volumes. There, you can play more with the volume aspect, and that's why it's also very important to find the right chipset and hardware for the products, doing the work that the low-end OEMs really ask for. That, I think, is key in the ADAS portion to be successful, definitely.

[[00:22:54]]
How do you think Magna should approach customer recovery negotiations with OEMs to offset inflation and programme volatility?

[[00:23:14]]
I would say, in general, I think a few years ago, it was more difficult to get compensation from OEMs with cost increases in different ways depending or independently on what it was about. Today, I would say that more customers are open for it or understand it. Here, we are coming back to how Magna can play this in different ways because one thing is, of course, that they can play this as One Magna collectively together with all groups and negotiate. That could be good in some situations because then you can leverage in some way. You, of course, are a very strong player when you are that big as a tier 1. On the other hand, it can also create difficulties because if you have a few groups that are very close to the customer, have a very good relationship, good discussions, but then you have some other groups that are not at the same point with the customer, this can make it even more difficult.

It's a balance when you push like one big Magna and when you decide the groups to do it. It's also a bit different from OEM to OEM. Some OEMs see Magna as one Magna all the time and some actually see the groups more as separate depending on the setup organisation at the OEM as well. Here, I would say that all tier 1s, including Magna, really need to make sure that they are covered for the extra costs, but to do it in a smart way, so the customer feels it's a win-win, because if they are not doing that, the margins will never work out. It's too many unknowns and knowns that we have today that impact the margin very fast. A very close and open dialogue with the OEMs. I think to make sure that they are involved in the details or what will happen in the short future anyhow. It's not a surprise coming up from the side.

[[00:25:45]]
How does Magna use its total multi-segment footprint to exert leverage over OEM customers during commercial recovery disputes on a single underperforming programme?

[[00:26:03]]
Let's see if I have some good examples or ideas about that. Of course, Magna have a big footprint and are close to the customers, but I still think when it comes to negotiations about recoveries or similar things like that, many of the OEMs are still doing it from a global perspective. It's not that often you do it just with one plant or one place in the world. I don't see that in this matter, it has a big impact. Then, of course, to be close to the customers, if you have more quality issues or need to be close, many OEMs have the requirement or the request to have people close. There, they definitely can play with it. Since the groups are also still so separate, it's not so easy, let's say, that electronics have an issue somewhere where another group have their footprint. It's not that easy. Of course, they can send a person or do something very light. At the end, it's still too much separate groups to be able to help each other work in that way.

[[00:27:33]]
Could you discuss the operational excellence initiatives that Magna implemented to drive margin recovery? Where do you think the remaining pockets of operational fat still need to be trimmed?

[[00:27:56]]
It has been a very high focus for a number of years now, and I also see that it has a good result to some extent, definitely. Unfortunately, I think that with operational excellence, you can reach a certain level. Depending on how the automotive develops now in the next 12-18 months, it could also be that Magna should look at or are looking at the footprint and the number of sites. The history with Magna is that it was a lot of smaller companies that was bought and then you had a lot of production sites and the overhead at the end gets too expensive. I think this is partly what we see with the divests that are done. In general, I think we will see that Magna look at reducing the number of both production sites, but also engineering sites, etc, and try to consolidate a bit. It's normally the efficient way to decrease the overhead costs in different ways.

Magna is as far as I know, one of the companies that have a really high amount of plants locally. That can be very good from how the people at the different sites are run. Usually, you have a higher responsibility level of the employees, you can get higher loyalty, things like that, close teams working together and can solve things fast and efficient. There are still a number of overhead costs that you cannot remove with that amount of sites. I think if we don't see a change in the automotive area with some increased sales in Europe, US, things like that, I do think that we will see that some closure of plants and sites will happen.

[[00:30:27]]
Magna is guiding lower warranty and facility launch costs for 2026. How confident are you that the company has structurally resolved the execution issues that have plagued past major programme roll-outs?

