Carlos Ghosn, Renault, 2016

What is – and isn’t – driving F1’s fluctuating share price


Posted on

| Written by

Last month we outlined how precariously Formula 1’s fortunes hinge upon its share price, in turn driven by factors surrounding the sport and the subsequent opinions of investment analysts. Yet, many of these have seldom – if ever – seen a grand prix live or on TV, and base their (critical) analyses on developments that profoundly affect stock value.

In a nutshell, uncertainty immediately knocks the price; positive, hard news gradually boosts it.

At the time we flagged two dates: November 8th, on which F1’s commercial rights holder Liberty Media would field investor calls on Q3 earnings; and November 14th, Liberty Media’s Annual Investor Day, at which the results and prospects of group entities are presented to shareholders.

F1 in particular seemed to leave the investment community distinctly lukewarm. During the investor call F1’s share prices – A Class FWONA and C Class FWONK – dipped. Steeper falls followed the call’s completion (see below). The same phenomenon repeated a little under a week later.

It conjures images of investor fingers hovering over ‘sell’ buttons as F1 CEO Chase Carey gave his address. Of course, someone somewhere simultaneously hit ‘buy’, but at a reduced price…

When any F1 news – good, bad or indifferent – breaks, share prices react accordingly. This was illustrated earlier this week following the arrest in Japan of Nissan chairman Carlos Ghosn, who is also Renault CEO/chairman, architect of the Renault/Nissan/Mitsubishi alliance and, crucially, the man who sanctioned Renault’s two last returns to F1 as team owner: first in 2001 and again in 2015.

That the motorsport fortunes of Renault and Nissan are intertwined is clear from their activities. Where once the French brand contested both F1 and Formula E, Ghosn decreed that Nissan, the alliance’s electric segment leader, should become the group’s flag bearer in the latter championship. The transition was seamless.

Equally, when Red Bull sought funding for customer Renault engines, it persuaded Nissan’s luxury Infiniti brand to cover the costs in return for title partnership and prominent engine cover branding. Ghosn blessed that deal.

Minttu Raikkonen, Louis Carey Camilleri, Monza, 2018
Unexpected changes at Ferrari affected F1’s share price
Whether or not Ghosn is ultimately judged to have broken the law, the situation inevitably creates uncertainty around the alliance’s prospects, and thus Renault’s future. And if savings need to be made, the first cost centres to be scrapped in such instances are not the ‘must-haves’ but the ‘nice-to-haves’ – like F1.

Almost immediately after the news broke both F1’s share prices were hit, falling from Monday’s FWONK opening price of $31.54 to $29.87 by close of business, a drop of over five per cent, or almost the same percentage as Renault’s price dip. Matters had not stabilised by late Tuesday.

Prices hit six-month lows on Monday, trading perilously close to 12-month floors: a far cry off a high of $39.03 exactly a year ago – representing a 25 percent drop in 12 months. While it’s true global stock indices have fallen across the board, these have generally been in the order of less than 10 percent.

Lest there be accusations that F1’s current share price had been hit by other factors or pure coincidence, consider the drop in mid-July (graphic), after news broke that Ferrari CEO/President Sergio Marchionne had was hospitalised in a critical condition: On July 19th, ahead of the German Grand Prix, it traded at $38.19, a day later, as news trickled through that the Italo-Canadian had been admitted, so the price fell.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

After Marchionne’s untimely and tragic death on July 25th the price had dropped by 10 per cent in under a week – underscoring how fickle markets are about uncertainty, for Ferrari’s F1 future was suddenly unclear. True, he had threatened to withdraw the Scuderia from F1 unless future commercial terms were up to scratch, yet causing nary a dip; now, though, Ferrari’s entire profitability was at stake.

By way of comparison, Ferrari’s (NYSE) RACE ticker recorded drops from $140 to $118 during a ten-day period after July 19th, then slid further through to this Monday past, when it traded at under $110 – mirroring F1’s share performance. Coincidence or connection?

