Motley Fool Money - The Game of the UAW Strikes

Episode Date: October 2, 2023

If you want to know the reasons behind someone’s actions, it’s important to find out the incentives. (00:21) Jason Moser and Deidre Woollard discuss: - If a SPARC is the new SPAC. - Being cautious about IPOs. - The impossibility of creating a super app. (13:50)  Ricky Mulvey interviews Marc Robinson, the principal consultant at MSR Strategy and an expert in game theory to understand the rules of the game in this United Autoworkers strike. Claim your Stock Advisor discount here:  www.fool.com/mfmdiscount Companies discussed: F, GM, STLA, PYPL Host: Deidre Woollard Guests: Jason Moser, Ricky Mulvey, Marc Robinson Producer: Ricky Mulvey Engineers: Rick Engdahl, Dan Boyd Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Indeed. Stop waiting around for the perfect candidate. Instead, use Indeed sponsored jobs to find the right people with the right skills fast. It's a simple way to make sure your listing is the first candidate C. According to Indeed data, sponsor jobs have four times more applicants than non-sponsored jobs. So go build your dream team today with Indeed. Get a $75 sponsor job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply.

What's driving the United Auto Workers strikes? Motley Full Money starts now. Welcome to Motley Full Money. I'm Deidra Willard here with Motley Fool analyst, Jason Mozer. How are you today, Jason? Hey, Deidre, doing great. How about you? I'm doing great, and I learned a new acronym over the weekend, which is a Spark, not a SPAC.

It's a special acquisitions rights company. So Bill Ackman, he's famous billionaire investor. He got SEC approval on Friday for the Pershing Square Spark. This is interesting because last year, he shut down what was going to be the biggest SPAC ever, the $4 billion, Purshing Square, Tontine Holdings. Now those shareholders will get shares in this new company. What is a spark, and why is it not a SPAC? The simplest view here, to me, it seems like a spark is more of a, it's a more logical first step,

perhaps in helping investors gauge interest and for interested investors to be able to not have to take quite as much risk up front in considering new ideas. If you look at a SPAC versus a Spark, right, SPAC's special purpose acquisition company, ultimately, they gather this money, right, through an initial public offering of a shell company with the promise ultimately to acquire a successful public or private company, I'm sorry. So it's kind of like almost kind of put in the cart before the horse, so to speak, in that case. Whereas with a spark, it pushes that risk out a little bit, right? Ultimately, Spark investors, you get the right to buy shares in a blank check company, but that's after the target is announced. So there's a little bit more certainty there. Now, it's not to say that

it's necessarily better or worse, but it does give you a little bit more clarity, a little bit more information. So I think from that perspective, it makes a lot of sense. When you consider Ackman, right, I mean, the SPAC that he tried to launch last year, obviously that didn't work out, probably left some investors feeling a little bit better, right? I mean, I think SPACs, generally speaking, we saw investors lose more than they made for the most part, and I know I'm in on that club. Same. We've all probably experienced it to a degree.

So I think from that perspective, a spark makes sense in that it helps maybe give a little bit more clarity and take a little bit of that risk away that exists with SPACs. Yeah, the interesting thing here is you get warrants to purchase, as you mentioned. So it brings you a little bit closer to being on the inside as an investor, it sounds like, to me. And it's interesting because this is, you know, this is obviously with both scenes, Spaks and invested them, and the market has kind of gone away from them now. Do you think that if this is successful, this opens the door to more of these? Does this become the new hotness at some point? Well, I mean, it's certainly possible, but I don't think so, right?

A spark is still a spack after all. It's true. It's kind of like that fool me once, shame on me, right? Or fool me twice, shame on me. I do feel like it has potential in its clarity. I think at least giving you that clarity and pushing that risk out a little bit could be helpful. But at the end of the day, it's still a very speculative sort of structure there. So I don't know that investors are necessarily clamoring for this right now, though.

Yeah, and especially it's an interesting time in the market right now. So, you know, Ackman, obviously, he needs to find the target. So he says he's on the lookout for companies that are seeking to raise $1.5 billion. He went on X, formerly, Twitter, over the weekend, asking anyone who was interested in a quick yes or no to call him. Speculation here. Do you think people are picking up the phone or sliding into the DMs to offer him potential? That made me think of that progressive commercials. What sliding into someone's D.N.? That sounds like a lot of fun. I have to believe there is some interest, at least in learning more. I mean, investing is all about opportunity, right?