[[00:30:43]]
Now it's a bit more than a year ago, I left Magna, and I know that they are taking a lot of actions on this area, both with warranty and quality in general and high focus on that. I personally still see this as a big risk. I know that they have lowered it, and I hope that they will manage it. I'm still worried that things can pop up. To reach a quality level that are stable over time, it's usually not done fast. It usually takes time, and you really need to get this into each and every employee to have this quality focus to make sure that things are not happening. Also, I would say, with the lead times from that you implement a change or a new way of working or controls or whatever it is, you still have the lead time until you don't see it at the market or reduce it at the market. I really hope that they manage and that we can see this change, but I do see a risk that things are popping up for some more time.

[[00:32:07]]
From a cost and operational perspective, how do the unit economics and margins of contract manufacturing for China-based EV entrants compare to legacy premium European programmes for Magna?

[[00:32:32]]
I don't have too much insight there. In general, the Chinese OEMs are really tough negotiators. What I believe here is that, of course, it's good to fill up the production and the need from China is there. I hope that they have been able to negotiate okay deals from a Magna perspective. There, I'm still worried that it will be something that are done for a period of time. Depending on the automotive in general and how it develops and also how China continues to govern the Chinese OEMs, how much support they get from the government, etc, if they can continue to do it. Also, I think for China, this is a really good opportunity. It's a production site where they can build things in Europe already. It's European-built cars. That helps them a lot. Hopefully, then they are also ready to pay a bit more for it. We all know how tough the competition is in China and how tough negotiators they are. Definitely a risk. I don't have too much insight in that one. I'm a bit careful of saying too much there.

[[00:34:09]]
Historically, Magna's complete vehicle segment required significant volume to cover high fixed costs and deliver single-digit margins. With China-based OEMs utilising the plant, what realistic volume threshold does the Graz facility need from partners to return the segment to double-digit or stable profitability?

[[00:34:39]]
Since I don't have the insight there, not when they were producing even before the Chinese cars, I cannot answer that question in a fair way, I would say.

[[00:34:57]]
Regarding European EV adoption, has Magna historically dealt with pivoting from EV assembly lines or retooling to E-REV [extended-range EV], hybrids or ICE [internal combustion engine] platforms to protect utilisation within the company's facilities? Has that been a massive challenge in any way?

[[00:35:27]]
Yes. Magna have had a very high focus on this topic, definitely. Everything is tracked in EVs or compared to combustion engines. This is a very high focus topic. Then it's depending on the groups, I would say, again, because some of the groups are very much directly dependent on this, like powertrain and things like that. Some other groups like ADAS and mirrors, etc, are not as much impacted by that. As I mentioned before, the impact for some of the groups like ADAS or electronics, there, it's mainly about what release dates, what platforms, what new car releases that will happen and the timing of it. To some extent, other groups are very much impacted by this switch. Magna is definitely preparing for it. They are very much aware, of course, trying to do everything that is possible to make it as flexible as possible. In general, I would say they have a very high focus on this and track it in detail. Are doing what they can to make sure they keep the flexibility and can be fast in changing if the market turns out to go in different directions.

[[00:37:16]]
What is your view on the wider European EV adoption? What trends are you expecting in the space in the next 1-5 years or in the more near-term period?

[[00:37:35]]
In the near term, I would say the EVs are quite popular, and with the new releases that have longer range and easier to handle in that matter. I think it will continue. Of course, the growth of EVs that was planned, if we look like 3-5 years ago, we definitely see that that is not happening. I still think that there are some countries that are very much ahead when it comes to infrastructure and also with how the governments are handling this. I think it will still be a balance. I see a big difference if I compare Sweden, for example, with Italy or with Germany. This will look very different from country to country. In Europe, overall, I think it will continue to go slower than it was planned to for at least 12-24 months more. I think more over long term, if we talk about maybe five years or 3-5 years, then I do think still that the EVs will continue to grow definitely, maybe not take over completely, but at least take a bigger portion of the market. In the next 12-24 months, I don't think we will see a huge jump compared to where we are today, unfortunately.

[[00:39:27]]
How would you assess the trajectory of Magna's CAPEX spending over the last few years? Do you think the company's CAPEX allocation or the strategy around that has been efficient?