Markus Schäfer,Britta Seeger, Dieter Zetsche, Ola Kallenius
Zetsche will hand over to Källenius (right)
Let’s go a step further, namely with Daimler, parent company of Mercedes-Benz, and thus (majority) owner of Mercedes-AMG F1 Team and its F1 engine sister Mercedes-AMG High Performance Powertrains: On 24 September Daimler’s share price hovered at EU56, two days later the company confirmed that CEO Dieter Zetsche (65) would take a statutory two-year break from 2019 ahead of returning as chairman.

Despite widespread expectations that Ola Källenius would replace the man whose moustache rivals that of Carey, the price fell immediately, hitting EU50 earlier this week. Again we’re looking at a 10-plus percent drop of what is usually stable stock, albeit over a period of two months.

Never mind that the Swede – and the first non-German to head Daimler – has F1 form, having been McLaren Operations Director during their noughties partnership; never mind that Källenius, a numbers man by vocation rather than engineer as were all his predecessors, thereafter heading HPP for two years: FWONK immediately took a dip.

It works the other way, too: F1’s share price rebounded to six-month high of $38.75 on 17 September, tellingly the first trading day after Ross Brawn unveiled concepts of 2021 cars in Singapore. Then, as teams increasingly expressed doubts that such designs could grace grids, the price stabilised before falling. By the Japanese Grand Prix – three weeks later – it had shed 10 per cent.

Understandably Liberty views said manufacturer teams – all of which had or face changes at their very tops, albeit for vastly different reasons – as crucial to F1’s future. Why else would the commercial rights holder have acceded, admittedly in unison with the FIA, to demands that the sport U-turn on (signed-off) 2021 engine regulations and largely retain the current format? Or to a phasing in of budget caps via a glide path through to 2023?

Merceds PU106B power unit, 2016
Why F1’s unloved V6 hybrid turbos won a reprieve for 2021
These share price wobbles illustrate just how vulnerable Liberty is to a mass exit by a manufacturer block. Recall 2008/09, when Honda, Toyota and BMW withdrew en masse, and Renault remained only as engine supplier. A repeat of that situation would leave F1, and its all-important share price, at the mercy of a single manufacturer: Honda…

That said, now consider that F1 is a fringe activity to manufacturers. An important one, true, but still only an ingredient in their marketing/product mixes.

Assume Källenius dons his bean counter hat. Or that Ghosn’s replacement – likely to be current COO Thierry Bolloré, a man steeped in automotive component supply and production rather than high-level marketing and former leader of Renault’s E-vehicle project – has an aversion to the costs of F1. Either or both could lead their companies out of F1.

Yes, apparently Renault is committed to F1 for 10 years, but so what? The sport has changed out of all proportion since 2015, having new commercial owners and (still) no clear-cut plans to level the commercial playing field. Any attempt to force the issue would keep France’s top lawyers in top-class splendour for decades, plus likely embarrass Liberty in the process. Imagine the impact of that on the share price.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Ditto Ferrari: Marchionne’s replacement Louis Camilleri had expressed no unequivocal commitment to F1 – how could he, given no concrete plans have been presented? – while the impact on FWONK after Marchionne’s passing is tangible. Imagine a total withdrawal by Ferrari.

The fact remains that manufacturers come and go, having done so over the ages: Alfa Romeo (twice), BMW, Jaguar, Maserati, Mercedes (1955), Porsche, Renault (thrice) Toyota – and this list excludes specialist or low-volume brands such as Caterham, Lotus and Matra, plus long-time engine stalwart Ford. Then add in how close Audi is said to have come to an F1 entry until Dieselgate scuppered its plans.

David Coulthard, Red Bull, Vietnam, 2018
The Vietnam race announcement had a modest effect
Don’t put it past Ferrari to exit unless its demands are largely met – forget not that Marchionne took the company to market and the same analysts as dissect FWONK subject RACE to the same treatment.

Thus it makes sense for Liberty to woo the independent teams who, after all, exist to go grand prix racing. But do the markets realise how crucial they are to F1? For four weeks during the summer break F1’s shares bounded between $34-36, finally rallying at $37. The cause? Force India’s administration, from which it finally exited at the end of August.

True, the swing is nowhere near as marked as our trio of examples; understandable in view of the team’s lower ranking in the pecking order, but still the markets paid attention. In fact, question were posed to Carey on this topic on November 14th, significantly, three months after Force India was resurrected.

