### Merrill Lynch does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aw are that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a s ingle factor in making their investment decision. Customers of MLPF&S and BAS in the US can receive independent, third-party research on companies covered i n this report, at no cost to them, if such research is available. Customers can acc ess this independent research at http://www.ml.com/independentres earch or can call 1- 800-637-7455 to request a copy of this research. Refer to important disclosures on page 48 to 50. Analyst Certification on Page 46. Price Objective Basis/Risk on page 45. 10852885 

# The US automotive product pipeline



# Car Wars 2010-2013

 In-depth study of the U.S. automotive product pipeline Car Wars is an annual proprietary study that assesses the relative strength of automakers’ product pipeline in the U.S. The purpose is to quantify industry product trends and then relate our findings to investment decisions. 

## Product pipelines more difficult to predict than ever before

Given the current tenuous st ate of the U.S. auto industr y, forecasting the future product pipeline is more difficult than ever , but it is critical to understanding the industry so we will once a gain take our best shot. 

## Macro demand meltdown a game changer The severe downturn in demand in 2008 and 2009 has dramatically altered our conclusions from last year’s study. We believe that the impact will be long lasting and put GM and Chrysler at a larger disadvantage relative to Ford.



## Car Wars thesis and investment relevance We believe the replacement rate drives showroom age, which drives market share, which in turn drives capacity ut ilization, profitabilit y, and stock and bond prices

. OEMs with the highest replacement rate and youngest relative showroom age have gained market share from 1999-2009 (Table 1). We expect this relationship to remain over our forecast period of MY2010-13 (Charts 1 & 2). 

## Five key findings of our study
1) Replacement rate & showroom age are major determinants of market share.
2) Product activity is sporadic among OEMs and relative gaps are opening again.
3) GM’s market share will likely drop be low the targeted range of 18%-19%.
4) Ford’s market share gains should c ontinue driving upside in estimates.
5) Chrysler’s product pipeline is dubious and likely to drive market share losses. 

## Investment implications: GM: Product cycle downshifts GM’s market share losses are likely to be greater than expected and more severe in CY2009 and CY2010 while easing in later years. We believe that GM’s 18%- 19% market share target is optimistic and a more realistic range is 15%-16%.


## Ford: Relative position should continue to improve Ford’s market share gains in 1H:09 should continue due to the relative strength of its product replacement rate over the next four years. This appears to be a result of planning as well as the fortuitous st ress at its two major competitors. 

## Parts/Dealers: Exposure to strong OEMs as important as ever Exposure to profitable and growing OEMs is important for profitability and returns. All else equal, exposure to OEMs with the highest replacement rates and lowest average age is a key to the success of both suppliers and dealers. Industry Overview

Equity | United States | Autos/Car Manufacturers & Auto
Parts 15 July 2009



### John Murphy, CFA +1 212 449 7045 Research Analyst MLPF&S john_murphy@ml.com
See Team Page for Full List of Contributors



### Table 1: Replacement Rate, Showroom Age, Market Share (1999-2009) Avg. Replacement
Rate Avg.
Showroom Age O/(U) U.S. Market
Share D [1]

GM 14% 0.3 -9.4% Chrysler 14% 0.2 -6.6%
Ford 15% 1.2 -8.7%
GM-Stub 16% (0.7) 0.2% European 17% (0.3) 3.3% Toyota 19% (0.7) 7.3%
Nissan 20% (1.0) 3.4%
Honda 19% (0.9) 4.7%
Korean 22% (1.1) 5.6%
Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch [1] Market Share is based on Calendar Years 1998-2008



### Chart 1: Product Replacement Rate 2010e-2013e

33% 45% 53% 63% 67% 68%

72% 97% 99% 108%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Chrysler

GM GM-Stub European

Nissan Toyota Industry Honda Ford Korean

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 2: Average Showroom Age 2010e-2013e

3.3
3.1

2.6 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.4

2.0

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

GM European Industry Average Chrysler Nissan Toyota Korean Ford Honda

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch

### 2 The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



# Contents

Executive summary 3

Car Wars background 5

Investment implications 9

Industry & manufacturer trends 13

Company analysis 21

Conclusions 37

Appendix 41

Team Page 51The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 3 

# Executive summary

Car Wars is a proprietary study we conduct every year to assess the relative strength of automakers’ product pipelin e in the U.S. The study is based on numerous primary and secondary sources, including industry contacts, auto show visits, trade publications, enthusiast magazines, supply chain relationships, and our general knowledge of platform strategies, and product cycle planning.

The purpose is to quantify industry product trends and then relate our findings to
investment decisions.

The key metrics that we use are replac ement rate, the estimated percentage of an OEM’s sales volume to be replaced with new models or next generation models; average showroom age, the numb er of years on the market, for the average design in an OEM’s showroom; and new model volume mix, the mix of new models by segment during the forecast period for each OEM. 

# Car Wars thesis

We believe that the replacement rate driv es showroom age, which drives market share, which drives capacity utilization, which in turn drives profitability and ultimately stock and bond prices. Table 2 shows the average annual replacement rate, relative showroom age, and market share change of the largest OEMs between MY99 and MY09. OEMs with the youngest showroom age relative to the industry have gained market share.
Table 2: Historical Replacement Rate, Showroom Age, Market Share (1999-2009) Avg. Replacement Rate Avg. Showr oom Age O/(U) U.S. Market Share D [1]

GM 14% 0.3 -9.4% Chrysler 14% 0.2 -6.6%
Ford 15% 1.2 -8.7%
GM-Stub 16% (0.7) 0.2% European 17% (0.3) 3.3% Toyota 19% (0.7) 7.3%
Nissan 20% (1.0) 3.4% Honda 19% (0.9) 4.7%
Korean 22% (1.1) 5.6%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch [1] Volume weighted average age variance
[2] Market Share is Based on Calendar Years 1998-2008



### Although other factors, including mix, pr icing, execution, distribution, and brand power impact market share, we think this data strongly supports our thesis that successful new products drive higher market shares. Table 3 summarizes our forecasts of these key metrics for MY 10 to MY13 and subsequent estimates of
market share shifts.
Table 3: Forecast Replacement Rate, Showroom Age, Market Share (2010e-2013e) Replacement Rate [1] 

### Avg. Showroom Age O/(U) U.S. Market Share D [2]

Korean 27% (0.2) 3.5%
Ford 25% (0.2) 3.0%
Honda 24% (0.6) 3.0% Toyota 17% (0.2) 1.0%
Nissan 17% (0.0) 0.5% European 16% 0.5 0.0%
GM-Stub 13% 0.1 0.0%
GM 11% 0.8 -5.0% Chrysler 8% (0.0) -6.0%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch [1] Volume weighted average age variance [2] Market share forecast is for calendar years 2009-2012 

### The purpose of our Car Wars study is to quantify industry product trends and relate our findings to investment
decisions.

Replacement rate and relative showroom age are two of the main drivers of market share gains or losses (Table 2 & 3).The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 4 

# Ten key findings

Our measures of replacement rate and showroom age are the major driver of market share gains and losses. Historically, Detroit has replaced its line-up every seven years while the competiti on has done so every four to five years – we believe this is one of the main reasons that Ford, GM, and Chrysler

have lost share.

Product activity slowed, but is re-accelerating in MY11-MY13. This suggests that all-else equal the pricing envir onment should ease through MY10, but become more difficult in MY11 through MY13 unless demand also recovers.

New product activity is focused on Car and Crossover segments. At the same time Light Truck (body-on-frame) intros are slowing.

Gaps in relative performance are beginning to open again. We estimate that an increasing level of disparity in replacement rates will result in larger shifts in
market share similar to those that have begun to emerge in 1H:09.

GM’s market share losses are likely to be greater than targeted. We believe that GM’s 18%-19% market share target is optimistic and a more realistic range is 15%-16%. GM’s replacement rate averages just 11% over the next four years, below its historical average of 14%, and well below the industry average of 18%.

The positive reversal of Ford’s market share in 1H:09 should continue. We believe this will be driven by the relative strength of its product replacement rate of 25% over the next four years, above its historical average of 14% and well better than the industry average of 18%.

We believe Chrysler is likel y to be half its current size in a few years due to a lack of product. Chrysler severely lags the industry on a number of key metrics, which is an ominous sign for market share. In our view, this is a result of a lack of investment by previous owne rs and the dubious potential for Fiat products in the U.S. market.

The lead Japanese OEMs have maintained for years is shrinking. Toyota and Nissan’s metrics are converging closer to the industry averages while Honda remains significantly better than average, which should in combination slow their trend of market share gains.

Korean OEMs are picking up the pace after hitting a dry patch in MY08 &
MY09. Therefore, we expect Hyundai and Ki a to gain significant market share, about 3.5% over the next four years.

Suppliers & Dealers success should be correlated to their exposure to OEMs with high replacement rates. We believe th is bodes well for BorgWarner, a supplier, and the following dealers: PAG, Asbury, Sonic, and Group 1. It continues to be an ominous sign for many suppliers. 1. Replacement rate and showroom age drive market share gains and losses.

2. Product activity slowed, but should
re-accelerate in MY11-MY13.

3. Intros more focused on cars and CUVs
than ever before.

4. Gaps in relative performance are beginning to open again

5. GM’s market share losses are likely to be greater than targeted.

6. Ford’s market share gains in 1H:09 should continue through the next four years.

7. Chrysler is likely to be half its current size in a few years due to a lack of product.

8. The lead Japanese OEMs have maintained for years is shrinking.

9. Korean OEMs are accelerating product intros, which should drive significant market share gains.

10. Suppliers & Dealers success should be correlated to their exposure to OEMs with high replacement rates.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 5 

# Car Wars background

The purpose of Car Wars 7

An independent view 7

Car Wars thesis 8

### 6The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 7 

# The purpose of Car Wars

Background and purpose

Car Wars is a proprietary study we conduct every year to assess the relative strength of automakers’ product pipelin e in the U.S. The study is based on numerous primary and secondary sources, including industry contacts, auto show visits, trade publications, enthusiast magazines, supply chain relationships, and our general knowledge of platform strategies, product cycle planning, and management behavior.

The purpose is to quantify industry product trends and then relate findings to
investment decisions.



## Key metrics The key metrics that we use include the following:

 

### Replacement rate : One of the simplest and most important ways to measure the strength of an aut omaker’s product plan: the es timated percentage of its sales volume to be replaced with entirel y new models or next generations of existing models.