And so there are plenty of folks out there. I think at least interested in learning more, like anything else. I mean, there is fair criticism of the IPO process in looking for better ways to do things, or at least improving upon those ways. And so from that perspective, I'm sure there is some interest. But as we're seeing with the IPO market right now, I mean, everybody's kind of on the sideline. waiting for a little bit more certainty regarding that macro picture. So I think that probably is sort of the dark cloud hanging over all this right now. It's just the uncertainty out there regarding the greater macro picture, the economy in general, the consumer. I mean, there are a lot of signs out there that things might be slowing down,

which may keep this on the back burner for a little while. Yeah, we've got sort of a confluence of factors, right? Because, of course, we have student loans restarting. We're somewhere between a soft landing and a recession. depending on who you ask. But we did have a couple of relatively strong IPOs recently. We had Instacart, we had Arm, we had Clavio. Birkenstock. They announced the pricing for theirs this week, looking pretty rich at between $44 and $49. Footbed technology. Right? Footbed technology, the 200-plus-year-old company. So do you think Ackman is making his plea at a time when maybe the IPO market is coming back?

Maybe. I mean, I think people looking at these things, I think most investors look at these SPACs and these SPARCs, obviously with some trepidation right now because of what's happened over the last couple of years. And going back to, yes, Spark is still a SPAC, right? And so, I mean, it's something to keep in mind. Market conditions are clearly making it very difficult for growth companies to go public right now. Evaluations, at least, they get them to where they want to go. And so it all really does boil down dollars and cents. And if companies feel like it makes more sense to kind of hang on the sidelines and wait for conditions to get better to where they can raise more money, I don't know that a spark is really going to ultimately change their mind. I mean,

it certainly is something I think investors will consider that I'll get out there and maybe learn a little bit more about what options are out there. And if a spark is something that could help them ultimately get to where they want to go. But I think right now, generally speaking, I think we're going to see a lot of companies still hanging on the sideline because the conditions are just so difficult right now for those growth companies to get out there and be public companies. Yeah. Are you one of those people who tends to invest in IPOs? Are you one of those people who waits a year? I am typically one of those people who waits, right? For the most part, I give myself several quarters to learn about the business and learn about management and ultimately we'll see if management's able to do what they say they're going to do. Now, like anything, I have fallen prey to my emotions at times. I mean, sometimes you feel like a little bit, you feel like maybe you have sort of a

grasp on something that maybe a company is the real deal, and you want to get in there at the early stages. And that rarely works out very well. For me, it always really, for the most part, patience has always worked out better than the alternative. Yeah, I think so. One of the things I learned that is that even if a company is older, like, you know, a Birkenstock, it's still going to change a lot during the first year as public.

Yeah. It's such a different life being a public company. I mean, I think a good example of this is just in watching Panera through its years, you know, private, then public and now private again, and you hear discussion of possibly going public. It gets confusing at this point now, because I think there was even a point where Panera was talking about a SPAC. And I don't even know if they actually went through that or not. But you saw Ron Shake, the founder of the company, just talk about how living life as a private company, it gives them the freedom to be able to do what they want to do without really necessarily being under the microscope.

But when you go public, man, you were under that microscope, and there's just no escaping it. Yeah. Well, one company that was public and now isn't, was on Ackman's radar. He likes to get attention when he's got something to promote. And so he talked about taking X, formerly, Twitter, public. again, if Musk wanted. I don't think Musk wants that. But what do you think? What are the odds here? I don't know. I mean, Musk could. You know, it's interesting to consider the state of Twitter slash

X. I mean, you wonder what the reality of the situation versus the narrative that Musk continues to portray, right? I mean, I don't know what the reality of the situation is there other than, I mean, we do know that the company is still burdened with a tremendous debt load, right? I think it's something in the neighborhood of $12.5 billion in debt that I think seven financial institutions bear. So I think even if a deal were to happen, it would be very complicated to get done. I do wonder at times if Musk doesn't have buyer's remorse here. I mean, he's kind of throwing everything at the wall with his app at this point. But I think if Twitter wanted to go public again, I mean, I think they could,

but they would really need to present, you know, the value proposition in what it aims to be this Everything app. Give us some concrete details as to what that really actually means. Don't just say a bunch of words. Tell me what that Everything app, vision ultimately means. Tell us how you're going to get there and tell us what it ultimately means to the business. Connect the dots. If you can do that in a way that is plausible, then I mean, maybe there's some investor interest in there, but we've already seen this play out, right? I mean, social media is a very difficult investment. And I think that we saw the challenges that Twitter dealt with through its life as a publicly traded company, I don't know

