SONIC AUTOMOTIVE INC - Annual Report: 2009 (Form 10-K)

 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Form 10-K

 

 

Commission file number 1-13395

SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

 

 

(704) 566-2400

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:

 

 

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT:

 

 

(Title of class)

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes o     No þ

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes o     No þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes þ     No o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes o     No o

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

 

Indicate by a check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.)  Yes o     No þ

 

The aggregate market value of the voting common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $295,098,683 based upon the closing sales price of the registrant’s Class A common stock on June 30, 2009 of $10.16 per share. As of February 18, 2010 there were 40,109,558 shares of Class A common stock, par value $0.01 per share, and 12,029,375 shares of Class B common stock, par value $0.01 per share, outstanding.

 

Documents incorporated by reference. Portions of the registrant’s Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held April 21, 2010 are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

 

 

FORM 10-K TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains numerous “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements address our future objectives, plans and goals, as well as our intent, beliefs and current expectations regarding future operating performance, and can generally be identified by words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “foresee” and other similar words or phrases. Specific events addressed by these forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to:

 

 

These forward-looking statements are based on our current estimates and assumptions and involve various risks and uncertainties. As a result, you are cautioned that these forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, and that actual results could differ materially from those projected in these forward-looking statements. Factors which may cause actual results to differ materially from our projections include those risks described in Item 1A of this Form 10-K and elsewhere in this report, as well as:

 

 

 

Sonic Automotive, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 1997. We are one of the largest automotive retailers in the United States. As of January 31, 2010, we operated 145 dealership franchises at 122 dealership locations, representing 29 different brands of cars and light trucks, and 26 collision repair centers in 15 states. Our dealerships provide comprehensive services including (1) sales of both new and used cars and light trucks; (2) sales of replacement parts and performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint and repair services (collectively, “Fixed Operations”); and (3) arrangement of extended service contracts, financing and insurance and other aftermarket products (collectively, “F&I”) for our automotive customers.

 

The following chart depicts the multiple sources of continuing operations revenue and gross profit for the year ended December 31, 2009:

 

 

As of December 31, 2009, we operated dealerships (classified in our financial statements as continuing operations or discontinued operations) in the following markets:

 

Over the long-term, we plan to continue to purchase franchises that enrich our franchise portfolio and divest franchises that we believe will not yield acceptable returns over the long-term. Currently, we are not pursuing any significant acquisition opportunities. Although we believe growth through acquisitions will be a significant source of growth for us in the future, we do not see this being a significant source of growth in the near-term. See Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources” for a discussion of our plans for the use of capital generated through operations. Our ability to carry out acquisition activity in the future will depend on many factors, including the availability of financing and the existence of any contractual provisions that may restrict our acquisition activity.

 

The automotive retailing industry remains highly fragmented, and we believe that further consolidation may occur over the long-term. We believe that attractive acquisition opportunities continue to exist for dealership groups with the capital and experience to identify, acquire and professionally manage dealerships.

 

Business Strategy

 

Diverse Revenue Streams.  We have multiple revenue streams. In addition to new vehicle sales, our revenue sources include used vehicle sales, which we believe are less sensitive to economic cycles and seasonal influences that exist with new vehicle sales. Our fixed operations sales carry a higher gross margin and, in the past, have not been as economically sensitive as vehicle sales. We also offer customers assistance in obtaining financing and a range of automobile related insurance products.

 

Process Execution.  We believe the identification of business best practices and implementing those best practices at all of our dealerships enables us to offer a more favorable buying experience to our customers and to create efficiencies in our business processes. While the ultimate goal of these activities is to ensure our customers are completely satisfied with the products and services we offer, these processes also drive growth in our diverse set of revenue streams and minimize costs associated with those activities.

 

Portfolio Management.  We continue to evaluate our portfolio of franchises. Efforts are made to divest franchises that do not yield, or are not expected to yield, acceptable long-term returns. Although we are not currently pursuing any significant acquisition opportunities, our long-term growth strategy is focused on large metropolitan markets, predominantly in the Southeast, Southwest, Midwest and California. We also seek to acquire luxury and mid-line import dealerships and other stable franchises that we believe have above average sales prospects. A majority of our dealerships are either luxury or mid-line import brands. For the year ended December 31, 2009, 83.1% of our total revenue was generated by import and luxury dealerships, which generally have higher operating margins, more stable fixed operations departments, lower associate turnover and lower inventory levels.

 

The following table depicts the breakdown of our new vehicle revenues by brand:

 

 

 

 

Increase Sales of Higher Margin Products and Services.  We continue to pursue opportunities to increase our sales of higher- margin products and services by expanding the following:

 

Finance, Insurance and Other Aftermarket Products (“F&I”):  Each sale of a new or used vehicle gives us an opportunity to provide our customer with financing and insurance options and earn financing fees and insurance commissions. We also offer our customers the opportunity to purchase extended service contracts and other aftermarket products. We currently offer a wide range of nonrecourse financing, leasing, other aftermarket products, service contracts and insurance products to our customers. We emphasize menu-selling techniques and other best practices to increase our sales of F&I products at both newly acquired and existing dealerships.

 

Parts, Service & Repair:  Each of our dealerships offers a fully integrated service and parts department. Manufacturers permit warranty work to be performed only at franchised dealerships such as ours. As a result, our franchised dealerships are uniquely qualified and positioned to perform work covered by manufacturer warranties on increasingly complex vehicles. We believe we can continue to grow our profitable parts and service business over the long-term by increasing service capacity, investing in sophisticated equipment and well trained technicians, using variable rate pricing structures, focusing on customer service and efficiently managing our parts inventory. In addition, we believe our emphasis on selling extended service contracts associated with new and used vehicle retail sales will drive further service and parts business in our dealerships as we increase the potential to retain current customers beyond the term of the standard manufacturer warranty period.