 

### Average showroom age : The number of years on the market, for the average model in an OEM’s showroom (measured on a stand-alone basis and relative to the industry).

 

### New model volume mix : The mix of new models by market during the forecast period for each OEM.

Our process of data collection is continuous, and we have developed a comprehensive database of U.S. product activity going back to 1987 – through two cycle peaks and now almost two troughs. Once a year, we summarize our findings in a report and on a color poster. This year’s study forecasts activity for the 2010-2013 model years. 

# An independent view

Relative performance is what counts

Car Wars represents our independent view of aut omakers’ competitiveness, so it doesn’t necessarily agree with the views of the car companies. It is likely we are missing information on all OEMs. Therefore, despite differences of opinion on any one OEM’s pipeline forecast, we belie ve that we have an accurate view of its relative position in the market, and that’s what we believe matters when forecasting market share.



## All-new versus new and improved Readers may find that our data might differ from the pronouncements OEMs make occasionally about the number of products they plan to launch. This is because our definition of what a new product is may differ from that of automakers. (New product definitions even vary from company to company.) In Car Wars, we include only products we judge to be all-new or next generation vehicles – what the industry typically calls a “major.” We don’t include mid-cycle enhancements where only modest changes are made to the vehicle, typically called a “minor.” Furthermore, we forecast volume based on what we think the average annual volume will be for the pr oduct over its entire m odel life. We do not use company sales targets or peak volu mes, which could distort results. Purpose of report: quantify industry product trends, market share shifts and
then relate conclusions to investment
decisions.

Replacement rate, average showroom age and new model volume mix are the key metrics we calculate to analyze the OEMs’ product pipeline.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 8 

# Car Wars thesis

Our thesis is that an OEM’s product replacement rate drives showroom age, which drives market share, which drives ca pacity utilization, which in turn drives profitability and stock and bond prices . Table 4 shows the average annual replacement rate, relative showroom age, and market share change of the largest
OEMs between MY1999 and 2009. The table shows how the OEMs with the youngest showroom age relative to the industry have gained market share. Although other factors, including mix, pr icing, execution, distribution, and brand power impact market share, we think this data strongly supports our thesis that successful new products drive higher market shares.

Table 4: Historical Replacement Rate, Showroom Age, Market Share (1999-2009) Avg. Volume Replacement Rate [1] 

### Avg. Showroom Age O/(U) Industry Avg. U.S. Market
Share Δ [2]

GM 13.9% 0.3 -9.4% Chrysler 14.4% 0.2 -6.6%
Ford 15.5% 1.2 -8.7%
GM-Stub 16.0% (0.7) 0.2% European 16.8% (0.3) 3.3% Toyota 18.6% (0.7) 7.3%
Nissan 20.2% (1.0) 3.4% Honda 19.2% (0.9) 4.7%
Korean 21.9% (1.1) 5.6%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch [1] Volume weighted average age variance
[2] Market Share is Based on Calendar Years 1998-2008



### Based on the relative strength of this historical relationship, and taking mix and strategy into account, we have forecasted market share shifts for the major automakers in the U.S. market, which is summarized in Table 5. We will discus the implications of these shi fts in the following sections.

Table 5: Forecast Replacement Rate, Showroom Age, Market Share (2010e-2013e) Avg. Volume Replacement Rate [1] 

### Avg. Showroom Age O/(U) Industry Avg. Estimated U.S.
Market Share D [2]

Korean 27.0% (0.2) 3.5%
Ford 24.8% (0.2) 3.0%
Honda 24.2% (0.6) 3.0% Toyota 16.9% (0.2) 1.0%
Nissan 16.9% (0.0) 0.5% European 15.8% 0.5 0.0%
GM-Stub 13.2% 0.1 0.0%
GM 11.2% 0.8 -5.0% Chrysler 8.3% (0.0) -6.0%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch [1] Volume weighted average age variance [2] Market share forecast is for calendar years 2009-2012 

## Replacement rate
▼ Showroom age
▼ Market share
▼ Capacity utilization
▼ Profitability
▼ Share/bond priceThe US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 9 

# Investment implications

Investment implications for Ford 11

Implications for GM 11

Implications for Chrysler 11

Investment implications for suppliers 12

Investment implications for dealers 12

### 10The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 11 

# Investment implications for Ford

We expect the positive market share moment um that Ford has built in 1H:09 to continue through the end of 2012 based on a relatively strong replacement rate and lower average showroom age. This should drive upside relative to current expectations. Specifically, we believe th at based on strong market share gains that Ford may post better than break-even EPS in 2010 and possibly $1.00 in 2011.

Table 6: Ford's replacement rate, showroom ag e, market share - 1999-2009 vs. 2010e-2013e Avg. Volume Replacement Rate Avg. Showroom Age O/(U) Industry Avg. U.S. Market
Share Δ

1999 - 2009 15% 1.2 -8.7%
2010e - 2013e 25% (0.2) 3.0%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



# Implications for GM

GM’s replacement rate and average showroom age point to a slight acceleration of market share losses. This puts the company’s market share target of 18%- 19% in jeopardy, which means that further restructuring actions could be necessary. We believe a more reasonable target would be 15%-16%. At a trend rate of US demand of 14mm units, the di screpancy of 3% market would equate to
close to 500k fewer units for North America or about two fewer assembly facilities.

Table 7: GM's replacement rate, showroom ag e, market share - 1999-2009 vs. 2010e-2013e Avg. Volume Replacement Rate Avg. Showroom Age O/(U) Industry Avg. U.S. Market
Share Δ

1999 - 2009 14% 0.3 -9.4%
2010e - 2013e 11% 0.8 -5.0%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



# Implications for Chrysler

Chrysler’s product pipeline is dubious and li kely to drive significant market share losses. We anticipate that Chrysler will be roughly half its current size in a few years creating room for other aut omakers to gain market share.

Table 8: Chrysler's replacement rate, showroom age, market share - 1999-2009 vs. 2010e-2013e Avg. Volume Replacement Rate Avg. Showroom Age O/(U) Industry Avg. U.S. Market
Share Δ

1999 - 2009 14% 0.2 -6.6%
2010e - 2013e 8% (0.0) -6.0%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch 

### We expect the positive market share
momentum that Ford has built in 1H:09 to continue through the end of 2012 based on a relatively strong replacement rate and lower average showroom age. This should drive upside relative to current expectations.

GM’s replacement rate and average showroom age point to a slight
acceleration of market share losses. This puts the market share target of 18%-19% at jeopardy, which means that further restructuring actions may be necessary. We believe a more reasonable target
would be 15%-16%.

Chrysler’s product pipeline is dubious and likely to drive significant market share losses. We anticipate that Chrysler will be roughly half its current size in a few

years.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 12 

# Investment implications for suppliers

Proprietary technology trumps all for suppliers in our view, though exposure to profitable and growing OEMs is extremely important for their growth, profitability, and returns. Therefore, assuming all else equal, suppliers most exposed to OEMs with the highest replacement rates and lo west average age are best off. At the highest level this is a positive sign for BorgWarner and a tough sign for many NA focused suppliers (Chart 3).

Chart 3: Supplier Exposure to OEMs – 2008

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%AXLLEAMGATRWJCIGNTXBWAARM Big Three

GM

F

Chry sler

VW

BMW

Toy ota

Honda

Nissan

Hy undai

Other

Source: Company Filings 

# Investment implications for dealers

Similar to suppliers and assuming all else equal, dealers that are most exposed to the OEMs with the highest replacement rates and lowest average age are best off, in our view. This should translate into better new car sales and earnings growth in the short term and importantly fe ed into the recurring parts and service profit stream in the long term as units in operation grow. The following chart summarizes the public groups' new vehicle exposure by brand.

Chart 4: Dealer 2008 new vehicle sales by brand

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LAD AN SAH GPI ABG PAG Big Three

GM

F

Chry sler

VW

Mercedes

BMW

Toy ota

Honda

Nissan

Other

Source: Company Filings 

### Proprietary technology trumps all for suppliers in our view, though exposure to profitable and growing OEMs is extremely important for their growth, profitability,
and returns.

Similar to suppliers and assuming all else equal, dealers that are most exposed to the OEMs with the highest replacement
rates and lowest av erage age are best
off.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 13 

# Industry & manufacturer trends

Industry trends

New model launches 15

Replacement rate 16

Average showroom age 16

New models by segment 17

Manufacturer trends

Average showroom age 18

Relative freshness of product lines 18

Cumulative replacement rates 19

### 14The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 15 

# Industry trends

This section details product trends for the U.S. auto market. The size, homogeneity, relatively rich mix, and ultima tely the profitability of the U.S. market continue to attract new investments from overseas automakers. However, what has been an accelerating boom of new model launches in recent years will likely slow slightly as the industry works its wa y through a rationalization phase we refer to as the “Big Bang”.



## New model launch activity slows ever so slightly As shown in Chart 5, we expect OEMs to launch 166 new models during our forecast period (2010-2013), or an average of 42 per year. This rate is about 12% above the average number of models laun ched per year between 1989 and 2009, underscoring how intensely com petitive the industry still is.

Chart 5: New model launches 2010e-2013e

35 31 34

26 35 38 36

21 48

21 39 35 38 41 39

32 41 41 40 43 55

43

32 34 49

42 41

- 10 20 30 40 50 60198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010E2011E2012E2013E Av erage = 37, 1989-2009

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### There are many factors contributing to the acceleration in product, including OEMs’ rush to enter new vehicles segment s (CUVs, hybrids, ultra-luxury, youth, etc.), an aggressive push by some OEMs to expand product line-ups (for example, the Korean OEMs), as well as t he relative richness and size of the U.S.
vehicle market. Stricter CAFE standards and higher gasoline prices are also raising the profile of the CUV and car se gments, which represent an increasing share of new product launches (Chart 6).

