Dauch Corporation (DCH) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Okay. Great. Thanks for joining us for the next session. Once again, I'm Ryan Brinkman, U.S. auto analyst at JPMorgan. Very excited to get going now with American Axle. We have David Dauch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, who's going to make some opening remarks; and next to me is Chris May, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. So let me turn it over to David. Thank you.

Okay. Great. Well, good morning, everyone. Before we get going with my remarks, I'll just have you turn to our forward-looking statement regarding our investor deck that's posted on our website there. But as it relates to the second quarter, we had a solid financial quarter in the second quarter from a performance standpoint. Sales came in at $1.57 billion. Our EBITDA was around $192 million, a little over 12% EBITDA performance. We generated close to $100 million of free cash flow. So again, a strong cash flow quarter for us, synonymous with who we are as an organization, our performance that way. From a guidance standpoint, we did not change our guidance. We did not uplift or lower our guidance. We left it unchanged and maintained it. Sales in the range of $5.95 billion to $6.25 billion; EBITDA in the range of $725 million to $800 million; and then free cash flow, the $225 million to $300 million range, with North American production being at that 15.5 million is what we had identified. So I just want to make sure we convey that to you as well. As you all know, in the last quarter, the first quarter, we had an outstanding announcement in regards to the big Stellantis award win, full front e-Beam axles. We can't really get into much more detail beyond that, but it's a sizable contract with significant content per vehicle. Again, it just defines our relevancy with respect to our technology and our electrification efforts. So all the investments that we're putting in are really paying handsomely. This quarter, we announced a new beam axle award, a 2-in-1 solution for a China-based customer. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to announce that customer yet. We will at the appropriate time. So again, continued positive momentum on the electrification front on the beam axle side. We also won a number of components in subassembly work in the second quarter, one with a European OEM and the other with the North American OEM. Both of those accounts are sizable type programs that have good buying behind them as we go forward. And again, when we can announce those customers in those programs, we'll do that. So we feel really good about, like I said, where we are on electrification and the efforts that we're making there and continue to grow our backlog in new business, which sits at $725 million is what we covered from the '23 through '25 period of time. We just expect that to grow as we go forward. We are [ $41.5 million ] of new and incremental business. More than 75% of that is electrification based. So our backlog presently sits at about 40% electrified, with us quoting what we are, at 75% or more of the $1.5 billion. We only expect that electrification portion of our backlog to grow going forward. We've communicated that we think the overall electrification market by 2030 will be a $20 billion to $30 billion market. We're approaching the market in 4 different ways from a component standpoint. Think gears and shafts from a subassembly, think differentials and also gearboxes, and then from a final assembly standpoint, both from an electric drive unit and also from a beam axle standpoint. So we feel very good. We're one of the only few companies that can approach the market that way. We're winning business in all of those areas at this point in time on a global scale. But clearly, our home market is North America would be in 75% of our business. That's where the bigger opportunities are for us at this point in time. So as it relates to our strategy going forward here, again, we've been very consistent in regards of what we're doing from an execution standpoint. Our key, first and foremost, is to secure all of our ICE business going forward. We're very close to having that done. Matter of fact, we expect to wrap that up yet this year. That will be positive for us because the programs that we're on will be around for decades and will continue to be a source of cash generation for us. We're also obviously heavily focused on the operational performance of our business and driving cash and generating that cash that gives us optionality to fund R&D going forward, pay down debt and also look at strategic acquisitions where it makes business sense, much like we did last year with the Tekfor acquisition. We're also continuing to upgrade our product portfolio with a heavy emphasis on electrification. Probably the majority of what we're spending from an R&D standpoint is on the electrification side of things. As always, we'll continue to strengthen our balance sheet, and we continue to pay down debt each and every quarter. We'll do that as we go forward as well. We've been very disciplined. We've communicated that to the investment bank community, and we've been disciplined as a management team executing upon that. And then clearly, what the investors really want to see is that growth in that electrification side, and like I said, quarter after quarter, we're announcing new and incremental electrification wins, but obviously, the biggest one being Stellantis in the first quarter. So with that, that will complete my opening remarks. And Ryan, I'll turn it over to you.

