An analysis of the operational characteristics of the world's listed automotive companies from 2020 to 2025 has been released. Impacted by the pandemic, global chip shortages, and rising commodity prices, the industry experienced a deep decline, followed by a rebound and then moderate growth. The global center of automotive production and sales continues to shift towards East Asia, with China solidifying its position as the world's largest consumer market, manufacturing base, and export powerhouse. Domestic brands are rapidly rising, significantly increasing their influence within the global automotive hierarchy and the new energy vehicle (NEV) supply chain, creating a pattern of "East rising, West declining." The penetration rate of NEVs has seen leapfrog growth year after year, with industry profits shifting upstream. The strong position of the battery sector is increasingly evident from accounts receivable and payable cycles.
Between 2020 and 2025, the global automotive supply chain underwent profound restructuring, with core indicators showing significant divergence. Total industry revenue grew from 14 trillion yuan to 20 trillion yuan. Revenue for BYD COMPANY (01211) surged from 153.5 billion yuan to 804 billion yuan, propelling it into the global top ten, while growth rates for traditional automakers like Ford and Mercedes-Benz slowed to -1%. In terms of profitability, Toyota led with a net profit of 231.6 billion yuan, whereas Ford and Stellantis recorded substantial losses. Chinese NEV startups turned losses into profits, with Leapmotor's net profit improving from -2.8 billion yuan to 500 million yuan. Regarding gross margins, Ferrari maintained a high level at 51.7%, while BYD COMPANY's margin increased from 17.8% to 18.8%, catching up with mainstream Japanese brands. In inventory and capital efficiency, the average inventory days for the entire vehicle sector decreased from 55 to 54 days, with Chinese automakers leading in efficiency; GEELY AUTO (00175) and Saic Motor Corporation Limited (600104) controlled theirs at around 50 days. The difference between accounts payable and receivable days showed significant variation, reaching 177 days for CATL and 98 days for BYD COMPANY, while Toyota and LG Energy Solution recorded negative values, indicating a rapid concentration of supply chain bargaining power towards Chinese brands and leading battery firms.
1. **Global Automaker Revenue Shows Strong Growth** The basic operations of traditional giants remain stable, with German and Japanese automakers still in the first tier. Leading European, American, Japanese, and Korean automakers like Volkswagen, Toyota, and Ford continue to dominate the revenue rankings. By 2025, revenue for both Volkswagen and Toyota exceeded 2.3 trillion yuan each. German and Japanese automakers maintain stable fundamentals due to their global footprint and economies of scale. However, some brands show signs of strain, with leading American automakers experiencing negative growth, highlighting the pressure to transform. Chinese brands are rising powerfully, with BYD COMPANY historically breaking into the top ten. With revenue of 804 billion yuan, BYD COMPANY ranked 10th, becoming the only Chinese automaker in the top ten. Brands like GEELY AUTO, Chery, and Changan led in growth rates; GEELY AUTO joined the tier of automakers with revenue over 300 billion yuan, achieving a 44% growth rate. Chinese brands have achieved a comprehensive breakthrough from the top to the second tier, rewriting the global industry landscape. NEV startups exhibit explosive growth, but the competitive landscape is intensifying. Leapmotor, XPeng, and NIO ranked top three in growth rates, with Leapmotor doubling its revenue through 101% growth. NEV startups demonstrate strong growth potential leveraging electrification and智能化 advantages. However, divergence within the sector is also apparent, with some traditional automakers and joint venture brands falling into negative growth, accelerating industry consolidation.
2. **Global Automaker Profit Performance Remains Stable** The profit resilience of traditional giants is diverging, with Toyota leading the field. In 2025, Toyota maintained its position as the most profitable automaker with a net profit of 231.6 billion yuan and a 10% profit margin. While leading players like Volkswagen, BMW, and Hyundai still maintained relatively high profits, their profit margins generally declined. Margins for Germany's Mercedes-Benz and Japan's Honda fell to single digits. Some traditional European and American automakers faced difficulties, with failed electrification transitions leading to substantial losses for Ford and Stellantis, reflecting the cost pressures and profit challenges for traditional internal combustion engine manufacturers during the transition period. A profit hierarchy has formed among Chinese brands, showing a polarization between leaders and NEV startups. BYD COMPANY became the most profitable domestic automaker with a net profit of 33.8 billion yuan and a 4% margin. Brands like GEELY AUTO, Chery, and Changan achieved positive profit growth, with margins for Chery and GEELY AUTO recovering to the 5%-7% range. However, NEV startups remain in a phase of "revenue growth without profit growth." Li Auto and Leapmotor achieved small profits, while XPeng, NIO, and BAIC BluePark remained deeply in the red, indicating that startups still face challenges in achieving economies of scale and cost control. Overall industry profit margins are declining, making profit quality a core competitive advantage. By 2025, profit margins for leading automakers had generally fallen. While high-margin brands like Toyota and Ferrari maintained their advantages, most automakers had margins below 5%, with some joint venture brands seeing profits shrink significantly or even vanish. Against the backdrop of electrification, automakers face intensified profit pressure. Cost control, economies of scale, and technological premium capabilities will become key determinants of survival.