 

Certified Pre-Owned Vehicles.  Various manufacturers provide franchised dealers the opportunity to sell certified pre-owned (“CPO”) vehicles. This certification process extends the standard manufacturer warranty on the CPO vehicle. We typically earn higher revenues and gross profits on CPO vehicles compared to non-certified pre-owned vehicles. We also believe the extended manufacturer warranty increases our potential to retain the pre-owned purchaser as a future parts and service customer. Since CPO warranty work can only be performed at franchised dealerships, we believe CPO warranty work will increase our fixed operations business.

 

“Value” Used Vehicles.  We believe the market for “value” vehicles (used vehicles with retail prices below $10,000) is broad and not as sensitive to market fluctuations as higher priced used vehicles. Our strategy in retailing these vehicles includes the use of technology and market data to determine optimal pricing and placement of these vehicles at our stores.

 

Expand our eCommerce Capabilities.  Automotive customers have become increasingly more comfortable using technology to research their vehicle buying alternatives and communicate with dealership personnel. Our technology platforms have given us the ability to leverage technology to more efficiently integrate systems, customize our dealership websites and use our customer data to improve the effectiveness of our advertising and interaction with our customers.

 

Achieve High Levels of Customer Satisfaction.  We focus on maintaining high levels of customer satisfaction. Our personalized sales process is designed to satisfy customers by providing high-quality vehicles in a positive, “consumer friendly” buying environment. Several manufacturers offer specific financial incentives on a per vehicle basis if certain Customer Satisfaction Index (“CSI”) levels (which vary by manufacturer) are achieved by a dealership. In addition, all manufacturers consider CSI scores in approving acquisitions. In order to keep management focused on customer satisfaction, we include CSI results as a component of our incentive-based compensation programs.

 

Train, Develop and Retain Associates.  We believe our associates are the cornerstone of our business and crucial to our financial success. Our goal is to develop our associates and foster an environment where our associates can contribute and grow with the company. Associate satisfaction is very important to us and we believe a high level of associate satisfaction will reduce turnover and enhance our customers’ experience at our stores by pairing our customers with well-trained, seasoned associates. We believe that our comprehensive training of all employees provides us with a competitive advantage over other dealership groups.

 

Relationships with Manufacturers

 

Each of our dealerships operates under a separate franchise or dealer agreement that governs the relationship between the dealership and the manufacturer. In general, each dealer agreement specifies the location of the dealership for the sale of vehicles and for the performance of certain approved services in a specified market area. The designation of such areas generally does not guarantee exclusivity within a specified territory. In addition, most manufacturers allocate vehicles on a “turn and earn” basis that rewards high volume. A dealer agreement requires the dealer to meet specified standards regarding showrooms, facilities and equipment for servicing vehicles, inventories, minimum net working capital, personnel training and other aspects of the business. Each dealer agreement also gives the related manufacturer the right to approve the dealer operator and any material change in management or ownership of the dealership. Each manufacturer may terminate a dealer agreement under certain circumstances, such as a change in control of the dealership without manufacturer approval, the impairment of the

reputation or financial condition of the dealership, the death, removal or withdrawal of the dealer operator, the conviction of the dealership or the dealership’s owner or dealer operator of certain crimes, the failure to adequately operate the dealership or maintain new vehicle financing arrangements, insolvency or bankruptcy of the dealership or a material breach of other provisions of the dealer agreement.

 

Many automobile manufacturers have developed policies regarding public ownership of dealerships. Policies implemented by manufacturers include the following restrictions:

 

 

To the extent that new or amended manufacturer policies restrict the number of dealerships which may be owned by a dealership group or the transferability of our common stock, such policies could have a material adverse effect on us. We believe that we will be able to renew at expiration all of our existing franchise and dealer agreements.

 

Many states have placed limitations upon manufacturers’ and distributors’ ability to sell new motor vehicles directly to customers in their respective states in an effort to protect dealers from practices they believe constitute unfair competition. In general, these statutes make it unlawful for a manufacturer or distributor to compete with a new motor vehicle dealer in the same brand operating under an agreement or franchise from the manufacturer or distributor in the relevant market area. Certain states, such as Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia, limit the amount of time that a manufacturer may temporarily operate a dealership.

 

In addition, all of the states in which our dealerships currently do business require manufacturers to show “good cause” for terminating or failing to renew a dealer’s franchise agreement. Further, each of the states provides some method for dealers to challenge manufacturer attempts to establish dealerships of the same brand in their relevant market area.

 

Competition

 

The retail automotive industry is highly competitive. Depending on the geographic market, we compete both with dealers offering the same brands and product lines as ours and dealers offering other manufacturers’ vehicles. We also compete for vehicle sales with auto brokers, leasing companies and services offered on the Internet that provide customer referrals to other dealerships or who broker vehicle sales between customers and other dealerships. We compete with small, local dealerships and with large multi-franchise auto dealerships.

 

We believe that the principal competitive factors in vehicle sales are the location of dealerships, the marketing campaigns conducted by manufacturers, the ability of dealerships to offer an attractive selection of the most popular vehicles, pricing (including manufacturer rebates and other special offers) and the quality of customer service. Other competitive factors include customer preference for makes of automobiles and manufacturer warranties.

 

In addition to competition for vehicle sales, we also compete with other auto dealers, service stores, auto parts retailers and independent mechanics in providing parts and service. We believe that the principal competitive factors in parts and service sales are price, the use of factory-approved replacement parts, factory-trained technicians, the familiarity with a dealer’s makes and models and the quality of customer service. A number of regional and national chains offer selected parts and services at prices that may be lower than our prices.

 

In arranging or providing financing for our customers’ vehicle purchases, we compete with a broad range of financial institutions. In addition, financial institutions are now offering F&I products through the Internet, which may reduce our profits on these items. We believe the principal competitive factors in providing financing are convenience, interest rates and contract terms.

 

Our success depends, in part, on national and regional automobile-buying trends, local and regional economic factors and other regional competitive pressures. Conditions and competitive pressures affecting the markets in which we operate, such as price-cutting by dealers in these areas, or in any new markets we enter, could adversely affect us, even though the retail automobile industry as a whole might not be affected.