Chart 6: 2010e-2013e new vehicle launch mix vs. 2000-2009

32%

13% 17%

22% 9%

10% 18%

26% 23% 29%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

00-09 10-13 Mid/Large

Car

Small Car

Lux ury & Sporty Ca r

Crossov er

Lt. Truck

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch 

### New model launches hit a relative lull in MY09 which we expect to continue in MY10, but pick up significantly in MY11 through the end of our forecast period in

MY13.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 16 

## Replacement rate eases in MY10 and then accelerates The replacement rate mirrors the trend in new model launches to a large degree. On average, between 1992 and 2009, t he industry replaced about 13% of its volume each year with new models. At this rate, the industry turns over its entire model line about every 7.7 years. Over t he next four years, we expect the annual replacement rate will remain higher at close to 18%, which means that the industry will turn over in less than 6 year s. MY09 was particularly important for trucks, at about 40% of new volume, driven by Ford’s new F-150 and a new Dodge Ram. However, new volume mix is moving significantly away from trucks towards cars and CUVs that we estimate will account for an unprecedented 87%
of new volume launched from MY10 to MY13.

In our opinion, the continued strong pace of product activity can be linked to the intensely competitive industry environment. As with all industries, auto companies can compete through cost leadership, superior product, or product differentiation. For most OEMs, the first strategy has been unachievable, and with the reorganized and restructured Detroit Three it is even tougher to differentiate on cost. On the second strategy, there has been extreme convergence in quality as all automakers have improved to a relative ly common level. That leaves almost all trying to compete by differentiating their product. This has resulted in the continued strong pace of new models introductions.

Chart 7: Replacement rate

17%

12%

8% 17%

10% 18%

13% 15% 14%

10% 14%

10% 20% 19%

12% 15% 12% 18% 21%

10% 10% 11%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%1992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010E2011E2012E2013EReplacement Rate Av erage 1992 - 2009 = 13%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



## Average showroom age likely remains low The age of vehicles on sale in showrooms across the U.S. (Chart 16) has been on a steady decline since the early 1990s , as automakers replace their products more frequently. We attribute this trend to intensifying competition – in part from new entrants – and product line expansion by car companies that have introduced numerous new nameplates. We expect that the industry’s average showroom age will trend lower averagi ng about 2.6 years for MY10 – MY13, a noticeable tick down from an average age of 2.8 years for the last decade. Industry replacement rate over the forecast period will remain well above the 13% historical average, spiking to an average of 20% for MY11 through MY13.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 17 Chart 8: Average showroom age [1]

3.5 4.1

3.5

3.1 3.3 3.7 3.4 3.4

2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.1

2.4 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7

- 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010E2011E2012E2013E

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch [1] Average is volume weighted, in past reports this has been a simple average, the results vary only slightly



### Intensified competition and t he resulting new products are, of course, fabulous for consumers, who will enjoy the choice of new cars and trucks. All of this new product, however, comes at a high cost to the OEMs, which will need to become increasingly efficient with R&D and capital spending.


## New model segment shift contin ues towards CUVs and Cars

Chart 9 shows the U.S. market’s evolvi ng market shift, based on the number of new models, not volumes, from traditional small, midsize, and large cars to light trucks, luxury cars, and crossovers.

Since the MY1997 launch of the Toyota RAV4 and the Honda CRV, crossovers have been the next big thing – and they still are. Forty-eight of the 166 new models we forecast for 2010-2013, or 29% will be crossovers. The segment has been dominated by Japanese OEMs, but t he Detroit Three are making a big push with Ford introducing 10, GM 5, and Chrysler 2 new crossover models in the next four model years.

Chart 9: New models by segment

Light Truck Crossov er Lux ury & Sporty

Car Small Car Mid/Large Car

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010E2011E2012E2013E

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch, not volume weighted



### In addition to the continuation of the cr ossover boom, which is the largest in any single category, Small and Mid/Large car launches are picking up significantly accounting for 60 launches over the next f our years, or about 36% over the next four years. At the same time there is an almost 60% decline in body-on-frame
truck introductions over the next four years versus the last decade. Excess supply, competitive pressure, new entrants, etc. will co ntinue to drive down product cycle times.

New model emphasis is still on crossovers. However, Small and Mid/Large car launches are picking up significantly accounting for 60 launches over the next four years, or about 36% over the next four years.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 18 

# Manufacturer trends

Average showroom age still converging around 2.6 years Average showroom age is one way to quant ify how intensely competitive the
U.S. market has become in the last tw o decades (see Chart 10). For some time, there has been a convergence in the av erage showroom age. In the late 1980s through the late 1990s, there were lar ge gaps in competitiveness where the domestic companies and Europeans had product that was five to six years old while the Japanese OEMs had products that averaged about two years old. Since the late 1980s, the domestic and European OEMs have become much more competitive. Their average showr oom age is now about 2.6 years, while the Japanese product cycles have stabili zed between 2 and 2.5 years. We believe that the Japanese OEMs came to r ealize that it wasn’t worth replacing some of their low-margin smaller cars so frequently to drive average age below 2 years. In addition, as the Japanese have developed more full line product offerings it is difficult to main tain an abnormally low average age.

However, at the end of the next four m odel years there will be some divergence as GM’s all important GMT900 product ag es (this should improve shortly after MY13) and Chrysler’s portfolio just flat out ages while Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and Hyundai keep their product fresh at around 2 years and Ford is not far behind at 2.4 years. It should be not ed that Ford’s average age improves dramatically as we anticipate the end of a few extremely old products such at the Econoline vans, Crown Vi ctoria, and Grand Marquis.

Chart 10: Average showroom age by OEM

- 1

2 3 4 5 6 719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010E2011E2012E2013EYears General Motors Ford Chry sler Industry European Japanese Korean

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



## Relative freshness of product lines remains low As competition further intensifies, even small differences in showroom age can impact OEMs’ performance. Chart 11 shows the relative freshness of product lines by manufacturer over the next four model years. The companies are relatively closely clustered except for GM (average showroom age 3.3 years) . GM’s average showroom age is notably above average weighted up by the aging GMT900 product line up. We expect Ford’s average showroom age to drop drastically to an average of just 2.4 years for MY10-MY13 as it cancels older products such as the Econoline and intr oduces new replacement product such as
the Transit. We expect Ford’s average showroom age to drop drastically to an average of just 2.4 years for MY10-MY13 as it cancels older products such as the Econoline and introduces new replacement product such
as the Transit.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 19 Chart 11: Relative freshness of pr oduct line by manuf acturer 20 10e-2013e

3.3 3.1

2.6 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.0

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

G M Eu rop

e an

I ndust r y Average
C h ry s l er N i s s an Toy o ta Kor ea

n For d H o n da

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



## Cumulative replacement rates appear to drive market share Comparing cumulative replacement rate s is one of the simplest and most effective ways in which we measure the strength of product plan. The replacement rate is the estimated percenta ge of sales volume to be replaced with entirely new models or next generation of existing models during the period.

Over the next four years, the industry will replace 72% of its volume, with the disparity among the major manufacturers widening again. We believe that the increasing deltas in replacement rates betw een OEMs will result in larger shifts in

market share similar to those that have begun to emerge in 1H:09.

Chart 12: Cumulative replacement rates, % of 2008 CY volume replaced in MY 2010e-2013e

33% 45% 53% 63% 67% 68%

72% 97% 99% 108%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Chry sler GM GM-Stub Europea Nissan Toy ota Industry

Honda

Ford Korean

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch 

### Ford will likely have one of the fresher lineups as it cancels older product such as the Econoline and begins to leverage its global product to dr ive a lower average age. GM’s product ages largely because of the aging of the GMT900 vehicles, but this should improve upon the new models sometime beyond MY13.

We estimate that an increasing level of disparity in replacement rates will result in larger shifts in market share similar to those that have begun to emerge in

1H:09.

Chrysler is the extreme outlier on the
low-end due to the lack of investment of
its last two owners and the dubious potential for Fiat products in the U.S.
market.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 20 

### This page intentionally left blank.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 21 

# Company analysis

General Motors Corp 23

Ford Motor Co 25

Chrysler 27

Japanese OEMs 29

European OEMs 32

Korean OEMs 34

### 22The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 23 

# General Motors Corporation

Conclusion: GM’s market share losses are likely to be greater than expected and more severe in CY2009 and CY2010 while easing in later years. We believe that GM’s 18%-19% market share target is optimistic and a more realistic range is 15%-16%.
Chart 13: GM replacement rate vs. industry

20%

6% 6% 26%

0% 20%

3% 26% 20%

1% 13% 6% 10% 16% 15% 32%

11% 5% 9% 12% 12%12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

1 992 1 99

3

1 99

4

1 995

1 996
1 99

7

1 998

1 999 2 00

0

2 00

1

2 002

2 003 2 00

4 2 00

5

2 006

2 007 2 00

8

2 009

2 010E 2 01

1E 2 01

2E

2 013E GM GM 92-09 Av g. Industry Replacement Rate

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 14: New model volume mix

13% 4% 22%

17% 10%
16% 26% 24% 29% 38%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Industry General Motors Mid/Large Car

Small Car

Lux ury & Sporty Car

Crossov er

Lt. Truck

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 15: Average showroom age (years)

3.8 4.7
3.9

2.8 2.6 3.3 3.8 4.0

3.0 2.7 2.2 2.2 3.5 2.9 3.3
2.9 4.0 3.9 4.7 5.4

4.9 4.2 5.2

4.4
3.6

(2) (1) - 1

2 3 4 5 619881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010E2011E2012E2013E Younger Relativ e to Industry :
Older Av erage Show room Age (Years)

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch 

### GM’s replacement rate averages 11% over the next four years, below its historical average of 13% and well below the industry average of 18%.

GM’s mix is positively skewed toward Mid/Large Cars over the forecast horizon. CUVs and Small Cars are a focus for GM, but it appears to be under introducing relative to the industry and more specifically the competition.