[[00:39:58]]
Here, I would say that Magna as a company are a bit old school in that manner when it comes to CAPEX and how much you invest for the future. My view is that they are a bit careful. Also when the automotive market entered into the more difficult years that we have been through, the CAPEX level has been decreased and which is normal. I think it's a risk. If you do that for too long, then you actually lose the speed in the development needed or in the equipment needed. You put yourself in a bad spot and a difficult or a higher risk situation. I think and I hope that by doing these divests that are planned, of course, they free up cash. That could, of course, help the CAPEX investments instead. If the market continue as of now, I think they will still be very careful with CAPEX. If the market turns a bit, they should be able to do some of these investments definitely.

[[00:41:31]]
Given Magna's customer relationships when customers delay or scale back EV platforms and then pivot between EV and ICE or hybrids, could you discuss what that does to the company's plant floors and OEM relationships?

[[00:42:00]]
Since I mainly was in the electronics portion, of course, working with the other groups. From the electronics perspective, as mentioned before, it's not a huge difference from these two or the different ones, if it's an EV or a hybrid or ICE, it's there, it doesn't have a huge impact. I would say that from the relationship in general for Magna when these things are happening, it's more about trying to stay as flexible as possible as we talked about before, do what they can do to be prepared to switch. The thing is if they have planned an EV and then it turns out that they cancel this one and go for an ICE solution or a hybrid, many times they have different suppliers for these different platforms.

There, I would say it's crucial for a player like Magna to make sure that they win the business independently on what platform the customer decide to go with. It's not that easy. One thing is, of course, to be flexible. Even if Magna would be 100% flexible, it doesn't just by being that, you don't always win the business anyhow if the OEM are changing. The contracts or agreements are, in this matter, almost only written to a favour for the OEM. If one car line is cancelled or delayed, it's not just to jump on another one, then that is a different track that you need to be on from start. The OEMs want to spread the risk, of course. Normally, they try to have at least a couple of suppliers for the different ones, depending on the product, of course.

[[00:44:06]]
Given how OEMs are trying to make the assembly of their vehicles more efficient and reduce the number of components or complexity, how does that generally impact tier 1s and their opportunities or volumes?

[[00:44:38]]
I see this as a natural step for all tier 1s actually. As a tier 1, you need to work very close to the customers, especially on the high-end side, I would say, because there things are moving faster and more intense. They are the first to market, and they usually have their engineering team and the development team very much focused on these type of things. You need to be close to them so that you can make sure that you can be a step ahead and have offers that gives this simplicity or efficiencies that the OEMs need. If you just sit and wait for RFQs, then I would say then you are missing the train. You are out at the end. You need to be there and actually both hand-in-hand and sometimes a step ahead to tell the OEMs what they need.

I think a player like Magna of that size, they have this opportunity to do that because they work with so many customers in so many different segments and with so many different products. They really have the conditions or preconditions to map this out and to actually have a really good offer for the customers. For the low-end cars, that is more the followers coming. There, I think you can take a portion of what you are doing with the first-to-market customers and copy paste, but you still need to do it to a lower price. You need to be a step ahead and definitely not just wait for our RFQs and offer what the OEM is asking for. You need to be more bold and you need to have proposals and suggestions and work hand-in-hand with the customers and the customer teams.

[[00:46:40]]
Could you discuss the structural mechanisms that Magna deploys to support its tier 2-3 suppliers and mitigate the disruptions within the company's own supply chain to prevent disruptions at the OEM level? How well does it work with suppliers?

[[00:47:09]]
There my view is that Magna have a high focus on this as well to make sure that the supply base is working good. There, I really see the big power of Magna being that size, having the volumes that they have with many of the important suppliers. Very close relationship, very close collaboration. When things are happening or if we have shortage or problems in production, Magna is a player that gets high attention, definitely, which is something, of course, that it makes it more safe for the OEMs at the end as well. For me coming from both smaller tier 1 or very much smaller tier 1 and also been working for Magna, that is a real power that I saw when I was there. how strong they can be together, definitely. At the end, it's always both with customers and suppliers. It is about the relationship. I'm convinced that it's people that we are working with. The closer you work together, the more transparent you can be, the more you can collaborate, the better position you end up in. It's both suppliers and customers. I think that's a winning concept at all time, even, of course, if the size of the business and the relationship is big enough, then you automatically get strong muscles.