 

Governmental Regulations and Environmental Matters

 

Numerous federal and state regulations govern our business of marketing, selling, financing and servicing automobiles. We are also subject to laws and regulations relating to business corporations generally.

 

Under the laws of the states in which we currently operate as well as the laws of other states into which we may expand, we must obtain a license in order to establish, operate or relocate a dealership or operate an automotive repair service. These laws also regulate our conduct of business, including our sales, operating, advertising, financing and employment practices, including federal and state wage-hour, anti-discrimination and other employment practices laws.

 

Our financing activities with customers are subject to federal truth-in-lending, consumer privacy, consumer leasing and equal credit opportunity regulations as well as state and local motor vehicle finance laws, installment finance laws, usury laws and other installment sales laws. Some states regulate finance fees that may be paid as a result of vehicle sales.

 

Federal, state and local environmental regulations, including regulations governing air and water quality, the clean-up of contaminated property and the use, storage, handling, recycling and disposal of gasoline, oil and other materials, also apply to us and our dealership properties.

 

We believe that we comply in all material respects with the laws affecting our business. However, claims arising out of actual or alleged violations of laws may be asserted against us or our dealerships by individuals or governmental entities, and may expose us to significant damages or other penalties, including possible suspension or revocation of our licenses to conduct dealership operations and fines.

 

As with automobile dealerships generally, and service, parts and body shop operations in particular, our business involves the use, storage, handling and contracting for recycling or disposal of hazardous or toxic substances or wastes and other environmentally sensitive materials. Our business also involves the past and current operation and/or removal of above ground and underground storage tanks containing such substances or wastes. Accordingly, we are subject to regulation by federal, state and local authorities that establish health and environmental quality standards, provide for liability related to those standards, and in certain circumstances provide penalties for violations of those standards. We are also subject to laws, ordinances and regulations governing remediation of contamination at facilities we own or operate or to which we send hazardous or toxic substances or wastes for treatment, recycling or disposal.

 

We do not have any known material environmental liabilities and we believe that compliance with environmental laws and regulations will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. However, soil and groundwater contamination is known to exist at certain properties used by us. Further, environmental laws and regulations are complex and subject to frequent change. In addition, in connection with our acquisitions, it is possible that we will assume or become subject to new or unforeseen environmental costs or liabilities, some of which may be material. We cannot assure you that compliance with current or amended, or new or more stringent, laws or regulations, stricter interpretations of existing laws or the future discovery of environmental conditions will not require additional expenditures by us, or that such expenditures will not be material.

 

Executive Officers of the Registrant

 

Our executive officers as of the date of this Form 10-K, are as follows:

 

 

O. Bruton Smith, 83, is our Founder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and a director and has served as such since our formation in January 1997, and he currently is a director and executive officer of many of our subsidiaries. Mr. Smith has worked in the retail automobile industry since 1966. Mr. Smith is also the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, a director and controlling stockholder of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. (“SMI”). SMI is a public company traded on the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”). Among other things, SMI owns and operates the following NASCAR racetracks: Atlanta Motor Speedway, Bristol Motor Speedway, Charlotte Motor Speedway, Infineon Raceway, Las Vegas Motor Speedway, New Hampshire Motor Speedway, Texas Motor Speedway, and Kentucky Speedway. He is also an executive officer or a director of most of SMI’s operating subsidiaries.

 

B. Scott Smith, 42, is our Co-Founder, President, Chief Strategic Officer and a director. Prior to his appointment as President in March 2007, Mr. Smith served as our Vice Chairman and Chief Strategic Officer since October 2002. He held the position of President and Chief Operating Officer from April 1997 to October 2002. Mr. Smith has been a director of our company since our organization was formed in January 1997. Mr. Smith also serves as a director and executive officer of many of our subsidiaries. Mr. Smith, who is the son of O. Bruton Smith and brother of David B. Smith, has been an executive officer of Town & Country Ford since 1993, and was a minority owner of both Town & Country Ford and Fort Mill Ford before our acquisition of these dealerships in 1997. Mr. Smith became the General Manager of Town & Country Ford in November 1992 where he remained until his appointment as President and Chief Operating Officer in April 1997. Mr. Smith has over twenty years experience in the automobile dealership industry.

 

Jeff Dyke, 42, is our Executive Vice President of Operations and is responsible for direct oversight for all retail automotive operations of Sonic. From March 2007 to October 2008, Mr. Dyke served as our Division Chief Operating Officer — South East Division, where he oversaw retail automotive operations for the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and South Carolina. Mr. Dyke first joined Sonic in October 2005 as its Vice President of Retail Strategy, a position that he held until April 2006, when he was promoted to Division Vice President — Eastern Division, a position he held from April 2006 to March 2007. Prior to joining Sonic, Mr. Dyke worked in the automotive retail industry at AutoNation from 1996 to 2005, where he held several positions in divisional, regional and dealership management with that company.

 

David P. Cosper, 55, is our Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer. In March 2007, Mr. Cosper was appointed to Vice Chairman after serving as Executive Vice President since March 2006. He joined Sonic Automotive on March 1, 2006 as an Executive Vice President and became our Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer on March 16, 2006. Mr. Cosper served as Treasurer through the end of 2006 and relinquished the position in February 2007. Prior to joining Sonic, he was Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of Ford Motor Credit Company, a position held since 2003. From 1979, when he joined Ford Motor Company, Mr. Cosper served in a variety of positions in Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Credit Company, including Vice President and Treasurer of Ford Motor Credit Company and Executive Director of Corporate Finance at Ford Motor Company. In such positions, he was responsible for worldwide profit analysis and treasury matters, risk management, business planning, and competitive and strategic analysis.

 

David B. Smith, 35, is our Executive Vice President and a director and has served our organization beginning in October 2000. Prior to being named a director and Executive Vice President of Sonic in October 2008, Mr. Smith, also a son of O. Bruton Smith and brother of B. Scott Smith, served as our Senior Vice President of Corporate Development since March 2007. Prior to that appointment, Mr. Smith served as our Vice President of Corporate Strategy from October 2005 to March 2007, and also served us prior to that time as Dealer Operator of our Arnold

Palmer Cadillac dealership from January 2004 to October 2005, our Fort Mill Ford dealership from January 2003 to January 2004, and our Town and Country Ford dealership from October 2000 to December 2002.