Relative showroom age improved dramatically with the intro of the GMT900 product line-up driving an average age of about 2.2 years in MY08&09, but as those trucks are aging so is GM’s average age.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 24

Table 9: General Motors U.S. product pipeline 2010e-2013e

2010e 2011e 2012e 2013e Chevrolet Equinox - Small CUV Chev rolet Orlando - Minivan Cadillac BTS - Sedan & Coupe GMC Acadia - Mid CUV
GMC Terrain - Small CUV Cadillac DTS - Sedan Chev rolet Impala - Sedan Buick Enclave - Midsize CUV Cadillac SRX - Luxury CUV Chevrolet Aveo - Sedan & Hatchback Buick Lucerne - Sedan Chevrolet Malibu - Sedan Chevrolet Camaro - Coupe & Convertible Chevrolet Cruze - Coupe & Sedan Chevrolet Spark - Hatchback Chevrolet Corvette - Coupe & Convertible
Buick La Crosse - Sedan Chevrolet Volt - Ha tchback (plug in) Cadillac CTS - Sedan & Coupe % of volume replaced : 9% % of volume replaced : 12% % of volume replaced : 12% % of volume replaced : 12%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Table 10: GM-Stub U.S. product pipeline 2010e-2013e

2010e 2011e 2012e 2013e Saab 9-4X - Mid Lux CUV Saab 9-3 - Sedan, Wagon & Conver tible Saturn Outlook - Mid CUV Saturn Aura - Sedan Saab 9-5 - Sedan & Wagon % of volume replaced : 11% % of volume replaced : 6% % of volume replaced : 11% % of volume replaced : 25%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 16: 2010 Cadillac SRX

Source: GM Corp 

### Chart 17: 2010 Buick LaCrosse

Source: GM Corp



### Chart 18: 2011 Chevy Cruze

Source: GM Corp 

### Chart 19: 2010 GMC Terrain

Source: GM CorpThe US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 25 

# Ford Motor Company

Conclusion: Ford’s market share gains in 1H:09 should continue due to the relative strength of its product replacement rate over the next four years. This appears to be a result of planning as well as the fortuitous stress at its two main competitors.

Chart 20: Replacement rate

27%

15%

3% 12% 12% 27%

11%11% 21%

5% 12% 7% 18%
10% 8% 9% 23% 48%

15% 30% 29% 25%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E Ford Ford 92-09 Av g. Industry Replacement Rate

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 21: New model volume mix

13% 19% 22% 32% 10% 8% 26% 21% 29% 20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Industry Ford Mid/Large Car

Small Car

Lux ury & Sporty Car

Crossov er

Lt. Truck

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 22: Average showroom age (years)

3.2 3.8 4.2 5.0 4.3

2.9 4.2

2.1 2.9 4.3 3.6 4.1 4.4 6.5

3.9

2.0 2.4 2.2 2.8 5.0

3.9 2.9 3.4 3.7

2.4 3.2

(2) (1) - 1

2 3 4 5 6 71988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009E2010E2011E2012E2013E Younger Relativ e to Industry :

Older Av erage Show room Age (Years)

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch 

### Ford’s replacement rate for MY 2010 to
2013 is 25%

, above its hist orical average of 15% and well better than the industry average of 18%. Therefore its positive momentum should continue driving an
increase in market share of about 3% to
close to 18%.

Ford appears to remain slightly overweight truck introductions, but is also overweight Crossovers. Notably, Ford lags in passenger car introductions over the next four years despite the 2010 Taurus
and 2011 Fiesta and Focus.

Ford’s average showroom age should drop dramatically through MY13 as it cancels a
few older models such as the Econoline that will likely be replaced with all new product.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 26

Table 11: Ford U.S. produc t pipeline 2010e-2013e

2010e 2011e 2012e 2013e Lincoln MKT - Lux CUV Ford Explorer - Large CUV Ford Escape - Mid CUV Ford Edge - Mid CUV Volvo XC60 - Small CUV Lincoln Aviator - Large CUV Fo rd C-Max - Small CUV Lincoln MKX - Mid Lux CUV Ford Transit Connnect - Van Volvo S60/V70 - Sedan & Wagon Merc ury Mariner - Small CUV Ford Mustang - Coupe & Convertible Ford Taurus - Sedan Ford Focus - Hatchback, Sedan & Wagon Volvo XC90 - Mid CUV Lincoln MKZ - Sedan Ford Fiesta - Sedan & Hatchback Ford F-100 - Small Pickup Ford Fusion - Sedan Mercury Fiesta Based - Sedan & Hatchback Ford Expedition - Large SUV Mercury Milan - Sedan
Ford Transit - Van Lincoln Navigator - Large SUV % of volume replaced : 15% % of volume replaced : 30% % of volume replaced : 29% % of volume replaced : 25%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 23: 2010 Ford Taurus

Source: Ford Motor Co 

### Chart 24: 2011 Ford Explorer

Source: Ford Motor Co



### Chart 25: 2011 Ford Fiesta

Source: Motor Trend 

### Chart 26: 2012 Ford Escape – likely to be based on Kuga, shown

Source: Motor TrendThe US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 27 

# Chrysler

Conclusion: Chrysler’s product pipeline severely lags the industry on a number of key metrics, which is an ominous sign for its market share. This is a result of a lack of investment by Chrysler’s last two owners and the dubious potential for Fiat products in the U.S. market.
Chart 27: Replacement rate

0% 23%
16% 19% 26%

14%13% 33% 27%

15%

7% 20% 27%27%

5% 9% 3% 16% 8%

1% 5% 10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E Chry sler Chry sler 92-09 Av g. Industry Replacement Rate

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 28: New model volume mix

13% 16% 22% 16% 10% 26% 29%

48%

21%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Industry Chry sler Mid/Large Car

Small Car

Lux ury & Sporty Car

Crossov er

Lt. Truck

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 29: Average showroom age (years)

3.0 2.8 4.2

2.5
1.7 2.4 3.6 2.9 2.6

1.9 4.1

2.8 2.6 2.0 2.5 3.7 3.4 3.0 3.4 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.5 4.1 4.1 4.2

(2) (1) - 1

2 3 4 5 6 71988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009E2010E2011E2012E2013E Younger Relativ e to Industry :

Older A v erage Show room Age (Years)

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch 

### Chrysler’s average replacement rate of just 8% over the next four model years is
well below its historical 16% and the industry average of 18%. The extreme underperformance leads us to believe that Chrysler will be about half of its current size within the next few years.

Chrysler’s mix is skewed towards the Mid/Large Car and Truck segments. The company lags in CUVs and Small Car intros, which in combination with the
truck concentration should lead to an
extreme decline in market share.

Chrysler’s average showroom age drops well below the industry average in MY09 through MY12 driven by several relatively young products like the Ram pickup and minivans, but that fades quickly in MY13.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 28

Table 12: Chrysler U.S. product pipeline 2010e-2013e

2010e 2011e 2012e 2013e Dodge Charger - Sedan Jeep Grand Cherokee - Mid SUV Jeep (Fiat) Panda - Small CUV Jeep Patriot - Small CUV Chrysler 300 - Sedan Chrysler (F iat) 500 - Hatchback Chrysler Sebr ing - Sedan, Coupe & Convertible Dodge Avenger - Sedan Chrysler (Fiat) Grande Punto - Hatchback % of volume replaced : 5% % of volume replaced : 9% % of volume replaced : 3% % of volume replaced : 16%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 30: 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee

Source: Chrysler Media 

### Chart 31: 2010 Dodge Charger

Source: Chrysler Media



### Chart 32: 2012 Jeep Small CUV – likely to be based on Fiat Panda, shown

Source: Edmunds 

### Chart 33: 2012 Chrysler Hatchback – likely to be based on Fiat 500, shown

Source: EdmundsThe US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 29 

# Japanese OEMs

Conclusion : The lead Japanese OEMs have maintained for years is shrinking. Toyota and Nissan’s metrics are converging closer to the industry averages while Honda remains significantly better than average (Charts 34-36 & 62-67), which should in combination slow their trend of market share gains.
Chart 34: Replacement rate

23% 21% 16% 24%

15% 24% 34%

13% 17% 15% 24% 30%

19% 14% 12% 29%

17% 19% 15% 22% 29%

17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

1 992 1 993 1 994 1 995 1 996
1 997 1 99

8

1 99

9

2 00

0

2 00

1

2 00

2

2 00

3

2 00

4

2 00

5

2 00

6

2 00

7

2 00

8

2 009

2 010E 2 011E 2 012E 2 013E Total Japanese Total Japanese 92-09 Av g. Industry

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 35: New model volume mix

13% 16% 22% 17% 10% 8% 26% 27% 29% 32%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Industry Japanese Mid/Large Car

Small Car

Lux ury & Sporty Car

Crossov er

Lt. Truck

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 36: Average showroom age (years)

1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.1 1.2 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.3 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.2 1.5

(3) (2) (1) - 1

2 3 4 5 6 71988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009E2010E2011E2012E2013E Younger Relativ e to Industry : Olde r Av erage Show room Age (Years)

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch 

### The lead is shrinking - the Japanese OEMs have a strong stab le of products launching over the next four years, with a replacement rate averaging 21%. In aggregate the replacement rate over the next four model years is just 1% above their historical average and 3% above the industry average.

Model introduction mix is close to the industry mix, with a slight over emphasis on Mid/Large Cars and Light Trucks and

under on Crossovers.

Showroom age remains below average through MY13, but creeps close to the industry average in MY10 – MY11 for the first time ever. This is not just a function of increased compet ition, but also a function of Toyota, Honda, and Nissan’s broader product lineup.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 30

Table 13: Toyota OEM produc t pipeline 2010e-2013e

2010e 2011e 2012e 2013e Lexus RX - Mid CUV Toyota RAV4 - Small CUV Toyo ta 4Runner - Mid SUV Toyota Tacoma - Small Pickup
Lexus HS - Sedan Lexus LF-X - Small CUV Lexus ES - Sedan Lexus LS - Sedan Toyota Prius - Hatchback Toyota Sienna - Minivan Lexus GS - Sedan Toyota Scion xB - Hatchback Lexus GX - Mid SUV Toyota Camry - Sedan Toyota Scion xD - Hatchback Lexus IS - Coupe, Sedan & Convertible Toyota Yaris - Hatchback & Sedan Lexus LF-A - Lux Coupe Toyota Avalon - Sedan Toyota Scion tC - Coupe Toyota iQ - Hatchback % of volume replaced : 11% % of volume replaced : 19% % of volume replaced : 27% % of volume replaced : 10%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Table 14: Honda OEM produc t pipeline 2010e-2013e

2010e 2011e 2012e 2013e
Honda Accord Cross - Mid CUV Honda Element - Small CUV Honda CRV - Small CUV Acura RDX - Small CUV Acura ZDX - Mid CUV Honda Odyssey - Minivan Honda Ridgeline - SUP Honda Accord - Coupe & Sedan
Honda CRZ - Hatchback Acura RL - Sedan Acura MDX - Mid CUV Honda Insight - Hatchback Honda Civic - Hatchback, Coupe & Sedan Honda Fit - Hatchback % of volume replaced : 15% % of volume replaced : 34% % of volume replaced : 21% % of volume replaced : 25%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Table 15: Nissan OEM pr oduct pipeline 2010e-2013e