that those challenges do anything but get greater at this point. And if he takes this thing public, then you have to deal with the headline risk that comes with Musk. Yeah, that's true. And whenever anyone says Super App now, I put my skeptical hat on. That's a good red flag, right? We've seen enough companies try for that Super App strategy and quickly realize maybe that wasn't the smartest thing to do. PayPal stands out to me as one word. Initially, you thought, wow, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Super app. Just be able to do all of this stuff that you want to do. And then you start thinking, like, when PayPal wanted to introduce stock trading within its app, why would you bother with that? Nobody

cared. There are already a million other options out there. No one's going to switch from TD Ameritrade just to go start doing their trading from PayPal, for example, right? Or from wherever you do your brokerage, wherever you do your investing activity. So, yeah, I mean, That super app term, I think, is a red flag to keep an eye out on. Well, Ackman did wind up his sort of media tour after being on Twitter all weekend. He was on CNBC this morning. He says the Fed's likely done with hiking. Who knows?

The economy's slowing. Yeah, probably. But in general, we see a lot of pronouncements by investors. And sometimes we try to, you know, how much should we think about them, even when it's someone like Buffett, even when someone like Ackman, with a track record. What's your take? How do you view those? Yeah, I mean, well, we all have opinions, right? I mean, that ultimately, at the end of the day, that's investing. It's a big disagreement, and everybody thinks that they're right.

To me, it's always, I'm always, I try to always keep an open mind. I think it's interesting to listen to what people have to say. I try not to be dismissive, but rather be constructive with that information that you get. It's either something that you agree with or you disagree with, but I think, you know, this is all prognostication. So for me, I don't know that it matters whether it's Buffett or whether it's Maddie Argersinger. I mean, there are two investors that I respect highly. I know Maddie better. I'm probably going to listen to him first because I tend to, you know, work with him more frequently.

But I think at the end of the day, as an investor, just really, to me, it's all about just keeping an open mind. You can agree, you can disagree. But take the information that you're being given, take the opinions that you're being given, and ultimately let that shape your thinking. And when you make decisions, make decisions based on your thinking. And often that thinking is a compilation of all of these things that you gather from the people, the investors, the world around us. Wise advice.

Thanks for your time today, Jason. Thank you. At Motley Fool Money, we love talking stocks and looking for the next big thing. That's why we bring analysts like Jason Moser on the show. By day, Jason Moser is also part of a team picking stocks and providing coverage for the Motley Fool suite of premium investing services. If you're looking for investing ideas, we're offering Motley Full money listeners a discount on our flagship service, Stock Advisor. With Stock Advisor, you get two stock recommendations per month. Access to analysts like Jason Moser, our members only live stream Motley Fool Live,

and Stock Advisor's full scorecard of stocks generating market beating returns. turns. To learn more, head to www.ful.com slash MFM discount. What is behind the United Auto Worker Strikes? If you want to know the reason for someone's actions, find out the incentives. Mark Robinson is the principal consultant at MSR strategy and an expert in game theory. Before that, he worked at General Motors for three decades, including in leadership roles. Ricky Mulvey caught up with Robinson to understand the rules of the game in this strike, the union politics, and what it's like to to try to make a deal with the UAW. These days, I'm all about quality over quantity,

especially in my closet. If it's not well-made and versatile, it's just not worth it. That's honestly why I love Quince. The fabrics feel elevated, the cuts are thoughtful, and the pricing actually makes sense. Quince makes high-quality wardrobe staples using premium fabrics like 100% European linen,

silk and organic cotton poplin. They work directly with safe ethical factories and cut out the middlemen so you aren't paying for brand markups or fancy stores, just quality clothing. they make is built to hold up season after season and is consistently rated 4.5 to 5 stars by thousands of real people like me who wear their clothes every day. The Quince, Mongolian Kashmir Kru Neck sweater may be the most comfortable one that I own. It's light, soft, and it was a lot

more affordable than you think quality cashmere would be. Stop waiting to build the wardrobe you actually want. Right now, go to quince.com slash Motley for free shipping and 365 day returns. That's a full year to wear it and love it. And you will. Now available in Canada. too. Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last. Go to QINCE.com slash Motley for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash Motley. So I know that you, you're a game theorist, and that's what you've brought to the previous negotiations. That's what you do at your consultancy. For someone who's less familiar with game theory, why is this a useful framework, especially for a complex negotiation like the auto union has with the automakers? I've got to stress.