Great. Thanks, David. We're asking each of the suppliers at the conference a few general questions, including as it relates to demand. Demand, generally surprised, stronger this year, right, particularly in the U.S. So just curious if you could sort of rate the strength of the different economies or end markets that you operate in that are most important for you and what your outlook is going forward?

Well, clearly, as I mentioned earlier, we have to start right here in North America. 75% of our business is here in North America. We are seeing an uptick in regards to volumes, which is why we raised our North American production from that 14.5 million and 15 million to the 15.5 million units. That's a positive for us. We're also starting to see the semiconductor issue subside, which is now allowing us to maybe start getting some stability in our schedules, although there are still issues out there with semiconductors. It's not gone yet, but it's subsided conservatively from where it was in the past. When you look to Europe, Europe has been a good market for us. So we won a number of electrification programs in Europe from an [indiscernible] and assembly, mainly in the EDU standpoint. But we also have a lot of component subassembly wins in Europe. We're starting to see that market starting to improve a little bit. With the Tekfor acquisition, that represents about 15% of our overall sales now. And then Asia is slowing a little bit in our product area, but still a good market for us, but we really see the biggest opportunity for us here in North America.

Some helpful comments there on the supply side as well. Next, I wanted to ask on sort of the backdrop for overall supplier margin. Supplier margins are ticking up this year in general, but still for most suppliers are a couple to several hundred basis points lower than where they were in 2019. So when you think about all of the macro and industry factors that roll up into supplier margin like the level and stability of production, some of the supply chain stuff we were talking about, the inflation and the pricing recoveries for that inflation, which doesn't come in at a margin, right? Where do you think we are in the path to normalization of supplier margins generally? Or maybe given the structurally higher cost, does it make sense to -- I don't know, maybe look at some other metrics like return on invested capital to gauge performance?

Let me go first, Chris, then I'll turn it over to you. When you look at pre-COVID, our margins were in that 16% to 18% range. At the same time, the average supplier was in that 10% to 12% range. Post-COVID, those margins for the supply base fell into high single digits. Our margins are now operating at that probably 11% to 13% range this past quarter at 12%. As you indicated, Ryan, inflation, some of the operating issues that are out there as far as the instability, the supply chain challenges, labor availability, continued to impact us in regards to our business right now. But if you just look at the operating performance, you look at metal market and you look at foreign exchange, those have all had a negative impact on us. But now that we're starting to see volumes recover, starting to get a little bit more stability in our operations and take out some of the inefficiencies, we expect to claw back to that margin going forward.

Yes, I think to put a little bit maybe some numbers around there, Ryan. If you think pre-COVID, right? What are the sort of the large items, David mentioned a little bit of them, that put pressure on supplier margins, us included? Volume, clearly. This is a volume industry, and you're starting to see now that plateau and start to move up, which is a positive. Metal market pass-throughs for us, which is significant, and we do spike these out on our year-over-year walk, so you can see the magnitude of that. But over the last, call it, 1 to 3 years, as these commodities have increased, we've seen an impact anywhere between 100 basis points to 300 basis points on our margin alone just on that pass-through mechanism. It's -- we call it margin math. So that clearly weighs on us. And to the extent that these commodities start to come back a little bit, come down, and we've seen some of that here in the first half of the year, you'll get some margin back from that perspective. And then you referred to the inflation pass-through. So I would say last year, inflation alone was a 100 basis point plus margin on us through inflation we retained plus the, again, margin math on the piece that we pass through. So if you think about those 3 macro elements and where they sit today versus where they were maybe 1 or 2 years ago, I would say the trends generally are positive from that standpoint. So there's clearly some upside to that, couple on with some of the performance in terms of improvements with more stability in schedules and stuff like that. There's clearly some opportunity to run here. So...

Great. Maybe you could talk about -- you touched on, but elaborate on some of those more significant electrification wins. Seems like you've had at least one every quarter for the past several quarters, of course, the most significant of which is that Stellantis award, which is a full system beam axle. Maybe talk about why they selected you for a full system integration approach as opposed to individual components. But you had one in China and one in India, 2, all beam axle. Do you think you're gaining traction in the marketplace with your beam axle solutions?