 

Employees

 

As of January 31, 2010, we employed approximately 9,200 people. We believe that our relationships with our employees are good. Approximately 239 of our employees, primarily service technicians in our Northern California markets are represented by a labor union. However, due to our dependence on automobile manufacturers, we may be affected by labor strikes, work slowdowns and walkouts at the manufacturers’ manufacturing facilities.

 

Company Information

 

Our website is located at www.sonicautomotive.com. Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as well as proxy statements and other information we file with, or furnish to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) are available free of charge on our website. We make these documents available as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file them with, or furnish them to, the SEC. Except as otherwise stated in these documents, the information contained on our website or available by hyperlink from our website is not incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10-K or other documents we file with, or furnish to, the SEC.

 

 

Risks Related to Our Sources of Financing and Liquidity

 

Our significant indebtedness could materially adversely affect our financial health, limit our ability to finance future acquisitions and capital expenditures and prevent us from fulfilling our financial obligations.

 

As of December 31, 2009, our total outstanding indebtedness was approximately $1.3 billion, including the following:

 

 

We refer to the $150.0 million of availability under a syndicated revolving credit facility (the “2010 Revolving Credit Facility”), up to $321.0 million in borrowing availability for new vehicle inventory floor plan financing and up to $50.0 million in borrowing availability for used vehicle inventory floor plan financing (the “2010 Floor Plan Facilities”). We refer to the 2010 Revolving Credit Facility and 2010 Floor Plan Facilities collectively as our “2010 Credit Facilities”. Effective upon the closing of our 2010 Revolving Credit Facility on January 15, 2010, we had

$48.6 million available for additional borrowings under the 2010 Revolving Credit Facility based on the borrowing base calculation (as of December 31, 2009), which is affected by numerous factors including eligible asset balances, and the market value of certain additional collateral. We are able to borrow under our 2010 Revolving Credit Facility only if, at the time of the borrowing, we have met all representations and warranties and are in compliance with all financial and other covenants contained therein. We also have capacity to finance new and used vehicle inventory purchases under bilateral floor plan agreements with various manufacturer-affiliated finance companies and other lending institutions (“Silo Floor Plan Facilities”) as well as our 2010 Floor Plan Facilities. In addition, the indentures relating to our 8.625% Notes, 5.0% Convertible Notes, 4.25% Convertible Notes and our other debt instruments allow us to incur additional indebtedness, including secured indebtedness, as long as we comply with the terms thereunder.

 

In addition, the majority of our dealership properties are leased under long-term operating lease arrangements that generally have initial terms of fifteen to twenty years with one or two ten-year renewal options. These operating leases require compliance with financial and operating covenants similar to those under our 2010 Credit Facilities, and monthly payments of rent that may fluctuate based on interest rates and local consumer price indices. The total future minimum lease payments related to these operating leases and certain equipment leases are significant and are disclosed in the notes to our financial statements under the heading “Commitments and Contingencies” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

As of December 31, 2009, we had approximately $783.7 million of debt maturing in 2010. This amount included $766.7 million outstanding related to our syndicated credit facility providing revolving credit and new and used floorplan financing by commercial banks and commercial finance entities (the “2006 Credit Facility”) and the remaining $17.0 million principal outstanding related to our 4.25% Convertible Notes. On January 15, 2010, we successfully refinanced the amounts outstanding under our 2006 Credit Facility with the 2010 Credit Facilities and the Silo Floor Plan Facilities. See Note 6 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for further discussion of the terms under the 2010 Credit Facilities and Silo Floor Plan Facilities.

 

An acceleration of our obligation to repay all or a substantial portion of our outstanding indebtedness or lease obligations would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Our 2010 Credit Facilities, the indenture governing our 8.625% Notes and many of our facility operating leases contain numerous financial and operating covenants. A breach of any of these covenants could result in a default under the applicable agreement or indenture. If a default were to occur, we may be unable to adequately finance our operations and the value of our common stock would be materially adversely affected because of acceleration and cross default. In addition, a default under one agreement or indenture could result in a default and acceleration of our repayment obligations under the other agreements or indentures, including the indentures governing our outstanding 4.25% Convertible Notes, 5.0% Convertible Notes and the 8.625% Notes, under the cross default provisions in those agreements or indentures. If a cross default were to occur, we may not be able to pay our debts or borrow sufficient funds to refinance them. Even if new financing were available, it may not be on terms acceptable to us. As a result of this risk, we could be forced to take actions that we otherwise would not take, or not take actions that we otherwise might take, in order to comply with the covenants in these agreements and indentures.

 

Our ability to make interest and principal payments when due to holders of our debt securities depends upon our future performance.

 

Our ability to meet our debt obligations and other expenses will depend on our future performance, which will be affected by financial, business, domestic and foreign economic conditions, the regulatory environment and other factors, many of which we are unable to control. If our cash flow is not sufficient to service our debt as it becomes due, we may be required to refinance the debt, sell assets or sell shares of our common stock on terms that we do not find attractive. Further, our failure to comply with the financial and other restrictive covenants relating to the 2010 Credit Facilities and the indentures pertaining to our outstanding notes could result in a default under these agreements that would prevent us from borrowing under the 2010 Revolving Credit Facility, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

Our ability to make interest and principal payments when due to holders of our debt securities depends upon the receipt of sufficient funds from our subsidiaries.

 

Substantially all of our consolidated assets are held by our subsidiaries and substantially all of our consolidated cash flow and net income are generated by our subsidiaries. Accordingly, our cash flow and ability to service debt depends to a substantial degree on the results of operations of our subsidiaries and upon the ability of our subsidiaries to provide us with cash. We may receive cash from our subsidiaries in the form of dividends, loans or distributions. We may use this cash to service our debt obligations or for working capital. Our subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to distribute cash to us or to make funds available to service debt. In addition, the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends or make loans to us is subject to minimum net capital requirements under manufacturer franchise agreements and laws of the state in which a subsidiary is organized and depends to a significant degree on the results of operations of our subsidiaries and other business considerations.