2010e 2011e 2012e 2013e Nissan 350Z - Coupe & Convertible Niss an Titan - Pickup Nissan Frontier - Sm all Pickup Infiniti EX - Small CUV
Nissan Cube - Hatchback Nissan Xterra - Mid SUV Niss an Pathfinder - Mid SUV Infiniti G35 - Coupe & Sedan
Infiniti M - Sedan Nissan Sentra - Sedan Nissan Altima - Sedan & Coupe
Nissan Versa - Hatchback % of volume replaced : 2% % of volume replaced : 7% % of volume replaced : 42% % of volume replaced : 16%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Table 16: Other Japanese OEM product pipeline 2010e-2013e

2010e 2011e 2012e 2013e Subaru Legacy - Sedan & Wagon Subaru B9 Tribeca - Mid CUV Mi tsubishi Endeavor - Mid CUV Mazda CX-7 - Midsize CUV Subaru Outback - Sedan & Wagon Mitsubishi Galant - Sedan Mazda RX-8 - Coupe Subaru Impreza - Coupe, Sedan & Wagon Mazda2 - Hatchback Suzuki Swift - Hatchback Mazda5 - Wagon
Mazda3 - Sedan & Hatchback Suzuki Equator - Pickup

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill LynchThe US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 31 Chart 37: 2010 Lexus RX

Source: Toyota Motor Co 

### Chart 38: 2010 Lexus HS

Source: Toyota Motor Co



### Chart 39: 2011 Toyota Sienna

Source: Edmunds 

### Chart 40: 2010 Honda Accord Cross

Source: Edmunds



### Chart 41: 2010 Acura ZDX

Source: Honda Media 

### Chart 42: 2010 Nissan Cube

Source: Nissan



### Chart 43: 2010 Honda CRZ

Source: Edmunds 

### Chart 44: 2010 Subaru Outback

Source: EdmundsThe US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 32 

# European OEMs

Conclusion: European OEMs’ replacement rates are below the industry average and their historical rate, and average age remains relatively stable below the industry average. We don’t expect any meaningful shift in market share over the next four years, but there could be slight erosion.
Chart 45: Replacement rate

27% 43%

21%

12% 27%

10% 8% 13% 17% 28%

14% 8% 27%

6% 25% 44%

16% 16% 11% 7% 2% 16%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

1992 199

3

1994 199

5

1996 199

7

199

8

1999 200

0

2001 200

2

200

3

2004 200

5

2006 200

7

2008 2009

201

0E

2011E 201

2E

2013E European European 92-09 Av g. Industry Replacement Rate

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 46: New model volume mix

13% 5% 23%
21% 10% 43% 24% 26% 30%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Industry European Mid/Large Car

Small Car

Lux ury & Sporty Car

Crossov er

Lt. Truck

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 47: Average showroom age (years)

5.3
4.4 5.6

2.5 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.3 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.6 3.4 2.8 2.6 2.0 3.1 3.3 3.2 2.9 3.6 6.2

5.4

(2) (1) - 1

2 3 4 5 6 71988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009E2010E2011E2012E2013E Younger Relativ e to Industry :
Olde r Av erage Show room Age (Years)

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch 

### European OEM average replacement rates are about 16%, below the industry average of 18% and their historical average also of 18% over the next four model years. This may result in small
market share erosion over the next four

years.

With the brands of BMW, Audi, Porsche, and Mercedes it is no surprise that the Europeans are overweight Luxury cars. However, it is worth no ting that like most other makers, the Europeans are over introducing more Small Cars, by our
estimation.

European OEMs have an average showroom age of about 3.1 years over the next four model years which is about half a year older than the industry average.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 33 Table 17: European OEM product pipeline 2010e-2013e

2010e 2011e 2012e 2013e Audi Q5 - Mid CUV VW Touareg - Mid CUV Me rcedes R-Class - MPV Audi Q7 - Mid CUV
Mercedes GLK-Class - Small SUV Audi Q3 - Small CUV Land Rover LRX - Small SUV Mercedes M-Class - Mid CUV Audi A7 - Sedan BMW X1 - Small CUV Mercedes CLS-Class - Sedan Range Rover - Large SUV Mercedes E-Class - Sedan & Wagon BMW X3 - Small CUV BMW 6 Series - Coupe & Convertible VW Scirocco - Hatchback BMW Z4 - Coupe & Convertible Porsche Cayenne - Mid CUV VW Polo - Hatchback BMW 3 Series - Coupe, Sedan & Convertible Porsche Panamera - Sedan Audi A6 - Sedan & Wagon Audi A3 - Hatchback Porsche Boxster - Convertible Audi A8 - Sedan Porsche Cayman - Coupe BMW 5 Series - Sedan & Wagon VW Passat - Sedan Jaguar XJ - Sedan VW Rabbit - Hatchback Porsche 911 - Coupe & Convertibe
VW Jetta - Sedan % of volume replaced : 9% % of volume replaced : 24% % of volume replaced : 6% % of volume replaced : 24%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 48: 2010 Audi Q5

Source: Motor Trend 

### Chart 49: 2010 Mercedes E-Class

Source: Edmunds



### Chart 50: 2010 Porsche Panamera

Source: Porsche Media 

### Chart 51: 2011 BMW X1

Source: BMWThe US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 34 

# Korean OEMs

Conclusion: Korean OEMs are picking up the pace after hitting a dry patch in MY08 & MY09. Therefore, we expect Hyundai and Kia to gain significant market share. Although the pattern of Hyundai and Kia’s product intros has been volatile some stability is emerging.

Chart 52: Replacement rate

35%

0% 57%

0% 46%

37% 33% 38% 53%

9% 13% 13%
6% 41%

24%

6% 47%

16% 34%

15% 6% 16%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

199

2

1993 1994 199

5

1996 1997 199

8

199

9

2000 200

1

200

2

2003 2004 200

5

2006 2007 200

8

200

9 2010E 201

1E

201

2E

2013E Korean Korean 92-09 Av g. Industry Replacement Rate

Source: Banc of America Securites-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 53: New model volume mix

13% 23% 32% 10% 3% 24% 37% 30% 29%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Industry Korean Mid/Large Car

Small Car

Lux ury & Sporty Car

Crossov er

Lt. Truck

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 54: Average showroom age (years)

1.0 2.9 3.2

0.3 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.7 0.8 0.7 2.6 3.2

1.7 1.5 2.3 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.6 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.9

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) - 1

2 3 4 5 6 71988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009E2010E2011E2012E2013E Relativ e to Industry : Older Av erage Show room Age (Years)

Youn g er

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch 

### The average replacement rate of 27% over the next four model years is well ahead of the industry average of 18% their historical average of 24%. This should drive significant market share gains.

The mix of introductions for Korean OEMs is heavily overweight Small Cars and CUVs
which also bodes well for market share.

Average showroom age trends peeks above the industry average in MY11, but otherwise remains below average, which should also help drive market share gains.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 35 Table 18: Korean OEMs U.S. product pipeline 2010e-2013e

2010e 2011e 2012e 2013e Kia Forte - Sedan & Coupe Hyundai Tucson - Small CUV Hy undai Azera - Sedan Hyundai Santa Fe - Midsize CUV
Kia Soul - Hatchback Kia Sorento - Small CUV Kia Amanti - Sedan Hyundai Veracruz - Large CUV Kia Sportage - Small CUV Hyundai Accent - Hatchback & Sedan Kia Rondo - Small CUV Hyundai Equus - Sedan Kia Rio - Hatchback & Sedan Hyundai Elantra - Sedan Hyundai Sonata - Sedan Kia Optima - Sedan % of volume replaced : 15% % of volume replaced : 44% % of volume replaced : 16% % of volume replaced : 34%

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 55: 2010 Kia Forte

Source: Edmunds 

### Chart 56: 2010 Kia Soul

Source: Kia Motors



### Chart 57: 2011 Hyundai Equus

Source: Car and Driver 

### Chart 58: 2011 Hyundai Sonata

Source: HyundaiThe US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 36 

### This page intentionally left blank.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 37 

# Conclusions

### 38The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 39 

# Conclusions

We believe our measures of replacement rate and showroom age are the major driver of market share gains and losses. Historically, Detroit has replaced its line-up every seven years wh ile the competition has done so every four to five years – one of the main reasons that Ford, GM, and Chrysler have lost share, in our view.

Product activity slowed, but is re-accelerating in MY11-MY13. This suggests that all-else equal the pricing envir onment should ease through MY10, but become more difficult in MY11 through MY13 unless demand also recovers.

New product activity is focused on Car and Crossover segments. At the same time Light Truck (body-on-frame) intros are slowing.

Gaps in relative performance are beginning to open again. We estimate that an increasing level of disparity in replacement rates will result in larger shifts in
market share similar to those that have begun to emerge in 1H:09.

GM’s market share losses are likely to be greater than targeted. We believe that GM’s 18%-19% market share target is optimistic and a more realistic range is 15%-16%. GM’s replacement rate averages just 11% over the next four years, below its historical average of 14%, and well below the industry average of 18%.

The positive reversal of Ford’s market share in 1H:09 should continue. We believe this will be driven by the relative strength of its product replacement rate of 25% over the next four years, above its historical average of 14% and well better than the industry average of 18%.

We believe Chrysler is likel y to be half its current size in a few years due to a lack of product. Chrysler severely lags the industry on a number of key metrics, which is an ominous sign for market share. This is a result of a lack of investment by previous owners and the d ubious potential for Fiat products in the
U.S. market.

The lead Japanese OEMs have maintained for years is shrinking. Toyota and Nissan’s metrics are converging closer to the industry averages while Honda remains significantly better than average, which should in combination slow their trend of market share gains.

Korean OEMs are picking up the pace after hitting a dry patch in MY08 &
MY09. Therefore, we expect Hyundai and Ki a to gain significant market share, about 3.5% over the next four years.

Suppliers & Dealers success should be correlated to their exposure to OEMs with high replacement rates. We believe th is bodes well for BorgWarner, a supplier, and the following dealers: PAG, Asbury, Sonic, and Group 1. It continues to be an ominous sign for many suppliers. 1. Replacement rate and showroom age drive market share gains and losses.