[indiscernible] we're gaining traction globally around the world with all of our electrification solutions, beam axle will be in a very important part of that. If you just go back and look at our history on electrification, we partnered with Saab in 2010 to really work on eAssist and then also that type of applications. We bought Saab out of that joint venture in '12, 2012. We landed our first electrification contract in '15. We launched that first electrification contract with JLR or Jaguar Land Rover in '17. We secured a significant piece of business with Mercedes-AMG. There are 7 variants coming off of that. We've already launched a couple of those. There's additional ones launching over the next couple of years that are within our backlog. That's all been positive news for us. Our Gen5 technology, which is revolutionary in regards to a 3-in-1 integrated solution was adopted by an Israeli startup, that being REE. That business will launch in the coming years as part of our backlog as well. We've got over 20 electrification programs that we won in the various stages between components and final assemblies, obviously, the biggest one being the Stellantis program. Stellantis picked us because we're a known commodity to them. We're an outstanding supplier to them. We're one of their top suppliers today. We can deliver the full engineering capability. In this case, we're doing all the integration design development of the axle. We're working with partners in regards to the motors and the inverter solutions, but we're also providing all the software capabilities and support interfacing with them on that. But as I also mentioned, we won the significant amount of awards on the component side. Many of those components are based in China. We're doing differentials for NIO in China, which is the equivalent of Tesla here in the U.S. in regards to their size and their scale and in regards to what they're doing. We've got 5 or 6 programs now in China that continue to grow, and we leveraged our relationship with Inovance to support that partnership. So in India, as you mentioned, there's 2 beam axle awards, one with [ EKA motors ] and the other with Jupiter that were recently announced in the last few quarters, again, all positive for American Axle. And again, we're quoting $1.5 billion of new and incremental business, and 75% of that is electrification based on a global scale. So we expect to announce more wins as we go forward here.

Great. And you mentioned at great gaining traction in your various different electrification solutions. Of course, there are different ways that automakers can electrify their vehicles, right, whether it be through an e-Beam axle or electronic drive units, look at it in different parts of the vehicle, even in the wheels. You've won a number of awards into different configurations, but I'm curious if you have a preference or are maybe more advantaged if an automaker takes one approach or another, including given toward axle. It's in your name, right? So is it -- is your expertise in e-Beam axles maybe, I don't know, more differentiated versus the competition because of your driveline roots? It seems to that more of the automaker in-sourcing discussions seem to be on the EDU rather than e-axle side. Is there a sense that more of the e-Beam axle awards will come up for bid for suppliers? Or how are you thinking about the implication of axle versus non-axle kind of electrification solutions?

A lot in that question. Well, first and foremost, our job and our theme is to deliver power to the wheels. That's what American Axle is really all about. We also want to bring to future faster when it comes to electrification. Clearly, our preference is to win more beam axle awards. There's significant content per vehicle for us. It is our core business and our largest part of our business. However, as I just articulated, we can do a lot of other things, too, from the component to the subassembly to gearboxes to full assembly systems. The OEMs are making certain axles today both in the beam form as well as in EDU form. We see in electrification that their concentration is more in the electric drive unit or EDU. We're very capable of making those. It's just a matter of what do they want to do, and what they're doing is really leveraging some of their transmission expertise and transitioning some of their resources from transmissions over to electric drive units. Some of the OEMs still maintain a beam axle capability, so that's something that we'll just continue to monitor. But we're seeing a significant RFQ activity in the beam axle space because of the capital intensity of the business, but also the inherent knowledge that goes with the driveline and beam axle business from a gear standpoint, from an NVH standpoint, but also the ride handling and the vehicle performance and packaging space associated with the driveline side. So axle's in our name. We're going to continue to deliver the power to the wheels. We just want to be agnostic to the marketplace, and so that's why we're pushing hard to offer electrification solutions on top of what we've already offered to the market, that being both ICE and hybrid solutions as well.

Great. Maybe sticking with electrification and with EDUs. You quickly won a number of 3-in-1 awards with Inovance shortly after your partnership with them was announced. What is in production with Inovance today? What are you looking forward to launching with them? Are these programs principally in the China market? And how would you rate the success of this collaboration so far?

Yes. We thought it was important to have a partner in China to go to market with the local Chinese OEMs. Inovance has been an outstanding partner. They're heavily concentrated in the motor and the inverter space, and we bring a lot of that gear and that driveline integration and software knowledge. So it's a great marriage. It's working very effectively for us. We've got multiple wins, all for the China market with local Chinese OEMs. So that's been positive, and we're working on some other new opportunities as well.