3. **Global Automaker Gross Margin Landscape** Ultra-luxury brands maintain high premiums, with Ferrari firmly at the industry ceiling. Ferrari's gross margin remains consistently above 50%, reaching 51.7% in 2025-2026, securing the top industry position through brand scarcity and customization advantages. Aston Martin also maintains a high margin near 30%. However, Porsche, affected by its electrification transition, saw its margin decline from 28.6% to 19.3%, reflecting the premium pressure luxury brands face in the electrification era. Traditional Japanese automakers like Toyota, Honda, and Suzuki maintain stable margins around 20%, preserving healthy profitability through economies of scale and cost control. Gross margins for Chinese brands are generally improving, with NEV startups emerging from the "revenue growth without profit growth" dilemma. The characteristic of high price and high profit is becoming evident. BYD COMPANY's gross margin steadily improved from 17.8% to 18.8%, catching up with mainstream Japanese brands. Margins for GEELY AUTO, Changan, and Great Wall Motor recovered to the 14%-18% range, as economies of scale and supply chain advantages begin to show. Among NEV startups, Leapmotor recovered from a gross margin of -50.6% to 14.5%. Gross margins for NIO and XPeng also surpassed 13%, marking a phased breakthrough for Chinese startups in cost control and scale expansion, though a gap with international brands remains. Industry divergence is intensifying, with some brands deeply mired in profitability challenges. Gross margins for some traditional automakers continue to decline, with Ford's margin once falling to 6.8%. Stellantis and GAC Group experienced negative gross margins, reflecting cost pressures and product portfolio imbalances during the transition period. Brands like BAIC BluePark and SsangYong Motor have long had margins below the industry average, with some even negative, facing severe survival challenges. Under the wave of electrification, margin divergence will further accelerate industry consolidation. Cost control and product premium capabilities will become the core competitiveness of automakers.
4. **Significant Differences in Inventory Days Across the Global Automotive Supply Chain** * **Battery Sector:** Leading firms optimize inventory turnover, sector divergence intensifies. In 2025, leading battery firms like CATL and Eve Energy had average inventory days of around 76 days, an increase of 10 days from 2024, positioning them at a medium-high level within the five-year period. Divergence among small and medium-sized battery firms is significant, with companies like CALB significantly reducing their inventory days, highlighting advantages in scale and supply chain management. Some battery firms have turnover days exceeding 90 days, with Desay Battery and Penghui Energy exceeding 120 days, facing inventory reduction pressure. Japanese and Korean battery firms (e.g., LG Energy Solution) maintain stable turnover days between 80-90 days, showing lower efficiency than domestic leaders. * **Vehicle Sector:** Chinese brands lead in turnover efficiency, traditional European and American automakers face pressure. In 2025, the average inventory days for Chinese independent automakers was 50 days, significantly better than their European and American counterparts. Leading Chinese automakers like GEELY AUTO and Saic Motor Corporation Limited control their turnover days around 50 days. European automakers (e.g., Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes-Benz) generally exceed 65 days, while luxury brands like Ferrari and Aston Martin surpass 100 days due to their high-end customization production models, resulting in lower inventory efficiency. Japanese automakers overall show稳健 turnover efficiency, with Toyota and Honda maintaining around 50 days. * **Overall Supply Chain Inventory Trends:** Structural optimization coexists with tail-end risks. In 2025, overall inventory days for the battery sector increased by 10 days, while the vehicle sector decreased by 1 day, indicating a general easing of industry-wide inventory pressure. However, risks at the tail end are prominent. Some mining companies (e.g., Tianqi Lithium, Shengxin Lithium Energy) have inventory days exceeding 180 days. Some players in the dealership segment have inventory days over 100 days, with companies like Brilliance China and Shuguang Holdings exceeding 130 days, facing capital occupation and impairment risks. During the electrification transition, inventory turnover efficiency will be a key indicator of cost control and market competitiveness.
5. **Accounts Payable Turnover Days for Global Automotive Companies** * **Battery Sector:** Leading firms strengthen bargaining power, payment terms significantly lengthen. The accounts payable days for leading Chinese battery firms like CATL and BYD COMPANY continue to rise, reaching 255 days for CATL in 2025. Leveraging scale and technological advantages, their bargaining power over upstream suppliers has greatly increased. Japanese and Korean battery firms (e.g., LG Energy Solution) maintain stable turnover days around 45-50 days, indicating weaker bargaining power than domestic leaders. Divergence among small and medium-sized battery firms is evident, with some having turnover days under 100 days, reflecting weaker supply chain influence. * **Vehicle Sector:** Chinese automakers' payment term advantages stand out, European and American firms face pressure. In 2025, the average accounts payable days for Chinese independent automakers reached 149 days, significantly higher than European and American automakers. European automakers (e.g., Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes-Benz) are generally around 35-45 days, American automakers (e.g., Ford, General Motors) around 55-60 days, and Japanese automakers (e.g., Toyota, Honda) around 50-60 days. Leading Chinese automakers like Seres and Saic Motor Corporation Limited have turnover days exceeding 150 days, reflecting the strong position of domestic automakers within the supply chain. In contrast, some traditional European and American automakers see their payment terms continuously shorten, intensifying funding pressures. * **Overall Supply Chain Trend:** Payment term divergence intensifies, bargaining power restructures. In 2025, the global automotive supply chain's accounts payable days showed a divergent trend: leading firms in the battery sector continued to lengthen their terms, while small and medium-sized factories faced funding squeezes. In the vehicle sector, the payment term advantage of Chinese automakers further expanded, while European and American automakers saw their bargaining power decline due to rising costs and transition pressures. The divergence in accounts payable days本质上 reflects a restructuring of supply chain influence. Firms mastering core technology and scale advantages will continue to squeeze the profit margins of upstream and downstream players, making the industry's Matthew Effect increasingly pronounced.