2. Product activity slowed, but should
re-accelerate in MY11-MY13.

3. Intros more focused on cars and CUVs
than ever before.

4. Gaps in relative performance are beginning to open again

5. GM’s market share losses are likely to be greater than targeted.

6. Ford’s market share gains in 1H:09 should continue through the next four years.

7. Chrysler is likely to be half its current size in a few years due to a lack of product.

8. The lead Japanese OEMs have maintained for years is shrinking.

9. Korean OEMs are accelerating product intros, which should drive significant market share gains.

10. Suppliers & Dealers success should be correlated to their exposure to OEMs with high replacement rates.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 40 

### This page intentionally left blank.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 41 

# Appendix

### 42The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 43 

# Appendix

Chart 59: New model volume mix industry summary, 2010e-2013e model year

13% 4% 19% 16% 22%

17% 32%

16% 21% 17% 33% 10%
16% 8% 43% 8% 1% 26% 24% 21% 27%

27% 38% 29% 38% 20%

48% 32%

4% 16% 21% 27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Industry GM Ford Chry sler European Japanese Korean Mid/Large

Car

Small Car

Lux ury & Sporty Ca r

Crossov er

Lt. Truck

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 60: Total number of models offered in the U.S. market

169

174175 182181 178 185 188 170

186 166166166 170 185 199 192

202 205 210 206

224 236 242 221

230 227 35 31 34 26 35 38 36 21 48 21 39 35 38 41 39 32 41 41 40 43 55 43 32 34 49 42 41

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010E2011E2012E2013E

Ex isting Models New Models

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 61: Average showroom age by product segment

- 1

2 3 4 5 6 71988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009E2010E2011E2012E2013EYears Crossov er Small Car Mid/Large Car Lux ury & Sporty Car Light Truck Industry

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch 

### GM has the lowest level of truck introductions while Ford, Chrysler and the Japanese automakers have the highest. Surprisingly Small Car intros generally lag Mid/Large Cars and CUVs.

Total number of models launched in the U.S. is on a steady climb, but levels off in

MY10-MY13.

Even among segments there is a general convergence around an average showroom age between two and three years. However, the Small Car segment continues to get fresher while Light Trucks are aging.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 44

Chart 62: Toyota replacement rate

37%

24% 26% 43%

29% 36%

26%

22%

14% 31% 25%

11%

19%

27%

10% 10% 9% 12% 15%

5% 11%

2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

1992

1993

19 94

19 95

1996

1997

1998

1999

200

0 200

1 2002

2003

20 04

20 05

2006

2007

2008

2009

2 010E

2 011E

2 01

2E 2 01

3E Toy ota Toy ota 92-09 Av g. Industry Replacement Rate

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch 

### Chart 63: Toyota’s absolute and relative average showroom age

1.8 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.5 2.6 1.9 2.3 1.3 1.1 1.8 2.1 2.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.5

2.1

(4) (3) (2) (1) - 1

2 3 4 5 6 71988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009E2010E2011E2012E2013E Younger

Relativ e to Industry : Older A v erage Show room Age

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 64: Honda replacement rate

37% 57%

41% 42%

17% 30% 42%

8% 25% 26% 34%

21%

25%
15% 15% 22%

12% 14%

1% 14%

3% 2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

1992

1993

19 94

19 95

1996

1997

1998

1999

200

0 200

1 2002

2003

20 04

20 05

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010E

2011E

201

2E 201

3E Honda Honda 92-09 Av g. Industr y Replacement Rate

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch 

### Chart 65: Honda’s absolute and relative average showroom age

0.7 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.7 1.4 2.0
0.8 1.8 1.1 1.8 1.1 1.6 2.5 1.9 2.0 1.3 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.3 1.7 1.7 2.5 1.9 1.9

(4) (3) (2) (1) - 1

2 3 4 5 6 71988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009E2010E2011E2012E2013E Younger

Relativ e to Industry : A v erage Show room

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch



### Chart 66: Nissan replacement rate

36%

13% 31% 27%

22%

18% 42%

16%

7% 16% 43% 41%

31% 33%

2% 16%

2% 0% 7% 4% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

1992

1993

19 94

19 95

1996

1997

1998

1999

200

0 200

1 2002

2003

20 04

20 05

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010E

2011E

201

2E 201

3E Nissan Nissan 92-09 Av g. Industry Replacement Rate

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill Lynch 

### Chart 67: Nissan’s absolute and relative average showroom age

1.1 1.5 2.0 2.9 2.4 2.2 2.5 3.9 3.0 3.9

2.2 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.4 1.61.6 1.9 2.0 2.7 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.9 3.4

1.9

(3) (2) (1) - 1

2 3 4 5 6 71988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009E2010E2011E2012E2013E Youn g er Relativ e to Industry : Older A v erage Show room Age (Years)

Source: Banc of America Securities-Merrill LynchThe US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 45 

# Price objective basis & risk Asbury Auto (ABG, $10.20, C-1-9) Our price objective of $13 is based on 12.5X our 2010 EPS estimate. We believe
that the ABG brand mix should be relative ly supportive and the quality of the business warrants a multiple at t he higher end of the dealer range. Downside risks to our price objective are 1) A cyclical downturn below our forecasts for US SAAR would put signific ant pressure on new vehicle sales 2) increased weakness in the Florida market to which ABG is exposed 3) the possibility of higher interest rates 4) OEMs wariness toward public groups 5)
consumer dissatisfaction with auto retail ing and 6) the potential for franchise law changes 7) potential covenant breach. Upside risks to our price objective are 1) a general recovery in the economy 2) a significant recovery in US sales 3) a reco very in the Florida market to which ABG is exposed 4) the possibility of lower interest rates.



## BorgWarner (BWA, $30.51, C-2-9)
We believe global macro pressure will challenge even the best run suppliers in our coverage universe, and therefore view average 5yr multiples as being warranted for BWA. This would indicate a stock at about $35 (EV/EBITDA approximately 9.0X). We believe BWA' s relative operating and balance sheet strength will allow investors to look past 2009 to the company's 2010 EPS.

Downside risks to our objective 1) an extreme drop in gas prices coupled with relaxed fuel efficiency regulation 2) increas ed competition in the turbo industry 3) a continued downdraft in volumes 4) an even more than expected severe
increase in raw material costs.

Upside risks to our objective 1) an extreme increase in gas prices 2) greater than expected penetration of turbo charged GDI engines in the US and Europe 3) a significant recovery in volumes in the US and Europe 4) a significant decline in

raw material costs.



## Ford Motor (F, $5.84, C-1-9)
Our $8.75 PO is based on an EV/EBITDA mult iple of 5X using an average of our 2010 and 2011 estimates, which is consist ent with the company's 5-yr historical average. Downside risks to our PO: 1) rest ructuring plan disappoints materially 2)
the U.S. market was to fall lower than es ts 3) input costs rise meaningfully 4) disruption in the supply base 5) signif icant increase in gas prices pressure demand 6) new vehicle pricing deteriorates 7) market share losses pressure results 8) unwillingness of the dealer body to shoulder inventory risk 9) suppliers gain significant pricing power 10) F is unable to receive the same terms from the UAW that may be negotiated by GM/Chrys ler in bankruptcy court 11) further stress in capital markets makes borrowing prohibitive for F 12) trough in sales materializes later than we think, rendering our call early 13) key member of mgmt are unable to continue working at Ford 14) the dealership network is impaired and unable to sell F vehicles 15) significant share dilution if F funds its VEBA obligation with stock 16) US gov fails to support suppliers in the event of a GM/Chrysler bankruptcy 17) failure to execute could lead to bankruptcy. Upside risks to our PO: 1) restructuring plan performs better than expected 2) U.S. auto sales recover meaningfully 3) input costs drop meaningfully 4) the potential for further government stimulus 5) a rapid re covery in the global economy 6) large market share gains from competitors 7) a much better UAW contract.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 46 

## Group 1 Auto (GPI, $25.49, C-1-9) Our price objective of $29.00 is based on a multiple of 12.5X our 2010 EPS estimate, which is at the high end of the historical range for GPI. Over time we believe the stock will trade to the hig her end of its historical range as management focuses on cost savings and growth by acquisition to drive 15% earnings growth in the long run. Downside Risks to our price objective 1) the loss of Hesterberg and/or Rickel, 2) the possibility that GPI is unable to achieve the earnings growth we forecast, 3) the possibi lity of higher interest rates, 4) OEMs wariness toward public groups, 5) consumer dissatisfaction with auto retailing, and, 6) the potential for franchise la w changes. Upside Risks to our price objective 1) stronger than anticipated earnings growth 2) further declines in interest rates, and 3) favovrable franchise law changes.



## Penske Auto Group (PAG, $16.14, C-1-9) Our price objective of $19 is based on 15X our 2010 EPS estimate, at the high end of the average for the sto ck over the last 5 years. We believe that multiple upside is warranted given the strength of PAG's m odel and luxury brand mix. Downside Risks to our price objective, 1) the loss of Roger Penske's leadership, 2) the possibility that PAG is unable to achieve the earnings growth we forecast, 3) the possibility of higher interest rates, 4) OEMs wariness toward public groups 5) consumer dissatisfaction with auto reta iling, and 6) the potential for franchise law changes. Upside Risks to our price objective, 1) stronger than anticipated earnings growth, 2) lower interest rates, and 3) the potential for favorable franchise law changes.