Do circuits and future grand prix venues have similar effects on share price? Not if Vietnam is any indication: The event, an open secret for many months prior to confirmation, was announced to great fanfare on November 7th, conveniently (coincidentally?) timed for the Q3 earnings call a day later. Did FWONK move? Marginally upwards – by $0.38. Now, a fee of $100m/annum would have sent stock soaring…

A week later, during Investor Day, Carey indicated that “unattractive [commercial] races”, i.e. those that jib at paying top dollar for dates, are to be replaced by other, more flush venues – causing prices to bump slightly before heading south. Admittedly Carey’s comments were made amid myriad other points, but indications are that analysts prefer traditional venues, rather than a hop-about.

They are no fools, and clearly established that new venues face a 50% mortality rate after five years (already there is talk that Azerbaijan could exit within two years, which would maintain that figure) whereas the likes of Silverstone and Monza resonate with fans and investors alike and have been about since the fifties.

Figure: when Silverstone last year announced it had triggered its exit clause, the stock immediately fell 10 per cent. Compare that to Vietnam’s bump.

Chase Carey, Circuit of the Americas, 2018
“Unattractive” race deals will go, says Carey
Of course, various factors can affect prices (and perceptions) at any time – this does not cover every conceivable base – but these examples serve to illustrate the high-wire act Liberty faces as it gears up to F1’s post-2020 future.

Manufacturer teams are bent on retaining their bonuses and various benefits, while the independents are pushing for equitable revenues and equal say in the governance process, while the traditional venues are clearly not prepared to risk liquidation simply to host a grand prix. Ne’er, twain, meet…

Liberty says it has options aplenty – conceivable, but consider that thus far it added but one new venue (Hanoi), first rumoured (and allegedly dumped) in 2016, before Carey and co. had signed for F1’s keys. Thus they will battle to persuade analysts – who patently have a history of examining every aspect of F1 – that a host of alternatives exists.

The bottom line is that, where previously the only tangible measure of F1’s success, namely an ability to turn profits with which to (partially) fund teams, was revealed once a year, incoming CRH faces scrutiny by a venerable horde of analysts on a daily basis. Their jobs are to play number games after investigating every angle and implication.

That much became clear as news of Ghosn’s arrest broke – yet Nissan is not represented in F1 as a team, let alone as a brand.

Equally, it is clear that analysts react rapidly to negatives and gradually to positives – certainly as it affects FWONK/FWONA – and hence the sharp downward movements but gradual rises. That suggests little confidence in F1 stock, and by extension, Liberty’s management of F1 going forward. Consider that not a single team took up Liberty’s preferential share offer at time of listing.

In the final analysis, Liberty’s stated plan to play the long game with teams and circuits (and broadcasters) could well be punished by investors and analysts unless a flow of solid news eventuates sooner rather than later. That, though, may not be totally under Liberty’s control, as the Carlos Ghosn saga proves.

NB: All share prices quoted in applicable stock exchange currencies, and have not been converted as they illustrate trends rather than direct comparison with F1’s share pricing. To avoid confusion and eliminate repetition, only FWONK prices are quoted. FWONA generally mirrors the Class C share, and, if anything, has been the more volatile.

Follow Dieter on Twitter: @RacingLines

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up


Browse all RacingLines columns

34 comments on “What is – and isn’t – driving F1’s fluctuating share price”

  1. Great read, Dieter!

    1. Actually it took a slight dip around then, which is a back-handed compliment… :)

      1. LOL, yeah, sort of proves the point of the article too, doesn’t it @dieterrencken, good read, and I really like how you have helped give a wider view at the F1 and motorsport world.

      2. And the drop since last week could be all due to not having a RacingLines column last week, @dieterrencken.
        But please don’t test this hypothesis.