 

The conversion of the 5.0% Convertible Notes and 4.25% Convertible Notes, if triggered, may adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition and results of operations.

 

If the conversion features of the 5.0% Convertible Notes and/or 4.25% Convertible Notes are triggered, holders of those notes will be entitled to convert their notes in accordance with the terms of the respective indenture governing such notes. We may be required to make cash payments to satisfy our conversion obligations. The amounts of these cash payments could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity. In addition, even if the holders of the 5.0% Convertible Notes do not elect to convert their respective notes, we could be required under applicable accounting rules to reclassify all or a portion of the outstanding principal of the notes as a current rather than long-term liability, which could result in a material reduction of our net working capital or could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

We depend on the performance of sublessees to offset costs related to certain of our lease agreements.

 

In most cases when we sell a dealership franchise, the buyer of the franchise will sublease the dealership property from us, but we are not released from the underlying lease obligation to the primary landlord. We rely on the sublease income from the buyer to offset the expense incurred related to our obligation to pay the primary landlord. We also rely on the buyer to maintain the property in accordance with the terms of the sublease (which in most cases mirror the terms of the lease we have with the primary landlord). Although we assess the financial condition of a buyer at the time we sell the franchise, and seek to obtain guarantees of the buyer’s sublease obligation from the stockholders or affiliates of the buyer, the financial condition of the buyer and/or the sublease guarantors may deteriorate over time. In the event the buyer does not perform under the terms of the sublease agreement (due to the buyer’s financial condition or other factors), we may not be able to recover amounts owed to us under the terms of the sublease agreement or the related guarantees. Our operating results, financial condition and cash flows may be materially adversely affected if sublessees do not perform their obligations under the terms of the sublease agreements.

 

Our use of hedging transactions could limit our gains and result in financial losses.

 

To reduce our exposure to fluctuations in cash flow due to interest rate fluctuations, we have entered into, and in the future expect to enter into, derivative instruments (or hedging agreements). No hedging activity can completely insulate us from the risks associated with changes in interest rates. As of December 31, 2009, we had interest rate swap agreements to effectively convert a portion of our LIBOR-based variable rate debt to a fixed rate. See “Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities” under Note 6 to our accompanying consolidated financial statements. We generally intend to hedge as much of the interest rate risk as management determines is in our best interests given the cost of such hedging transactions.

 

Our hedging transactions expose us to certain risks and financial losses, including, among other things:

 

 

 

A failure on our part to effectively hedge against interest rate changes may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

 

Risks Related to Our Relationships with Vehicle Manufacturers

 

Our operations may be adversely affected if one or more of our manufacturer franchise agreements is terminated or not renewed.

 

Each of our dealerships operates under a franchise agreement with the applicable automobile manufacturer or distributor. Without a franchise agreement, we cannot obtain new vehicles from a manufacturer or advertise as an authorized factory service center. As a result, we are significantly dependent on our relationships with the manufacturers.

 

Manufacturers exercise a great degree of control over the operations of our dealerships through the franchise agreements. The franchise agreements govern, among other things, our ability to purchase vehicles from the manufacturer and to sell vehicles to customers. Each of our franchise agreements provides for termination or non-renewal for a variety of causes, including certain changes in the financial condition of the dealerships and any unapproved change of ownership or management. Manufacturers may also have a right of first refusal if we seek to sell dealerships.

 

Actions taken by manufacturers to exploit their superior bargaining position in negotiating the terms of franchise agreements or renewals of these agreements or otherwise could also have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. We cannot guarantee that any of our existing franchise agreements will be renewed or that the terms and conditions of such renewals will be favorable to us.

 

Our sales volume and profit margin on each sale may be materially adversely affected if manufacturers discontinue or change their incentive programs.

 

Our dealerships depend on the manufacturers for certain sales incentives, warranties and other programs that are intended to promote and support dealership new vehicle sales. Manufacturers routinely modify their incentive programs in response to changing market conditions. Some of the key incentive programs include:

 

 

Manufacturers frequently offer incentives to potential customers. A reduction or discontinuation of a manufacturer’s incentive programs may materially adversely impact vehicle demand and affect our profitability.

 

Our sales volume may be materially adversely affected if manufacturer captives change their customer financing programs or are unable to provide floor plan financing.

 

One of the primary finance sources used by consumers in connection with the purchase of a new or used vehicle is the manufacturer captive finance companies. These captive finance companies rely, to a certain extent, on the public debt markets to provide the capital necessary to support their financing programs. In addition, the captive finance companies will occasionally change their loan underwriting criteria to alter the risk profile of their loan portfolio. A limitation or reduction of available consumer financing for these or other reasons could affect consumers’ ability to purchase a vehicle, and thus, could have a material adverse effect on our sales volume.

 

Our parts and service sales volume and profitability are dependent on manufacturer warranty programs.

 

Franchised automotive retailers perform factory authorized service work and sell original replacement parts on vehicles covered by warranties issued by the automotive manufacturer. Dealerships which perform work covered by a manufacturer warranty are reimbursed at rates established by the manufacturer. For the year ended December 31, 2009, approximately 18.6% of our parts and service revenue was for work covered by manufacturer warranties. To the extent a manufacturer reduces the labor rates or markup of replacement parts for such warranty work, our fixed operations sales volume and profitability could be adversely affected.

 

We depend on manufacturers to supply us with sufficient numbers of popular and profitable new models.

 

Manufacturers typically allocate their vehicles among dealerships based on the sales history of each dealership. Supplies of popular new vehicles may be limited by the applicable manufacturer’s production capabilities. Popular new vehicles that are in limited supply typically produce the highest profit margins. We depend on manufacturers to provide us with a desirable mix of popular new vehicles. Our operating results may be materially adversely affected if we do not obtain a sufficient supply of these vehicles.