Great. And I want to dig next into the percentage of your current sales that is like ICE-aligned versus EV-aligned versus maybe more powertrain-agnostic and how you expect that mix to evolve over time, given the awards that you've announced and maybe given some of the awards that you target achieving. So for example, I think you've said that electrification products today are maybe a single-digit percentage of your revenue, but a much, much higher percentage of your backlog, right? So -- and then I'm not sure if you've broken it out, but would be interested to know what percentage of your business you see as essentially agnostic. For example, I think a lot of the metal forming products and processes can be used both in internal combustion and electric vehicles. How do you see the portfolio evolving over time?

Well, I'll start and then, Chris, if you want to add to it. But our EV business is a small percentage of our overall business today, probably in the 1% or 2% range today. As we've said, going forward, we see this business or the market for electrification products being a $20 billion to $30 billion market by the 2030 calendar year period of time. Much like we enjoy today on the ICE and hybrid business, we'd like to win greater than 10% of that market, which means we see our sales growing to that $2 billion to $3 billion range by the 2030 period of time. We're clearly on track to meet that. It's not going to be linear in nature going forward over the next several years. It will be lumpy just based on when customer opportunities and long-range product plans present themselves. But we think that we're very well positioned to capitalize on that new and incremental business and support those goals and those targets that we had set for ourselves. We're relevant today. We're going to continue to be relevant in the future going forward here. OEMs recognize the value proposition that we bring to the table and the multitude of facets in regards to the technology, the capability, the software, the controls, which are all paramount. And then the other part is just our gear knowledge and our NVH knowledge is very, very important, especially with the high precision gears that you need to operate with electrification compared to maybe what's done with some of the other products. From an agnostic standpoint, I'd say, Chris, you can help me. 50% or...

Yes. If you think about from an agnostic standpoint, really break it into 2 categories: our driveline business unit, which is about $4 billion of the $6 billion roughly speaking; on the metal form side, about $2 billion of the $6 billion in terms of total revenues. And if you look at from just a pure component side that we're being sourced now from electrification side, when we are supplying into the OEM components, a significant portion of our metal form product, differential gears, differential assemblies, cases, shafts, these are all required in the electric vehicle space. So I would say a sizable portion of our metal form product has a capability to transition into the electrified world from a component standpoint. And then on the driveline space, all the vertical integration elements of our beam axle we just talked about a little bit. It's a critical niche for us in terms of not only today on the ICE world, but also in the electrified world. That's all required into that space from an electric e-Beam axle. And if you look, actually, in our investor presentation, we have a nice comparison, pictorial comparison, of our e-Beam axle and an ICE axle and you'll look and you'll see that consistency and how they look very similar to each other. So a sizable portion from that standpoint. And of course, you're seeing this manifest into our backlog, which we talked about low single digits today from a percent revenue for electrification, but our backlog heavily overweighted towards that, where 40% is now electrification. And part of this theme as we look at not only the products we built today but also some of the M&A activity. So for example, Tekfor, which we referred to. 40% of their book is agnostic in the EV world by 2025. So this is key on our mind, and you're seeing us make that pivot through the bulk of the components on some of our drivelines.

Great. Now maybe moving to some of the near-term financial performance. Your full year guidance calls for a flat margin at the higher end of the range on higher sales weighing on margin this year is that performance launch and other EBITDA bucket or driver really a category of drivers, right? It includes, of course, launch costs, which investors will often look through as sort of timing-related as long as it's not inordinate. It also includes various factors somewhere outside your control, like labor availability, et cetera, but then also good and bad guys within your control, right, like productivity and whatnot. So can you help us kind of better understand what is rolling up into this category of drivers that weigh in on margin this year? So we can get a better sense of how much of it may be repeats going forward versus how much is maybe more, say, launch-related that could subside more quickly.