that it's not the kind of game theory that most people get taught in business school or in an economics class. It's not two players with one lever each. In the real world, there are often many players, each with levers of their disposal. So there are some very useful techniques that essentially think through systematically who's involved, what they can do, and what they want. And so you can handle issues with five to seven players and up to 25 levers or 30 and really think through extremely complicated situations by systematically thinking through from the perspective of each party, what's truly important to them. And it doesn't have to be based on financial importance. It can be, as in the case, for example, of the union negotiation, the union leadership is very concerned about retaining their political credibility and winning the next election, if you will, for union leadership. So it allows for you to think about both where things are heading.

and if you're advising a company, you can suggest strategies and tactics to help things turn out better. So you know that the next election for the union is very important for Sean Fane and the UAW leadership, and you know that perceived toughness, as you've written about, is incredibly important to these leaders. And I know the big three aren't all the same, but how would you advise the big three automakers on negotiating with that in mind, that that's really important to these union leaders? The basic advice is patience and to protect their reputation as best they can. Ford clearly is eager to settle, was eager to settle even before the strike started, but there is no way that any settlement that Ford would find acceptable

would be acceptable to Sean Fane for weeks to come. So it's no surprise that Sean Fain is in the process of adding additional assembly plans, including ones at Ford. He spared Ford last time, but he's going to add pressure at Ford because he needs to demonstrate to his members that he is going to the maximum extent to get as many of the demands as possible. So the big three are often lumped together, but they are very different. They are, well, I shouldn't say very different.

They all make cars, but they are different companies. How is Ford in a different position than Stalantis and General Motors in this union strike in particular? Ford has more union UAW members than either Stalantis or GM. It also has historically viewed its relatively good labor relations as a strategic advantage compared to General Motors. And so GM had a 40-day strike in 2019, but even without that, historically, GM just had much more difficult labor relations. And Ford essentially cultivated a union relationship. One of the things I think they've found very frustrating this time around is that isn't doing any good with the new leadership. There's a lead negotiator with the UAW for Ford.

his name's Chuck Browning. And you've also written about how, even though that in any other time, maybe the agreement that he's reached with Ford would be acceptable to previous iterations of union leadership, this time it's not. And it's because maybe some of the political moves that are going on behind the scenes. Yes. Well, I don't know that he's reached an agreement with Ford. I think, though, that Ford in its settlement with Canada, the union in Canada,

showed that it was willing to make major strategic concessions as well as give significant wage increases. So they agreed to bring new employees back on defined benefit pension plan, for example. They agreed to bring in a cost of living adjustment formula. So those are massive strategic wins for the union. And so Ford is clearly willing to go that far. And Sean Fain already talks about some other strategic concessions that he says Ford has already offered. So it's more that based on Ford's history and based on what is public, that is pretty clear a deal could be very close. That would be a big win for the union. But Chuck Browning backed the other guy in this very close election that was held by the UAW this spring. So Sean Fane won the first direct election

in UAW history, but just barely. It was a runoff, and he just barely squeaked through in the runoff. And so, Chuck Browning is the only member of the other side, the one who backed his opponent, who is one of the chief negotiators in this particular round. So that creates a political dynamic. Sean Fain may be correctly worried that Chuck Browning would consider running against him next time. Is a game theorist, one of the things you're thinking about is levers. The levers that each side has, the union and the carmakers. So what are some of the most important levers in this negotiation for observers to watch? The key thing that the union leadership is worried about is ratification. In 2015, there was an absolutely disastrous negotiation round where the union members were essentially trained to say no,

to reject the contract. So they did that at Stalantis and got a better deal without a strike. The skilled trades did it at General Motors. They got a better deal without a strike. Shortly after the negotiations ended, they rejected it at next tier. 97% of the members rejected a contract the union leadership recommended, and they got a better deal after a one-day strike. So that destroys bargaining, that destroys union leader credibility. And so the 2019 strike basically became inevitable because the union leadership essentially had to be sure that they didn't get a contract offer rejected by the members. I'm sure that, Sean Fain is still worried about that this time around. And so it's that union leader, union member