 

A decline in the quality of vehicles we sell, or consumers’ perception of the quality of those vehicles may adversely affect our business.

 

Our business is highly dependent on consumer demand and preferences. Events such as manufacturer recalls, negative publicity or legal proceedings related to these events may have a negative impact on the products we sell. If such events are significant, the profitability of our franchises related to those manufacturers’ could be adversely affected and we could experience a material adverse affect on our overall results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

 

Adverse conditions affecting one or more key manufacturers may negatively impact our profitability.

 

On June 1, 2009, General Motors Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries (“General Motors”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. On July 10, 2009, General Motors emerged from bankruptcy as the new General Motors Company, with the former General Motors Corp. henceforth known as Motors Liquidation Company. Six of our General Motors dealerships, representing twelve franchises, including three Hummer franchises at multi-franchise dealerships, two Saab franchises at multi-franchise dealerships and one additional General Motors franchise at a multi-franchise dealership received letters stating that the franchise agreements between General Motors and us will not be continued by General Motors on a long-term basis. General Motors has offered assistance with winding down the operations of these franchises in exchange for our execution of termination agreements. We executed all of the termination agreements. Assistance to be received from General Motors totals $3.3 million, of which $0.8 million has been received as of December 31, 2009. Approximately $0.4 million has been recorded as a receivable from General Motors as of December 31, 2009 related to one of our terminated franchises, however, the remaining assistance has not been recorded as a receivable from General Motors as of December 31, 2009 due to certain conditions required for the additional payments to occur which had not yet been satisfied. We recorded certain impairment charges and lease exit accruals in results of operations related to several of the General Motors franchises which received termination letters. See the heading “Impairments and Other Charges” included in

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for further discussion of these charges. The termination agreements provide for the following:

 

 

For the remaining General Motors franchises we executed “continuation agreements” which require, among other things, that existing franchise agreements will expire no later than October 31, 2010. In consideration of the execution of the “continuation agreements” General Motors recommended to the bankruptcy court the continuation or assumption of our existing franchise agreements, as amended by the “continuation agreements”. All of our franchises that executed “continuation agreements” were assumed by the post-bankruptcy General Motors. We cannot be assured that General Motors will renew our franchise agreements when they expire on October 31, 2010.

 

With the exception of (1) product liability indemnifications, (2) amounts owed to us through incentive programs, (3) amounts currently owed to our franchises under their open accounts with General Motors and (4) warranty claims occurring within 90 days prior to June 1, 2009, all amounts owed to us from General Motors were extinguished as a result of the execution of the termination and continuation agreements. A motion was made by General Motors to the bankruptcy court and the motion was granted by the bankruptcy court allowing General Motors to pay the claims noted in (1) — (4) above. As a result, we have received payments related to all pre-bankruptcy claims.

 

On June 2, 2009, General Motors announced that Chinese equipment manufacturer Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co. (“STHIMC”) will buy its Hummer brand. On October 9, 2009, the two parties signed a definitive asset purchase agreement. As of December 31, 2009, we operated three Hummer franchises at three dealership locations. It is uncertain whether STHIMC will continue supporting the Hummer brand or whether STHIMC’s ownership of the Hummer brand will have a positive or negative impact on our Hummer franchises’ operations, however all three of our Hummer franchises are scheduled to be terminated prior to October 31, 2010 in accordance with the termination agreement reached with General Motors, discussed above.

 

Although General Motors originally attempted to sell its Saturn brand, on September 30, 2009, General Motors announced it plans to discontinue the Saturn brand. As of December 31, 2009, we no longer operated any Saturn franchises.

 

On April 30, 2009, Chrysler LLC filed for bankruptcy protection and submitted a plan of reorganization. On June 10, 2009, Fiat SpA purchased a substantial portion of Chrysler’s assets which include rights related to our franchise agreements. As of December 31, 2009, we owned six Chrysler franchises at two dealership locations. It is uncertain whether Fiat will continue supporting the Chrysler brand or whether Fiat’s ownership of the Chrysler brand will have a positive or negative impact on our Chrysler franchises’ operations.

 

At December 31, 2009 we had the following balances recorded related to General Motors and Chrysler:

 

 

The manner in which these manufactures maintain relations with their franchisees may change as a result of the bankruptcy filings and subsequent emergence from bankruptcy. We can give no assurances that future practices of these manufactures will be consistent with the way they have historically operated.

 

In addition, we rely on the affiliated manufacturer captive finance company of General Motors for new vehicle floor plan financing. Deteriorating financial condition of domestic manufacturers or other vehicle manufacturers could result in an attempt by the related captive finance company to terminate our floor plan financing, which would have a material adverse impact on our operations and liquidity position.

 

Manufacturer stock ownership restrictions may impair our ability to maintain or renew franchise agreements or issue additional equity.

 

Some of our franchise agreements prohibit transfers of any ownership interests of a dealership and, in some cases, its parent, without prior approval of the applicable manufacturer. A number of manufacturers impose restrictions on the transferability of our Class A common stock and our ability to maintain franchises if a person acquires a significant percentage of the voting power of our common stock. Our existing franchise agreements could be terminated if a person or entity acquires a substantial ownership interest in us or acquires voting power above certain levels without the applicable manufacturer’s approval. Violations of these levels by an investor are generally outside of our control and may result in the termination or non-renewal of existing franchise agreements or impair our ability to negotiate new franchise agreements for dealerships we acquire in the future. In addition, if we cannot obtain any requisite approvals on a timely basis, we may not be able to issue additional equity or otherwise raise capital on terms acceptable to us. These restrictions may also prevent or deter a prospective acquirer from acquiring control of us.

 

The current holders of our Class B common stock maintain voting control over us. However, we are unable to prevent our stockholders from transferring shares of our common stock, including transfers by holders of the Class B common stock. If such transfer results in a change in control, it could result in the termination or non-renewal of one or more of our existing franchise agreements, the triggering of provisions in our agreements with certain manufacturers requiring us to sell our dealerships franchised with such manufacturers and/or a default under our credit arrangements.