Yes, I'll take that one here from -- talk a little bit. I think you referred to our second quarter year-over-year bridge as it relates to some of the performance and inflation elements. And if you think about those 3 elements from an inflation standpoint in the second quarter year-over-year, that impacted us by about $14 million, consisting of labor inflation, pass-through or up from our supply base, which they continue to face inflation looking for recovery. But partially offset by we're seeing some lower freight costs, we're seeing some lower utility costs. But the way to attack that element of the bridge is clearly through customer recoveries. We talked a little bit about this on our earnings call. That's a back half of the year weighted activity. So that's key to sort of mitigate that inflation and really start to then drive your margin from that perspective. On the other bucket, we had $27 million year-over-year basis. About half of that was launch related. We had some sizable launches in the first half of the year. We launched the midsized General Motors pickup program, the Colorado, Canyon. There was a lot of launch activity in the first quarter for that. There was a lot of launch activity in, I would call it, the earlier part of the second quarter for that. We have a few other smaller launches, but that launch bucket should start to kind of reduce as we go forward through the balance of the year. And then the other piece was efficiency-related. And that was really driven principally by some labor availability challenges we have in some of our metal form facilities in North America. That's caused, I would say, a fair amount of premium costs to us here. We're working on a lot of different methods to remediate that. We're reloading some of our facilities. We're attracting some additional talent into those facilities. That will work its way up, but closer more towards the end of the year. So if you think about our full year guide, we have a range, if we're talking the midpoint, how do you hit the midpoint? Obviously, the back half of the year, lower sales production days that will be partially offset by what our view is a little more stable production on the GM full-sized truck as well as our backlog is a little more weighted to the back half of the year. but then you make those improvements on the launch and you make those improvements on the customer recovery piece and you make the improvements on the efficiency side. So the high end is a little higher sales, an accelerated pace on those improvements. The low end, obviously, sales would seed back a little bit, and you would take various views on timing and when you sell some of those issues. That's how you should think about our range for our guidance and the things and the drivers for us to achieve that.

Very helpful. I wanted to ask about in-source versus outsource trends. What's the latest that you're seeing there in terms of automaker decisions? What's driving the trend? What's your outlook going forward? I heard you say that your content per vehicle when outsourced can range up to $2,500 plus versus when in-sourced, and your opportunity as more of a component supplier might be more like up to $500. So I'm sure you prefer outsourced, but what are the economics of component supply? Could your margins in components, in some cases, even be higher versus the system? For example, if you have a system outsourced to you but the customer wants you to be more like a systems integrator to some extent, so maybe integrating someone else's components, coming into a lower margin with some of that conversion going to Tier 2 supplier, et cetera. What are the financial -- all the financial implications of in-sourced versus outsourced, would you say, in addition to just sort of CPV?

Again, Chris, I'll make a comment and you can come from there. Again, we'd like to do more from a content per vehicle standpoint, more final assemblies wherever possible. Our driveline margins operate in that 15%, 16% range. Historically, our metal form business has operated in high double digits. Right now, it's under some challenges Chris indicated because of some of the labor availability issues that we're working our way through as we unload certain factories and address some of the increase in demand that's out there. The OEMs are going to do some of the work themselves. There's no doubt about that. They're vertically integrated today, in many cases. They're going to maintain a certain level of vertical integration going forward. We understand that. We know that. All we want to do is make sure that we can be a provider and a solution to them depending on what their final decisions are. So if they want to buy a full assembly on the outside, we're prepared to support that, much like in the case of Stellantis and the big award there. But also if they ever decide they want to do EDUs themselves like they're doing with -- like GM is doing with the Hummer. We're supplying the differential assemblies for that Hummer. That's just an example of how we can support them going forward. We've got the flexibility to adjust based on what the market demand and opportunities are for us. Clearly, we want more of the content per vehicle. And as Ryan indicated, on the full assemblies, it can be $2,500 plus, plus. In regards to the Stellantis, we said it will be $2,500 plus, plus, plus. So we feel very, very strong about the performance there. And on the component side, we're making good margins on the business that we have, so that's a positive business for us.

Yes. I think if you think about the margin profile, if you look at our existing ICE business, that's a nice window into thinking about how we'll make that pivoted electrification from a margin perspective. On the component side, as David mentioned, our metal form group is typically in sort of that mid- to high-teen range. So it's a very profitable business for us. We have a lot of competitive advantages, whether it be large steel buys. A great footprint, lot of capabilities. That transitions into the e-space, if you will, from a component side. And on the driveline side, even our internal combustion engine axles we build today have a lot of, I would call, directed-by components, big brakes that hang off the ends of these axles that we are pass-through mechanisms that as you know, lower margin elements of the axle, where when you transition to electrification, you have a different form of directed-by. So it gives you sort of an insight to how the 2 business units will perform from a margin perspective with the dynamics that sit on each of those products.