dynamic that is a key driver of how this will play out. So it's very hard to see how this ends. I'm pretty confident it's going to end at least to Ford sometime around Halloween. Why is that? because the union members start feeling a lot of pain, and it would be a disaster for all of them if they were still on strike at Christmastime. They get six or seven days paid vacation at Christmas time, and they don't want to be out on that. So, for example, it's interesting that Sean Fane wants to have this, instead of being a four-year agreement, to be a four-year and eight-month agreement, so that the next time around, it expires in May rather than in September, and he doesn't have to worry about the holidays and the constraints that imposes on him as a partner or as a union leader. That makes a lot of sense. And for as much bluster as you hear on both sides, it's important to remember that this is not a zero-sum game. This is two parties hoping to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. Speaking of strategy, usually, when

When you were at General Motors and you had experience negotiating with the UAW, the playbook seemed to be that they would go after one automaker at a time and then bring the contract to the other two. See, we've already got it done here, and now we can just sort of copy and paste. Now, the strategy among the UAW is to go after all three at once in these targeted strikes, so they're not completely depleting their strike fund, but they're able to sort of find pain points at all three auto manufacturers. As a game theorist, what do you think about this more sort of chaotic approach of going after all three automakers at one time? I think it makes lots of sense politically for Sean Fain this time around.

He's now the most famous labor leader in America. He's the most famous UAW leader since Walter Ruther died in 1970. And he had Joe Biden marching with him on the picket line. It doesn't get much better than that for a union leader. So he's successfully shaken things up. I'm less convinced that this is a good strategic move for him. It's very good tactics, but it doesn't necessarily lead to a good end game. So, for example, I do expect them to settle first at Ford and then try and do something

similar to the previous rounds, but those companies will already have been on strike for a long time. And the kind of easy negotiation and quick ratification, well, that's still going to be very painful for those companies because it takes two weeks to negotiate and then a week or so to ratify and you've still got your workers out. So it's a much different dynamic. It's more costly for people. But I would say that to date, one thing they're doing relatively well, is they're firing shots across the bow. The initial plans were important, but not vital to the companies. Striking the parts distribution center, General Motors ran the parks distribution centers with salaried workforce during the last strike. So those are steps that create a lot of publicity,

create a lot of noise, but don't necessarily seriously damage the companies. The ones he's announcing today will be a further ratchet up, but I would be very surprised if he were adding full-sized truck plants today, speaking on Friday. So he's taken measured steps rather than trying to maximize the pain. And I expect this to continue, but eventually it will hit the full-size truck plants. That's a key metric for when is he trying to really hurt the companies? As soon as the F-150 or the Chevy Silvado plans go down, that's a signal. And, Mark, you've been at these tables before with the negotiations on the side of General Motors. So, and again, to generalize, let's say it's my first day as an executive at General Motors, Ford or Stalantis.

I've packed my lunch, and wouldn't you know it? I'm at the table where there's a UAW strike to negotiate. What career advice would you give that person? find something else. It's a very frustrating task. You spend a lot of time bargaining. You've got to be patient with a lot of the, I'd almost call it a kabuki play. You know, there's this whole elaborate dance that needs to go on.

And it's very difficult negotiations. And it's often not being settled at your table. It's really only being settled at the very senior levels for most of the critical issues. So it's a necessary part of what a group at General Motors has to do. You absolutely have to deal with the union. But most executives have jobs more related to building and selling cars rather than dealing with the union. And last question, is you've watched this story play out. and having a deep knowledge of what's going on with both parties, what do you think is the

biggest misunderstanding among observers in the media with this current UAW strike? They think that it's due to the electric vehicle transition. I think that has very little to do with this strike. That's something that Donald Trump blamed for the strike. It's something that a lot of the Republican candidates are blaming. the EV transition is certainly something that has led to the companies having made a bunch of investments announcements. And so they don't have a lot of flexibility now, and they also have committed a lot of funds already, and the plants that they're going to build these vehicles and the batteries and so on.

So it's a complicating factor, but not the big driver. The union politics are what the big driver is. This is the result of the change in the election practices and the past corruption at the UAW. Mark Robinson is the principal consultant at MSR strategy. Before that, he was an economist at General Motors, where he worked for three decades. Thank you so much for your time, your insight, and sharing your experience with us listeners on Motle full money. Pleasure to talk. As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about.

fully full may have formal recommendations for or against. So don't buy our sell stocks based only on what you hear. I'm Deidre Willard. Thanks for listening. We'll see you tomorrow.