 

Our dealers depend upon new vehicle sales and, therefore, their success depends in large part upon customer demand for the particular vehicles they carry.

 

The success of our dealerships depends in large part on the overall success of the vehicle lines they carry. New vehicle sales generate the majority of our total revenue and lead to sales of higher-margin products and services such as finance, insurance, vehicle protection products and other aftermarket products, and parts and service operations.

Although we have sought to limit our dependence on any one vehicle brand, and our parts and service operations and used vehicle sales may serve to offset some of this risk, we have focused our new vehicle sales operations in mid-line import and luxury brands.

 

Our failure to meet a manufacturer’s customer satisfaction, financial and sales performance and facility requirements may adversely affect our ability to acquire new dealerships and our profitability.

 

Many manufacturers attempt to measure customers’ satisfaction with their sales and warranty service experiences through manufacturer-determined CSI scores. The components of CSI vary from manufacturer to manufacturer and are modified periodically. Franchise agreements also may impose financial and sales performance standards. Under our agreements with certain manufacturers, a dealership’s CSI scores, sales and financial performance may be considered a factor in evaluating applications for additional dealership acquisitions. From time to time, some of our dealerships have had difficulty meeting various manufacturers’ CSI requirements or performance standards. We cannot assure you that our dealerships will be able to comply with these requirements in the future. A manufacturer may refuse to consent to an acquisition of one of its franchises if it determines our dealerships do not comply with its CSI requirements or performance standards, which could impair the execution of our acquisition strategy. In addition, we receive incentive payments from the manufacturers based, in part, on CSI scores, which could be materially adversely affected if our CSI scores decline.

 

In addition, a manufacturer may condition its allotment of vehicles, participation in bonus programs, or acquisition of additional franchises upon our compliance with its facility standards. This may put us in a competitive disadvantage with other competing dealerships and may ultimately result in our decision to sell a franchise when we believe it may be difficult to recover the cost of the required investment to reach the manufacturer’s facility standards.

 

If state dealer laws are repealed or weakened, our dealerships will be more susceptible to termination, non-renewal or renegotiation of their franchise agreements.

 

State dealer laws generally provide that a manufacturer may not terminate or refuse to renew a franchise agreement unless it has first provided the dealer with written notice setting forth good cause and stating the grounds for termination or nonrenewal. Some state dealer laws allow dealers to file protests or petitions or attempt to comply with the manufacturer’s criteria within the notice period to avoid the termination or nonrenewal. Though unsuccessful to date, manufacturers’ lobbying efforts may lead to the repeal or revision of state dealer laws. If dealer laws are repealed in the states in which we operate, manufacturers may be able to terminate our franchises without providing advance notice, an opportunity to cure or a showing of good cause. Without the protection of state dealer laws, it may also be more difficult for our dealers to renew their franchise agreements upon expiration.

 

In addition, these laws restrict the ability of automobile manufacturers to directly enter the retail market in the future. However, the ability of a manufacturer to grant additional franchises is based on several factors which are not within our control. If manufacturers grant new franchises in areas near or within our existing markets, this could significantly impact our revenues and/or profitability. Further, if manufacturers obtain the ability to directly retail vehicles and do so in our markets, such competition could have a material adverse effect on us.

 

Risks Related to Our Acquisition Strategy

 

Pursuant to the terms of the 2010 Credit Facilities, our ability to make acquisitions is restricted.

 

Pursuant to the 2010 Credit Facilities, we are restricted from making acquisitions in any fiscal year if the aggregate cost of all acquisitions occurring in such fiscal year is in excess of $25.0 million, without the written consent of the Required Lenders (as that term is defined in the 2010 Credit Facilities). With this restriction on our ability to make acquisitions, our growth strategy may be limited. In addition, we may have to forfeit the opportunity to acquire profitable dealerships at attractive valuations.

 

We may not be able to capitalize on acquisition opportunities because our ability to obtain capital to fund these acquisitions is limited.

 

We intend to finance our acquisitions with cash generated from operations, through issuances of our stock or debt securities and through borrowings under credit arrangements. We may not be able to obtain additional financing by issuing stock or debt securities due to the market price of our Class A common stock, overall market conditions, and covenants under our 2010 Credit Facilities which restrict our ability to issue additional indebtedness, or the need for manufacturer consent to the issuance of equity securities. Using cash to complete acquisitions could substantially limit our operating or financial flexibility.

 

In addition, we are dependent to a significant extent on our ability to finance our new vehicle inventory with “floor plan financing.” Floor plan financing arrangements allow us to borrow money to buy a particular vehicle from the manufacturer and pay off the loan when we sell that particular vehicle. We must obtain new floor plan financing or obtain consents to assume existing floor plan financing in connection with our acquisition of dealerships.

 

Substantially all the assets of our dealerships are pledged to secure the indebtedness under our Silo Floor Plan Facilities and the 2010 Credit Facilities. These pledges may impede our ability to borrow from other sources. Moreover, because the identified manufacturer-affiliated finance subsidiaries are either owned or affiliated with BMW, Mercedes, Ford, General Motors and Toyota, respectively, any deterioration of our relationship with the particular manufacturer-affiliated finance subsidiary could adversely affect our relationship with the affiliated manufacturer, and vice-versa.

 

Manufacturers’ restrictions on acquisitions could limit our future growth.

 

We are required to obtain the approval of the applicable manufacturer before we can acquire an additional dealership franchise of that manufacturer. In determining whether to approve an acquisition, manufacturers may consider many factors such as our financial condition and CSI scores. Obtaining manufacturer approval of acquisitions also takes a significant amount of time, typically three to five months. We cannot assure you that manufacturers will approve future acquisitions or do so on a timely basis, which could impair the execution of our acquisition strategy.

 

Certain manufacturers also limit the number of its dealerships that we may own, our national market share of that manufacturer’s products or the number of dealerships we may own in a particular geographic area. In addition, under an applicable franchise agreement or under state law, a manufacturer may have a right of first refusal to acquire a dealership that we seek to acquire.