Very helpful. I recently had the opportunity to visit with your local management team in China. I was struck by a number of different factors, including we already touched on those EU wins with Inovance, but also some of the high-profile work you're doing over there on EVs with NIO and Baojun, and also the electric light commercial vehicle opportunity. How important is the China market for what you're trying to accomplish globally with electrified driveline? And when you talk about pursuing like ACES, a 10% electrification market share goal in your estimated addressable market by 2030, does that include a very, very large market for light vehicle electrification passenger cars in China?

The answer is yes to that. As I indicated earlier, our main concentration is going to be right here in North America. That's where the majority of our business is today, but we see a tremendous opportunity to grow our business in China. It's going to be -- it already is the largest electrification market in the world. Just based on size and scale of the market, they've really positioned themselves quite well to make the transition to battery electric vehicles versus ICE and hybrid applications, although there's still a big hybrid usage that's taking place. BYD and Tesla are the only 2 real profitable companies. BYD's profitability is really coming from their hybrid business, where Tesla's is coming from their electrification business. But to answer your question, Ryan, we certainly see China as a big market for us and a market that we want to grow in, profitably grow in, as we go forward.

Great. Next, I want to ask on what you think is the right leverage ratio for the company and your capital allocation priorities. I appreciate you've paid down a lot of debt since levering to consummate the Metaldyne acquisition in 2Q '17. Your net debt declined by $1.3 billion from $3.7 billion to $2.4 billion over that time. The leverage ratio, though, has remained stubbornly elevated, right, most recently around sort of like 3x, which is the second highest in our 12-company auto part supplier coverage. You've made some smaller acquisitions since Metaldyne, and I'm sure -- I'd expect you to pull the lever on something small or super compelling, Tekfor, et cetera. But while I think you've got great prospects to manage and even net benefit from the transition to vehicle electrification, the message I get from investors sometimes, thinking back to Tenneco, for example, is that they're sort of uncomfortable piling what they perceive as financial risk on top of what they perceive as strategic risk, which causes me to think that the valuation multiple might benefit from lower leverage ratio. What are your thoughts on leverage? What do you target? When can you get there? And maybe how committed are you to keeping the leverage in check once you do get there?

Let me comment first, Chris, then you can go. But our target, and we've been very clear about this, is to get under 2x levered in the near future here. What you need to understand is we're sitting on $1.5 billion of liquidity. So we're in a solid position that way. We don't have any major debt maturities due. Some minor ones due in '26, but no major debt maturities due until really calendar year 2027. We've always maintained a financial runway of about 3 years, so we don't have anything hanging over our head in regards to financial obligations that we need to be able to support and service that way. We don't have any customers asking us about our balance sheet and what's going on at this point in time. Matter of fact, they're sourcing us a lot of new work because of the capability and technology we have and the discipline that we've demonstrated as a management team not just the last couple of quarters but for years. with respect to that. Obviously, we had overcome a lot of challenges over the last 5 years from the GM UAW strike in '19, COVID in 2020, semiconductor issues in '21, supply chain challenges in '22, labor availability issues, but we're not here to complain about it. We're just explaining why it's taken us a little bit longer to get our debt paid down. We're generating a lot of cash. We just generated almost $100 million in the quarter. We paid down debt each quarter, first quarter and second quarter this year, and we'll continue to pay down debt as we go forward. But we're very focused in regards to strengthening our balance sheet and servicing that balance sheet.

Yes. I think David's comments on our focus on the balance sheet and our capital allocation priorities is very clear, and our actions have demonstrated that. And we're very focused as a management team on the free cash flow conversion inside the business, because once you generate that cash, that gives you that optionality to continue to pay down that debt and support a stronger balance sheet. That's where our attention is. You see us managing our CapEx very tightly. You see us managing our working capital very tightly. And you think -- as David mentioned, some of the challenges over the last couple of years, coming through all of those years, continuing to accelerate our cash flow performance as a company, converting EBITDA into cash flow, top priority for us. We'll continue to do that, and that will continue to support a stronger balance sheet.