6. **Accounts Receivable Turnover Days for the Global Automotive Supply Chain** * **Battery Sector:** Leading firms face pressure on receivables, sector divergence intensifies. The average accounts receivable days for Chinese battery firms reached 94 days in 2025, up from 85 days in 2021. Leading firms like Gotion High-tech and Eve Energy have turnover days exceeding 100 days, reflecting the pressure from downstream vehicle customers' payment terms being passed upstream. Japanese and Korean battery firms (e.g., LG Energy Solution) maintain stable turnover days around 70 days, overall showing better terms than domestic leaders. Divergence among small and medium-sized battery firms is clear, with some having turnover days under 80 days, potentially facing risks from a concentrated customer base. * **Vehicle Sector:** European and American automakers hold significant receivables advantage, Chinese brands show slight improvement. European automakers (e.g., Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes-Benz) generally have accounts receivable days below 20 days. American automakers (e.g., Ford, General Motors) stabilize around 25-30 days. Japanese automakers are generally around 63 days, demonstrating strong receivables management capability. The average accounts receivable days for Chinese independent automakers decreased to 38 days in 2025, improving from 51 days in 2021. Leading firms like BYD COMPANY and Saic Motor Corporation Limited control their turnover days within 30-40 days, showing significant efficiency gains. However, some brands (e.g., BAIC BluePark, Brilliance China) have turnover days exceeding 100 days, facing considerable pressure on fund collection. * **Overall Supply Chain Trend:** Receivables divergence reflects bargaining power restructuring. In 2025, the global automotive supply chain's accounts receivable days presented a pattern of "upstream extension, downstream optimization." Battery firms' payment terms continued to lengthen, reflecting the strong position of downstream vehicle customers. Among vehicle manufacturers, European and American automakers maintain short payment terms leveraging brand and scale advantages, while Chinese brands gradually improve their terms through scale expansion and customer structure optimization. The divergence in accounts receivable efficiency本质上 reflects a restructuring of supply chain influence. The博弈 between powerful downstream customers and upstream leading firms is intensifying, making capital management capability a crucial component of corporate competitiveness.
7. **Analysis of the Net Payment Cycle in the Global Automotive Supply Chain** The bargaining power of battery leaders continues to strengthen, highlighting their capital advantage. In 2025, the net cycle (accounts payable days minus accounts receivable days) for leading Chinese battery firm CATL reached 177 days. Firms like Eve Energy and Gotion High-tech also exceeded 100 days. Leveraging scale and technological advantages, they generate a significant capital沉淀 effect. In contrast, Japanese and Korean battery firms like LG Energy Solution had a negative difference of -26 days, indicating their capital is being squeezed from both upstream and downstream, with significantly weaker bargaining power than domestic leaders. Chinese brands lead in the vehicle sector, with divergent patterns among European, American, and Japanese firms. The average net cycle for Chinese independent automakers reached 111 days. Leading brands like BYD COMPANY, Saic Motor Corporation Limited, and GEELY AUTO all had differences exceeding 60 days, with Seres reaching as high as 205 days, forming strong capital advantages through supply chain integration. American automakers averaged a 30-day difference, European 28 days, both weaker than Chinese brands. Japanese automakers had negative differences, with Toyota at -57 days, indicating their capital is being utilized by upstream suppliers, placing them at a bargaining disadvantage. Small, medium-sized, and tail-end firms face pressure, industry divergence intensifies. Divergence among small and medium-sized battery firms is evident, with some material suppliers having negative differences, indicating weak influence. Within the vehicle sector, some traditional automakers and weaker brands face capital squeeze from both ends, with their net cycles持续恶化. In the dealership segment, Chinese independent dealers had a difference of 37 days, significantly better than American dealers, highlighting differences in channel influence. Capital influence is being restructured, Matthew Effect becomes more pronounced. Under the electrification wave, the net payment cycle has become a core metric for measuring a firm's position in the supply chain. Leading battery firms and Chinese vehicle manufacturers continue to expand their capital advantages, while some traditional Japanese, Korean, European, American automakers and small/medium-sized suppliers face capital chain pressures. Industry resources are accelerating their concentration towards dominant firms, making structural reshaping an inevitable trend.
Comments