[[00:48:52]]
What are your thoughts on Magna's short-term revenue growth and margin performance? What are you expecting from the company in the next 12-18 months?

[[00:49:11]]
I think, of course, depending on how the market develops in general and how the world develops and what's happening. If we look more on Magna specifically, I don't expect to see huge changes either in growth or in margin performance. I think that they will do smaller steps in the right direction, definitely. They have the right focus on a lot of things. They have the size to be able to be a strong player in the market. I do expect to see improvements, but no huge things in the next 12-18 months.

[[00:49:57]]
What do you think are the top 2-3 strategic priorities for Magna in the medium term?

[[00:50:07]]
I think, again, that if they should be successful with all the different segments, they need to do this adjusted offers for low and high end. Even if the volumes on the high-end OEMs today still looks like it's not growing as planned or even going down a bit with a lot of competition from China, for example. I think that they really need to find adjusted offers that fits the different segments without doing totally different products, but to play with what you can play with in the products, definitely. I also think that they need to internally have a clear strategy in how to work together with this One Magna compared to being the separate groups. How this is steered inside the company. I said before, Magna has been a very much group-focused company, more or less as totally separate companies.

Swamy took this to a much more One Magna, and I know that he's pushing a lot for this. To find the sweet spots there and understand where should we centralise things, where should we still have it decentralised in the groups to be as efficient as possible and still also keep the clear ownership in the right spot. I would say that for me, this is the two most important things because the last thing that I mentioned, that will also impact the customer view of Magna to a very high extent. The customers and OEMs, they need to understand if I'm working with One Magna as a big one or if I work with the group and how that impacts me as an OEM and in different solutions.

Then, of course, the OEM will always play this as it benefits them. They will say that they work with the group when that is beneficial, and they will say that they work with One Magna, the big International when it's beneficial for them in that manner. This is a tricky balance. Again, it will impact the relationships quite heavily. Both for the employees and for the customers and for suppliers. I think that is important to make happen because that also impacts the strategic decisions and the priorities for the future if the groups are doing it as separate ones or if Magna are doing it as One Magna. This could turn out very different depending on what they choose to do. Trying to do the middle way, I don't believe in, to be honest. I think that will make it very difficult for everyone involved.

[[00:53:14]]
What are the top 2-3 key risk factors or potential headwinds that could disrupt Magna's trajectory?

[[00:53:23]]
I think, of course, the external things, what will the automotive sales look like overall and how the OEMs will play this, both in automotive and other areas, many companies have been careful for a long time now and trying to hold back a bit because there are so many unknowns. It's simply not possible to continue to do it for too long. There Magna really need to be on their toes and make sure that they are on the train and part of this when things are starting to roll. One risk is that the sales will continue to be low in general. The other risk is also if it starts to ramp up, Magna needs to make sure that they are positioned there. That I see as a risk if they are not fully on their toes when it comes to that. I think also that depending on now the operational excellence and how it turns on or turns out, they need to continue to have this focus and to make sure that quality comes first.

If you have quality issues and warranties and problems, you are in a very bad spot from start. Continue to have this focus that they have started. I think it will take longer until they are fully there. As I said, it's not a quick fix. Continue to focus on the same things that they have done for some years now. I think the last portion from my view is this, as we talked about as well, the CAPEX portion, investments, if they are too careful and look at the numbers too much and the margin levels, it's a risk that they haven't done the right investments to really be in the game at the end. Be a bit bold there as well and take some of these investments needed, especially, I would say, on the software side, Magna, from my point of view, is a very much hardware-focused company. I think if they want to be a player in this more digital car at the end, independently if it's a self-driving or not, they need to take some risks there as well because otherwise, it turns out to be a risk that they don't do what's needed.

[[00:56:15]]
Do you have any other final thoughts, closing remarks or key takeaways from our discussion?

[[00:56:22]]
No, I don't think so.

[[00:56:23]]
Thanks so much for providing all that great insight into Magna. I really appreciate you spending this hour with us. Have a great rest of your day. We'll be in touch. Thank you.

[[00:56:33]]
Thank you.

Transcription ends at 00:56:34 of the recorded material