## Sonic Automotive (SAH, $9.21, C-1-9) Our price objective of $11.50 is based on 10x our 2010e EPS, around the historical average an d below the 2010e de aler average P/E. Downside Risks to our price objective 1) a cyclical downturn below our forecasts for US SAAR would put significant pressure on new vehicle sales, 2) possibility that SAH is unable to achieve the earnings growth we forecast, 3) the possibility of higher interest rates, 4) OEMs wariness toward public groups, 5) consumer dissatisfaction with auto retailing, 6) the potential for franchise law changes, and 7) potential covenant breach. Upside Risks to our price objectiv e 1) a cyclical upturn in the US SAAR which would boost new vehicle sales, 2) better than anticipated earnings growth 3) the possibility of lower interest rates,



# Analyst Certification

I, John Murphy, CFA, hereby certify that the views expressed in this research report accurately reflect my personal views about the subject securities and issuers. I also certify that no part of my compensation was, is, or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific re commendations or view expressed in this research report.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 47 US-Automotives Coverage Cluster Investment rating Company ML ticker Bloomberg symbol Analyst

BUY Asbury Auto ABG ABG US John Murphy, CFA Ford Motor F F US John Murphy, CFA Goodyear GT GT US John Murphy, CFA Group 1 Auto GPI GPI US John Murphy, CFA Magna Intl MGA MGA US John Murphy, CFA Penske Auto Group PAG PAG US John Murphy, CFA Sonic Automotive SAH SAH US John Murphy, CFA
NEUTRAL BorgWarner BWA BWA US John Murphy, CFA Cooper Tire CTB CTB US John Murphy, CFA Genuine Parts GPC GPC US John Murphy, CFA Johnson Controls JCI JCI US John Murphy, CFA TRW Automotive TRW TRW US John Murphy, CFA
UNDERPERFORM American Axle AXL AXL US John Murphy, CFA ArvinMeritor ARM ARM US John Murphy, CFA AutoNation, Inc. AN AN US John Murphy, CFA Gentex GNTX GNTX US John Murphy, CFA Lithia Motors A LAD LAD US John Murphy, CFAThe US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 48 

# Important Disclosures

Investment Rating Distribution: Autos Group (as of 01 Jun 2009) Coverage Universe Count Percent Inv. Banking Relationships* Count Percent Buy 33 44.00% Buy 14 48.28%
Neutral 13 17.33% Neutral 5 55.56%
Sell 29 38.67% Sell 15 60.00% 

### Investment Rating Distribution: Di stributors Group (as of 01 Jun 2009) Coverage Universe Count Percent Inv. Banking Relationships* Count Percent Buy 7 70.00% Buy 3 42.86%
Neutral 0 0.00% Neutral 0 0.00%
Sell 3 30.00% Sell 1 33.33% 

### Investment Rating Distribution: Global Group (as of 01 Jun 2009) Coverage Universe Count Percent Inv. Banking Relationships* Count Percent Buy 1303 40.83% Buy 602 51.10%
Neutral 807 25.29% Neutral 362 51.49%
Sell 1081 33.88% Sell 394 39.96% * Companies in respect of whic h MLPF&S or an affiliate has received compensation for investment banking services within the pas t 12 months. For purposes of this distribution, a stock rated Underperform is included as a Sell.



### FUNDAMENTAL EQUITY OPINION KEY: Opinions include a Volatility Risk Rating, an Invest ment Rating and an Income Rating. VOLATILITY RISK RATINGS , indicators of potential price fluctuation, are: A - Low, B - Medium and C - High. INVESTMENT RATINGS reflect the analyst’s assessment of a stock’s: (i) absolute total return potential and (ii) attractiveness for investment relative to other stocks within its Coverage Cluster (defined below). There are three investment ratings: 1 - Buy stocks are expected to ha ve a total return of at least 10% and are the most attractive st ocks in the coverage cluster; 2 - Neutral stocks are expected to remain flat or increase in va lue and are less attractive than Buy rated stocks and 3 - Under perform stocks are the least attractive stocks in a coverage cluster. Analysts assign investment ratings considering, among other things, the 0-12 month tot al return expectation for a stock and the firm’s guidelines for ratings dispersions (shown in the table below). The current price objective for a stock sho uld be referenced to better understand the total return expectation at any given time. The pric e objective reflects the analyst’s view of the potential pri ce appreciation (depreciation). Investment rating Total return expectation (within 12-month peri od of date of initial rating) Ratings dispersion guidelines for coverage cluster* Buy ≥ 10% ≤ 70%
Neutral ≥ 0% ≤ 30% Underperform N/A ≥ 20% * Ratings dispersions may vary from time to time where BAS-ML Research believes it be tter reflects the inve stment prospects of stocks in a Coverage Cluster.



### INCOME RATINGS , indicators of potential cash dividends, are: 7 - same/higher (dividend considered to be secure), 8 - same/lower (dividend not considered to be secure) and 9 - pays no cash dividend. Coverage Cluster is comprised of stocks covered by a single analyst or two or more analysts sharing a common industry, sector, region or other classifi cation(s). A stock’s coverage cluster is in cluded in the most recent BAS-ML Comment r eferencing the stock.

Price charts for the securities referenced in this research report are available at http://www. ml.com/research/p ricecharts.asp, or call 1-888-ML-CHART to have them mailed.

MLPF&S or one of its affiliates acts as a market maker for the equity securities recommended in the report: Asbury Auto Grp, Bo rgWarner, Ford Motor, Group 1 Automoti, Penske Auto Group, Sonic Automotive. MLPF&S or an affiliate was a manager of a public offering of securities of this company within the last 12 months: BorgWarner, Ford Motor. The company is or was, within the last 12 months, an investment banking client of MLPF&S and/or one or more of its affiliates: Asbury Auto Grp, BorgWarner, Ford Motor, Group 1 Automoti, Penske Auto Group, Sonic Automotive. MLPF&S or an affiliate has received compensation from the company for non-investment banking services or products within the pa st 12 months: Ford Motor, Group 1 Automoti. The company is or was, within the last 12 months, a non-securities business client of MLPF&S and/or one or more of its affiliat es: Asbury Auto Grp, BorgWarner, Ford Motor, Group 1 Automoti, Penske Auto Group, Sonic Automotive. MLPF&S or an affiliate has received compensation for investment banking services from this company within the past 12 months: A sbury Auto Grp, BorgWarner, Ford Motor, Group 1 Automoti, Penske Auto Group, Sonic Automotive. MLPF&S or an affiliate expects to receive or intends to seek compensation for investment banking services from this company or an affiliate of the company within the next three months: Asbury Auto Grp, BorgWarner, Ford Motor, Group 1 Automoti, Penske Auto Group, Sonic Automotive. MLPF&S together with its affiliates beneficially owns one percent or more of the common stock of this company. If this report w as issued on or after the 10th day of the month, it reflects the ownership position on the last day of the previous month. Reports issued before the 10th day of a month reflect the ownership position at the end of the second month preceding the date of the report: BorgWarner, Ford Motor, Group 1 Automoti, Sonic Automotive. MLPF&S or one of its affiliates is willing to sell to, or buy from, clients the common equity of the company on a principal bas is: Asbury Auto Grp, BorgWarner, Ford Motor, Group 1 Automoti, Penske Auto Group, Sonic Automotive. The company is or was, within the last 12 months, a securities business client (non-investment banking) of MLPF&S and/or one or more of its affiliates: Asbury Auto Grp, BorgWarner, Ford Motor, Group 1 Automoti, Penske Auto Group, Sonic Automotive. The analyst(s) responsible for covering the securities in this report receive compensation based upon, among other factors, the overall profitability of Merrill Lynch, including profits derived from investment banking revenues.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 49 

# Other Important Disclosures MLPF&S or one of its affiliates has a significant financial interest in the fixed income instruments of the issuer. If this rep ort was issued on or after the 10th day of a month, it reflects a significant financial interest on the last day of the previous month. Reports issued before the 10th day of a month reflect a significant financial interest at the end of the second month preceding the date of the report: Ford Motor, Group 1 Automoti, Penske Auto Group.