  2. Fantastic analysis on the side of F1 that rarely gets such a detailed examination in the media.

  3. And don’t forget the 5% drop around my Birthday ;)

  4. Wasn’t there a slight hike when F1Fanatic became Racefans? No? Heck, there should’ve been!

    1. Silly me: the reply to Phylyp should have been to Johnny Five

      1. LOL (at the original reply) :-)

  5. Stock market analysts have this (un)funny ability to drag through wilderness even steadily profitable companies…if they do not meet the ‘street expectations’…never mind companies that exhibit volatility. As for Renault Sport F1, Ghosn’s exit might yet prove not such a bad thing for the team, because Ghosn was known more for tolerating F1 rather than supporting it. Time will tel…

  6. who has ever correctly predicted stock markets? half of it is insider trading or worse. question is usually who owns the shares. This article makes me hate F1, because it goes to show that it is a business first. Capitalism is a disgusting system. price drops in share markets are so often and so easily manipulated to drop, too often for certain people/groups. No one can understand what is happening with F1 at the moment in stock markets, especially with new owners. investor confidence (we are talking big money not every day people) is unknown at the moment I have a stock broker friend, and he showed me how rigged the system is.

    1. Hating F1 because it’s a business first? Of course it is, you think people are funding extremely expensive racing cars doing it out of the goodness of their hearts?

  7. This article makes me hate F1, because it goes to show that it is a business first.

    If anything, because F1 is now publicly traded, this information is more openly and transparently available. Bernie and CVC had the same goals, but their opaqueness meant they were able to achieve those financial goals by means that annoyed everyone else.

    Agree with your overall general sentiment that the financial markets have mutated into a complex monster, a far cry from its original goals of being able to secure additional equity beyond what the promoter could rustle up.

  8. This is a brilliant read, Dieter, thank you very much for this.

    As a general rule, shareholders seem to like yesterday to look broadly similar to day and to look broadly similar to tomorrow, with all differences being, of course, positive. They prefer predictability. A stable world is more important to them than a better one (of course, both are better than a demonstrably worse world in their eyes). Despite the additional complexities of automated trades that don’t have first-order emotions/needs the way humans do, human desires still have a lot to do with company performance – which is by no means the same as human (or computer) rationality.

    It is more expensive to get a new customer than retain one. The proportions I’ve seen vary from 5x to 25x more difficult – probably because it really does vary by trade and circumstances. Circuits pay for the privilege, so they are customers in the system. 0.38% rise for Hanoi v 10% drop for Silverstone suggests the relevant metric here is assessed to be .

    I find it telling that the day of Force India going into administration dropped the share almost as much on the day of trading following its announcement as the first day of Sergio Marchionne’s illness. Fortunately, FIF1’s news was good after that, so the drop that occurred in the days of uncertainty in Marchionne’s case was not repeated (let alone the steep further drop following his death). That would suggest to me that the investors, in contrast to fans, see precisely no difference between stalwart independents and equally-stalwart manufacturers. (Both have been consistently there since well before this century started, which in stock market parlance is forever, and both are good producers and value-adders to the product).

    I wonder what happened between the 10th and 12th of July to make the share price drop? It seems the market didn’t recover from that. The market had been climbing since the Monaco weekend, give or take the odd wobble, but I can’t recall any specific event that would have caused a two-dollar drop. It seems that F1 was struggling to hold steady after that until the Marchionne news knocked it out of equilibrium. It was almost as if the market was waiting for some sort of big news in that week, and perhaps F1 missed an opportunity there. Or maybe I’m reading too much into the stock markets.

    1. Also, I meant to finish the second paragraph. For chasing new venues rather than helping traditional venues to be worthwhile to investors, it would need to be 26.315 times more difficult to buy a new customer than retain an existing one. This is unlikely if the various figures given for that ratio are true, suggesting Liberty needs to focus more on traditional venues for its own good.

      (Also, some evidence it can accommodate both without shortchanging anyone – old venues, new ones or the workers who compete at both – would be helpful).

  9. Around 10 July it became apparent that the manufacturers had gotten their way with retaining the current engine tech post-2020, which could delay Concorde.

    Maybe the markets took that as a sign that Liberty’s control was not iron-clad. Thereafter they hung in til the next news broke, namely Marchionne’s condition.

    1. Good theory.

  10. Stephen Higgins
    21st November 2018, 17:35

    I guess this means things are looking a bit FWONK-y …

    … sorry.

    1. Taking a Liberty with the tickers, are we?

      1. @phylyp: Are you being bullish with Stephen or shorting him just for pun?

