When Making a Great Product Actually Hurts a Company: Enter General Dynamics Corporation
According to automotive lore, it was in 1924 that then General Motors head Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., first invented the concept of "planned obsolescence" -- tweaking a model's design with annual updates in hopes of goosing car sales as customers upgraded their old rides.
Of course, key to the whole idea of planned obsolescence, is not building your first vehicle so well, as to discourage a customer from ever wanting to replace it. This, apparently, is where a different "general" -- General Dynamics -- just went wrong. And so our story begins...
Up in Canada, General Dynamics just got a bit of bad news from the local government. Fourteen years ago, the company began building a new armored vehicle for the Canadian Army -- the Generation III Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV III). Recently, General Dynamics was in the running to sell the Canadians an upgraded, new-and-improved version of the eight-by-eight armored beast, potentially winning $2.1 billion contract for the purpose. (Brit builder BAE Systems was also in the running).
But now it seems General Dynamics will never get that chance.
Drat! We built it too well!
On Friday, Canada's Department of National Defence (yes, we've pointed it out to them that they're spelling it wrong) announced that it has decided not to proceed with plans to buy 108 Close Combat Vehicles, or CCVs.
CCVs had originally been envisioned as a bridge between the country's force of General Dynamics-built Upgraded Light Armoured Vehicles, and the country's German-built Leopard 2 heavy battle tanks. However, in light of Canada's exit from Afghan ground operations, and budgetary concerns that are squeezing governments around the world, Canada included, the Canadian government recently reassessed its needs.
What it found was that "the capabilities of the Upgraded Light Armoured Vehicle III are far superior to what was originally envisioned." Combined with improvements to the Canadian Army's "tactics, techniques and procedures," and "advances in Counter-IED," the Canadian military has concluded that it no longer needs the "medium" armored capability represented by CCV. The LAV III is good enough.
In short, General Dynamics appears to have worked itself out of a job. It built the LAV III too well. Now, it won't get to sell Canada 108 new ones.
For General Dynamics shareholders, you'd think this would come as a disappointment. This single contract, if won, would have sufficed to provide the company nearly one full month's worth of revenues. It could have helped give General Dynamics that last little boost needed to return the company to GAAP profitability. But in fact, it appears shareholders haven't even heard of the loss. General Dynamics shares are actually up nearly one full percentage point since before Canada announced the CCV cancellation.
Suffice it to say, I think that's a mistake. The loss of even a chance at a $2.1 billion contract is clearly a negative for the firm -- not a positive.
Planned obscolence is obsolete
The revolutionary technology that is 3-D printing is making 20th century product cycles look like... well, like a thing of the past! It may sound like something out of a science fiction novel, but 3-D printing is accelerating product evolution, and changing the way manufacturers do business around the world. The trick now is to identify the companies -- and thereby the stocks -- that will prevail in the battle for market share. To see the three companies we like best in this space, simply download our invaluable free report by clicking here now.
The article When Making a Great Product Actually Hurts a Company: Enter General Dynamics Corporation originally appeared on Fool.com.Fool contributor Rich Smith has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends General Motors. The Motley Fool owns shares of General Dynamics. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Copyright © 1995 - 2013 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.