Merrill Lynch Research policies relating to conflicts of inte rest are described at http: //www.ml.com/media/43347.pdf. "Merrill Lynch" includes Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith In corporated ("MLPF&S") and its affiliates, including BofA (defi ned below). "BofA" refers to Banc of America Securities LLC ("BAS"), Banc of Americ a Securities Limited ("BASL"), Banc of America Investment Servi ces, Inc ("BAI") and their affiliates. Investors should contact their Merrill Lynch or BofA representative if they have questions concerning this re port. Information relating to Non-US affiliates of Merrill Lynch and Distribution of Affiliate Research Reports: MLPF&S, BAS, BAI, and BASL distribute, or may in the future distri bute, research reports of the following non-US affiliates in the US (short name: legal name): Merrill Lynch (France): Merrill Lynch Capital Markets (France) SAS; Merrill Lynch (Frankfurt): Merrill Lynch International Bank Ltd, Frankfurt Branch; Merrill Lynch (South Africa): Merrill Lynch South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Merrill Lynch (Milan): Merrill Lynch International Bank Limited; MLPF&S ( UK): Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Limited; Merrill Lynch (Australia): Merrill Lynch Equities (Australia) Limited; Merrill Lynch (Hong Kong): Merrill Lynch (Asia Pacific) Limited; Merrill Lynch (Singapore): Merrill Lynch (Singapore) Pte Ltd; Merrill Lynch (Canada): Merrill Lynch Canada Inc; Merrill Lynch (Mexico): Merri ll Lynch Mexico, SA de CV, Casa de Bolsa; Merrill Lynch (Argentina): Merrill Lynch Argentina SA; Merrill Lynch (Japan): Merrill Lynch Japan Securities Co, Ltd; Me rrill Lynch (Seoul): Merrill Lynch International Incorporated (Seoul Branch); Merrill Lynch (Taiwan): Merrill Lynch Securities (Taiwan) Ltd.; DSP Merrill Lynch (I ndia): DSP Merrill Lynch Limited; PT Merrill Lynch (Indonesia): PT Merrill Lynch Indonesia; Merrill Lynch (KL) Sdn. Bhd.: Merrill Lynch (Malaysia); Merrill Lynch (I srael): Merrill Lynch Israel Limited; Merrill Lynch (Russia): Merrill Lynch CIS Limited, Moscow; Merrill Lynch (Turkey): Merrill Lynch Yatirim Bankasi A.S.; Merrill Lynch (D ubai): Merrill Lynch International Bank Ltd, Dubai Branch; MLPF&S (Zürich rep. office): MLPF&S Incorporated Zürich representative office. This research report has been approved for publication in the United Kingdom by Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Limited a nd BASL, which ar e authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority; has been considered and distributed in Japan by Merrill Lynch Japan Securiti es Co, Ltd and Banc of America Securities - Japan, Inc., registered securities dealers under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Law in Japan; is distribut ed in Hong Kong by Merrill Lynch (Asia Pacific) Limited and Banc of America Securities Asia Limited, which are regulated by the Hong Kong SFC and the Hong Kong Moneta ry Authority; is issued and distributed in Taiwan by Merrill Lynch Securities (Taiwan) Ltd.; is issued and distributed in Malaysia by Merrill Lynch (KL) Sd n. Bhd., a licensed investment adviser regulated by the Malaysian Securities Commission; is issued and distributed in India by DSP Merrill Lynch Limited; and is issue d and distributed in Singapore by Merrill Lynch International Bank Limited (Merchant Bank), Merrill Lynch (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Company Registration No.'s F 06872 E and 198602883D respectively) and Bank of America Singapore Limited (Merchant Bank). Merrill Lynch International Bank Limited (Merchant Bank), Merrill Lynch (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Bank of America Singapore Limited (Merchant Bank) are regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Merrill Lynch Equities (Austral ia) Limited (ABN 65 006 276 795), AFS License 235132 provides this report in Australia in accordance with section 911B of the Corporations Act 2001 and neither i t nor any of its affiliates involved in preparing this research report is an Authorised Deposit-Taking Institution under the Banking Act 1959 nor regulated by the Aust ralian Prudential Regulation Authority. No approval is required for publication or distribution of this report in Brazil. Merrill Lynch (Frankfurt) distributes this report in Germany. Merrill Lynch (Frankfurt) is regulated by BaFin. This research report has been prepared and issued by MLPF&S and/or one or more of its non-US affiliates. MLPF&S is the distribu tor of this rese arch report in the US and accepts full responsibility for research reports of its non-US affiliates distributed to MLPF&S clients in the US. A ny US person (other than BAS, BAI and their respective clients) receiving this research report and wishing to effect any transaction in any security discussed in the report should do so through MLPF&S and not such foreign affiliates. BAS distributes this research report to its clients and to its affiliate BAI and accepts responsibility for the distribution of this report in the US to BAS clients, but not to the clients of BAI. BAI is a registered broker-dealer, member of FINRA and SIPC, and is a non-bank subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A. BAI accepts responsibility for the distribution of this report in the US to BAI clients. Transactions by US persons that are BAS or BAI cli ents in any security discussed herein must be carried out through BAS and BAI, respectively.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 50 General Investment Related Disclosures: This research report provides general information only. Neither the information nor any opinion expressed constitutes an offer or an invitation to make an offer, to buy or sell any securities or other financial instrument or any derivative related to such securities or instruments (e.g., options, futures, warrants, and contracts for differences). This report is not intended to provide personal investment advice and it does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation and the particular needs of any specific person. Investors should seek financial advice regarding the appropriateness of invest ing in financial instruments and implementing investment strategies discussed or recommended in this report and should understand that statements regarding futu re prospects may not be realized. Any decision to purchase or subscribe for securities in any offering must be based solely on existing public information on suc h security or the information in the prospectus or other offering document issued in connection with such offering, and not on this report. Securities and other financial instruments discussed in this report, or recommended, offered or sold by Merrill Lynch, are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and are not deposits or other obligations of any insured depository institution (including, Bank of Ameri ca, N.A.). Investments in general and, derivatives, in particular, invo lve numerous risks, incl uding, among others, market risk, counterparty defaul t risk and liquidi ty risk. No security, financial instrument or derivative is suitable for all investors. In some cases, securities and other financial instruments may be difficult to value o r sell and reliable information about the value or risks related to the security or financial instrument may be difficult to ob tain. Investors should note that income fr om such securities and other financial instruments, if any, may fluctuate and that price or value of such securities and instruments may rise or fall and, in some cas es, investors may lose their entire principal investment. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance. Levels and basis for taxation may chan ge. This report may contain a short-term trading idea or recommendation, which highlights a specific near-term catalyst or event im pacting the company or the market that is anticipated to have a short-term price impact on the equity securities of the company. Short-term trading ideas and recommendations are different from and do not affect a stock's fundamental equity rating, which reflects both a longer term total return expectation and attr activeness for investment relative to other stocks within its Coverage Cluster. Short-term trading ideas and recommendations may be more or less positive than a stoc k's fundamental equity rating. Foreign currency rates of exchange may adversely affect the value, price or income of any security or financial instrument ment ioned in this report. Investors in such securities and instruments, including ADRs, effectively assume currency risk. UK Readers: The protections provided by the U.K. regulatory regime, including the Financial Services Scheme, do not apply in ge neral to business coordinated by Merrill Lynch entities located outside of the United Kingdom. These disclosures should be read in conjunction with the BASL general policy statement on the handling of research conflicts, which is available upon request. Officers of MLPF&S or one or more of its affiliates (other than research analysts) may have a financial interest in securities of the issuer(s) or in related investments. Merrill Lynch is a regular issuer of traded financial instruments linked to securities that may have been recommended in this r eport. Merrill Lynch may, at any time, hold a trading position (long or short) in the securities and financial instruments discussed in this report. Merrill Lynch, through business units other than BAS-ML Research, may have issued and may in the future issue trading ideas or recommendations that are inconsistent with, and reach different conclusions from, the information presented in this report. Such ideas or recommendation s reflect the different time frames, assumptions, views and analytical methods of the persons who prepared them, and Merrill Lynch is under no obligation to ensure that such other trading ideas or recommendations are brought to the attention of any recipient of this report. Copyright and General Information regarding Research Reports: Copyright 2009 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated . All rights reserved. iQmethod, iQmethod 2.0, iQprofile, iQto olkit, iQworks are service marks of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. iQanalytics®, iQcustom®, iQdatabase® are registered service marks of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Thi s research report is prepared for the use of Merrill Lynch clients and may not be redistributed, retransmitted or disclosed, in whole or in part, or in any form or m anner, without the express written consent of Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch research reports are distributed simultaneously to internal and client websites and other porta ls by Merrill Lynch and are not publiclyavailable materials. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. Receipt and review of this research report constitutes y our agreement not to redistribute, retransmit, or disclose to others the contents, opinions, conclusion, or information contained in this report (including any in vestment recommendations, estimates or price targets) without first obtaining expressed permission from an authorized officer of Merrill Lynch. Materials prepared by Merrill Lynch research personnel are based on public information. Facts and views presented in this mater ial have not been reviewed by, and may not reflect information known to, professionals in other business areas of Merrill Lynch, including investment banking personnel. To the extent this report discusses any legal proceeding or issues, it has not been prepared as nor is it intended to express any legal conclusion, opini on or advice. Investors should consult their own legal advisers as to issues of law relating to the subject matter of this report. Merrill Lynch research personnel's knowledge of legal proceedings in which any Merrill Lynch entity and/or its directors, officers and employees may be plaintiffs, defendants, co-defendants or co-plaint iffs with or involving companies mentioned in this report is based on public information. Facts and views presented in this material that relate to any such pro ceedings have not been reviewed by, discussed with, and may not reflect information known to, professionals in other business areas of Merrill Lynch in connection with the legal proceedings or matters relevant to such proceedings. This report has been prepared independently of any issuer of securities mentioned herein and not in connection with any propose d offering of securities or as agent of any issuer of any securities. None of MLPF&S, any of its affiliates or their research analysts has any authority whats oever to make any representation or warranty on behalf of the issuer(s). Merrill Lynch policy prohibits research personnel from disclosing a recommendation, invest ment rating, or investment thesis for review by an issuer prior to the publication of a research report containing such rating, recommendation or investment thesis. Any information relating to the tax status of financial instruments discussed herein is not intended to provide tax advice or t o be used by anyone to provide tax advice. Investors are urged to seek tax advice based on their particular circumstances from an independent tax professional. The information herein (other than disclosure information relating to Merrill Lynch and its affiliates) was obtained from vario us sources and we do not guarantee its accuracy. This report may contain links to third-party websites. Merrill Lynch is not responsible for the content of any th ird-party website or any linked content contained in a third-party website. Content contained on such third-party websites is not part of this report and is not incorp orated by reference into this report. The inclusion of a link in this report does not imply any endorsement by or any affiliation with Merrill Lynch. Access to any third -party website is at your own risk, and you should always review the terms and privacy policies at third-party websites before submitting any personal information to them. Merrill Lynch is not responsible for such terms and privacy policies and expressly disclaims any liability for them. Subject to the quiet period applicable under laws of the various jurisdictions in which we distribute research reports and othe r legal and Merrill Lynch policyrelated restrictions on the publication of research reports, fundamental equity reports are produced on a regular basis as nece ssary to keep the investment recommendation current. Certain outstanding reports may contain discussions and/or investment opinions relating to securities, financial instruments an d/or issuers that are no longer current. Always refer to the most recent research report relating to a company or issuer prior to making an investment decision

. In some cases, a company or issuer may be classified as Restricted or may be Under Review or Extended Review. In each case, inv estors should consider any investment opinion relating to such company or issuer (or its security and/or financial instruments) to be suspended or withdra wn and should not rely on the analyses and investment opinion(s) pertaining to such issuer (or its securities and/or financial instruments) nor should the analyses or opinion(s) be considered a solicitation of any kind. Sales persons and financ ial advisors affiliated with BAS, BAI, MLPF&S or any of their affiliates may not solicit purc hases of securities or financial instruments that are Restricted or Under Review and may only solicit securities under Extended Review in accordance with firm p olicies. Neither Merrill Lynch nor any officer or employee of Merrill Lynch accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct, indirect or consequential damages or losses arising from any use of this report or its contents.The US automotive product pipeline

15 July 2009



### 51 

# Team Page

John Murphy, CFA +1 212 449 7045 Research Analyst MLPF&S john_murphy@ml.com 

### John Lovallo II, CFA +1 212 449 6166 Research Analyst MLPF&S john_lovalloii@ml.com


### Elizabeth Lane +1 212 449 6091 Research Analyst MLPF&S elizabeth_lane@ml.com


### Harald Hendrikse >> +44 20 7996 4890 Research Analyst MLPF&S (UK) harald_hendrikse@ml.com


### Thomas Besson >> +33 1 53 65 59 47 Research Analyst Merrill Lynch (France) thomas_besson@ml.com 

### Koichi Sugimoto >> +81 3 6225 6909 Research Analyst Merrill Lynch (Japan) koichi_sugimoto@ml.com 

### Daniel Kim, CFA >> +852 2536 3443 Research Analyst Merrill Lynch (Hong Kong) daniel_kim@ml.com

>> Employed by a non-US affiliate of MLPF&S and is not registered/qualified as a re search analyst under the FINRA rules. Refer to "Other Important Disclosures" for information on certain Merrill Lync h entities that take responsibility for this report in parti cular jurisdictions.