And the encouraging sign is we're starting to see volumes come back. We have a heavy fixed cost business, so that volume should be our friend going forward. At the same time, we're starting to see stability in our schedules, which we haven't seen for several years. So we just need to get the stability in the operations, get back to it being a cash-generating machine, and we'll generate a lot of cash and pay down a lot of debt.

And you generated a lot of cash last quarter, too, about $100 million. Thought to ask about the UAW risk. I know you don't have your own contract up for renewal this year, but just given the sort of indirect impact on the company back in 2019, how are you thinking about that, preparing for that, dimensioning that risk? It seems like the 2 sides are maybe further apart than they have been in the past. I saw a Facebook Live, apparently -- you're smiling already. UAW might have thrown Stellantis' proposal into a trash bin. It just seems kind of bellicose at the moment. Maybe things will patch up. But how are you thinking about that?

Well, first and foremost, let me talk just about AAM and UAW. All of our facilities have stand-alone operating agreements. We've got 85 total facilities around the world. Only some of them are represented by the UAW here in the Midwest. Each of our plants is backed up by another plant as we go forward here. None of our contracts with UAW are due until the calendar year 2025, 2026 period of time. So we've got some runway with respect to that. But all of our plants are market competitive. That's an important thing that we've always insisted upon is that you can't negotiate your future. You've got to earn your future going forward by being competitive. And that's why I think some of the asks that are out there right now by the UAW are audacious as they're calling them themselves. A lot of it is going back to the 2009 period of time, which was an uncompetitive environment for the Detroit 3 OEMs. What you all need to understand is the Detroit 3 OEMs average $65 to $70 fully loaded labor cost today. The Europeans are in that $52 to $53 range per hour. That's wages and benefits. And the Japanese are in that $49 to $51. So with the demands that are on the table today, if you just took them up for face value for what they've been asked for, it will grossly -- I mean at least double what's on the table today and grossly make the U.S. auto manufacturers uncompetitive. And listen, consumers like all of us in this room and people that are listening, you're going to stretch that dollar as far as you possibly can. You want to find the most important value that you can get out of the business. And you can see the Detroit 3 has lost a lot of market share over the years. They're only at 39% of the overall market today. The UAW is an important stakeholder. They are an important partner to the OEMs. The OEMs are approaching it that way. Hopefully, level heads will prevail through these negotiations going forward here. Obviously, we're not directly in these negotiations, but as you said, Ryan, we'll be indirectly impacted. I think we all need to anticipate that there will be some sort of work stoppage. How big, how long and with whom is still TBD, but just because of the positioning by the UAW at this point in time is creating a very difficult environment to negotiate.

Very helpful. Thanks. See if there's any questions out there in the audience. If not, I'll take the last question. which is on all-wheel drive. You -- I thought it was really impressive, the degree to which you had almost a multiyear head start on the disconnecting all-wheel drive, right, ahead of other established driveline suppliers. And I was just curious as we move now more into like an e-all-wheel drive, you made some very early investments in the all-wheel drive. But where do you think you stack up in terms of like awards and product and technology competitiveness as the industry transitions there?

Yes. Right, as you alluded, I mean, we are the pioneers of disconnecting all-wheel drive system. And really, what that disconnected all-wheel drive system has allowed you to lose the parasitic losses associated with that product, really allowing you better fuel economy for the overall vehicle, just for those who don't understand what all-wheel drive is and the disconnecting all-wheel drive. So it engaged and disengaged -- it engaged when it needed to and disengaged when it needed to as well. So it was fine that way. We're largest -- one of the largest suppliers of all-wheel drive products in the marketplace. We had significant business with GM, Stellantis as well as Ford. Those products have all been renewed for next-generation type products going forward with the exception of one that we're working on right now, which we hope to have wrapped up later this year, but high confidence that we'll earn that business. And as I said earlier, we've positioned our product portfolio to be successful in both eAssist as well as on full battery electric vehicles for all the different vehicle segments, truck, crossover, all-wheel drive as well as passenger car applications. So part of the backlog of what we're quoting the $1.5 billion includes some disconnecting all-wheel drive system applications from a BEV standpoint. So we're confident that we'll win some new business awards there.

Okay. Great. It looks like we are out of time. So please join me in thanking David and Chris for all the great color and insight they shared today.