        1. Can’t bear this..

          1. Ah, Dieter joins in the FWON :-)

  11. Ghosn guilty or not must be bad for Renault and F1. Is it possible that McLaren has even more bad luck in 2019? And is it possible that Red Bull is the luckiest by partnering with Honda… Hard to judge if Renault F1 will not be hit by this scandal. I sure hope not.

    1. (@dutchtreat) More straw clutching from a worried Verstappen fan? The share price has no effect on the performance of the car

      Hard to judge if Renault F1 will not be hit by this scandal. I sure hope not.

      Heart felt I’m sure lol.
      The goings on in Japan may not be as they seem.

      1. @johnrkh – the impression I get is that Nissan want out of the alliance. Also, a healthy portion of profits are coming from Nissan to Renault, so if the alliance is dissolved, it’ll mean a shortfall for Renault’s profits. And that is worrying, as it will be the nice-to-have expenditures that come under scrutiny if there is a tightening of the belt.

        1. @phylyp, with Renault owning 40+% of Nissan the money should continue to roll in, subject of course to the new management being equally competent.

  12. No surprise – F1 can’t get out of it’s own way. The slow death it’s dying is picking up speed.
    It’s plain old boring! All the while Indy car is flourishing. Wonder why?
    Though the cars are amazing, wouldn’t be surprised to see a pre-teen driving in the future.

  13. Once again a brilliant article @dieterrencken

    It highlights to me that Liberty are in a bind and it’s probably going to get worse from the point of view of F1 racing from a fan perspective.

    Traditionally when share prices are suffering, directors and senior executives and the bean counters embark on a pattern of actions designed to make the share value (and therefore the price) look more attractive.

    Here in Australia (so I’m only making assumptions about the rest of the word) we have seen time and again some of our major corporations decimated by shedding staff, massive reductions in services and service quality, asset sales etc) solely to make the share price look good.
    Every time this sort of thing happens, we get the tired old refrain of “we must maximise our value to the shareholders” whilst their paying customers suffer price increases for a much diminished value/service.
    What usually happens a couple of years down the track is the CEO that started the decimation moves on after collecting massive multi million dollar bonuses for improving their share price and the corporation, on its knees because profits are dwindling gets sold off or fails completely.

    This is the thing that worries me about the current situation with Liberty. To me it seems that they’ve got to the point where they and their accountants will be looking inwardly to focus on share price with no regard at all for the sport.
    It’s been my experience that when that happens, the core product will be the first casualty in terms of expenditure, innovation and value to customers.

    It will be interesting to see how this develops over the next 12 months.

    1. @dbradock, some good points.

      the core product will be the first casualty in terms of expenditure, innovation and value to customers.

      Fortunately, F1 fans have experienced the same phenomena for years under Bernie & CVC, so we’re ready for the slings and arrows or minardis of American corporate discontent.

      With share price pressure increasing, Carey and his merry gang of managers won’t consider lowering their cut of the F1 revenue pie. So the teams, as ever, will be left to fight amongst themselves over the remaining half in new more equitable or non-equitable ways.

      With only 3 ‘independent’ teams left in F1, Racing For Points, Williams & McLaren (sorry, Haas, you’re not as independent as your PR-speak), FWONKers will have to weigh the impact on share price of big corporate teams desires versus the indies.

      As ever, expect what’s good for Ferrari is good for F1. And what’s almost as good for Merc, RBR & Renault is almost as good for F1.

      If I were running FWONK, be thankful I’m not, I’d make the business case that the teams need no funds from F1 – that the privilege of competing in the Pinnacle of Motorsport is marketing privilege enough.

      That way Liberty could get a near 50% boost in profit, drop the annoying ‘independent’ whiners, while expanding to a 25+ race calendar to increase gross revenues. And a massive spike in share price, just before the sport collapses.

      1. And a massive spike in share price, just before the sport collapses.

        He, reminds me of this illustration.

        1. @phylyp: Great cartoon. A little too close to reality for my delicate tastes…

        2. That’s gold @phylyp

          Excellent comment from you too @jimmi-cynic – you must be an Australian watching how our business leaders handle a little adversity.

          1. @dbradock: No, mate, but in another former colony. Just north of that former colony that Liberty calls home. Corporate globalism seems to operate similarly across the globe. ;-)

Comments are closed.