 

A manufacturer may condition approval of an acquisition on the implementation of material changes in our operations or extraordinary corporate transactions, facilities improvements or other capital expenditures. If we are unable or unwilling to comply with these conditions, we may be required to sell the assets of that manufacturer’s dealerships or terminate our franchise agreement.

 

Failure to effectively integrate acquired dealerships with our existing operations could adversely affect our future operating results.

 

Our future operating results depend on our ability to integrate the operations of recently acquired dealerships, as well as dealerships we acquire in the future, with our existing operations. In particular, we need to integrate our management information systems, procedures and organizational structures, which can be difficult. Our growth strategy has focused on the pursuit of strategic acquisitions that either expand or complement our business.

 

We cannot assure you that we will effectively and profitably integrate the operations of these dealerships without substantial costs, delays or operational or financial problems, due to:

 

 

These factors could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

We may not adequately anticipate all of the demands that growth through acquisitions will impose.

 

In pursuing a strategy of acquiring other dealerships, we face risks commonly encountered with growth through acquisitions. These risks include, but are not limited to:

 

 

We may not adequately anticipate all of the demands that growth will impose on our systems, procedures and structures.

 

We may not be able to reinstitute our acquisition strategy without the costs of future acquisitions escalating.

 

We have grown our business primarily through acquisitions. We may not be able to consummate any future acquisitions at acceptable prices and terms or identify suitable candidates. In addition, increased competition for acquisition candidates could result in fewer acquisition opportunities for us and higher acquisition prices. The magnitude, timing, pricing and nature of future acquisitions will depend upon various factors, including:

 

 

We may not be able to determine the actual financial condition of dealerships we acquire until after we complete the acquisition and take control of the dealerships.

 

The operating and financial condition of acquired businesses cannot be determined accurately until we assume control. Although we conduct what we believe to be a prudent level of investigation regarding the operating and financial condition of the businesses we purchase, in light of the circumstances of each transaction, an unavoidable level of risk remains regarding the actual operating condition of these businesses. Similarly, many of the dealerships we acquire, including some of our largest acquisitions, do not have financial statements audited or prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. We may not have an accurate understanding of the historical financial condition and performance of our acquired entities. Until we actually assume control of business

assets and their operations, we may not be able to ascertain the actual value or understand the potential liabilities of the acquired entities and their operations.

 

Although O. Bruton Smith, our chairman and chief executive officer, and his affiliates have previously assisted us with obtaining financing, we cannot assure you that he or they will be willing or able to do so in the future.

 

Our obligations under the 2010 Credit Facilities are secured with a pledge of five million shares of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. Common Stock, a publicly traded owner and operator of automobile racing facilities. These shares of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. Common Stock are owned by Sonic Financial Corporation (“SFC”), an entity controlled by Mr. Smith. Presently, the $150.0 million borrowing limit of our 2010 Revolving Credit Facility is subject to a borrowing base calculation that is based, in part, on the value of the Speedway Motorsports shares pledged by SFC. Consequently, a withdrawal of this pledge by SFC or a significant decrease in the value of Speedway Motorsports common stock could reduce the amount we can borrow under the 2010 Revolving Credit Facility.

 

Risks Related to the Automotive Retail Industry

 

Increasing competition among automotive retailers reduces our profit margins on vehicle sales and related businesses. Further, the use of the Internet in the vehicle purchasing process could materially adversely affect us.

 

Automobile retailing is a highly competitive business. Our competitors include publicly and privately owned dealerships, some of which are larger and have greater financial and marketing resources than we do. Many of our competitors sell the same or similar makes of new and used vehicles that we offer in our markets at competitive prices. We do not have any cost advantage in purchasing new vehicles from manufacturers due to economies of scale or otherwise. We typically rely on advertising, merchandising, sales expertise, service reputation and dealership location to sell new vehicles. Our revenues and profitability could be materially adversely affected if manufacturers decide to enter the retail market directly.

 

Our F&I business and other related businesses, which have higher margins than sales of new and used vehicles, are subject to strong competition from various financial institutions and other third parties.

 

The Internet has become a significant part of the sales process in our industry. Customers are using the Internet to compare pricing for vehicles and related F&I services, which may further reduce margins for new and used vehicles and profits for related F&I services. If Internet new vehicle sales are allowed to be conducted without the involvement of franchised dealers, our business could be materially adversely affected. In addition, other franchise groups have aligned themselves with services offered on the Internet or are investing heavily in the development of their own Internet capabilities, which could materially adversely affect our business.

 

Our franchise agreements do not grant us the exclusive right to sell a manufacturer’s product within a given geographic area. Our revenues or profitability could be materially adversely affected if any of our manufacturers award franchises to others in the same markets where we operate or if existing franchised dealers increase their market share in our markets.

 

We may face increasingly significant competition as we strive to gain market share through acquisitions or otherwise. Our operating margins may decline over time as we expand into markets where we do not have a leading position.

 

Our business will be harmed if overall consumer demand continues to suffer from a severe or sustained downturn.

 

Our business is heavily dependent on consumer demand and preferences. Our revenues have been materially and adversely affected by the recent downturn in overall levels of consumer spending. Retail vehicle sales are cyclical and historically have experienced periodic downturns characterized by oversupply and weak demand. These cycles are often dependent on general economic conditions and consumer confidence, as well as the level of

discretionary personal income and credit availability. Economic conditions may have a material adverse effect on our retail business, particularly sales of new and used automobiles.

 

In addition, severe or sustained increases in gasoline prices may lead to a reduction in automobile purchases or a shift in buying patterns from luxury and sport utility vehicle models (which typically provide high margins to retailers) to smaller, more economical vehicles (which typically have lower margins).

 

A decline of available financing in the lending market has, and may continue to, adversely affect our vehicle sales volume.

 

A significant portion of vehicle buyers, particularly in the used car market, finance their purchases of automobiles. Sub-prime lenders have historically provided financing for consumers who, for a variety of reasons including poor credit histories and lack of down payment, do not have access to more traditional finance sources. In the event lenders further tighten their credit standards or there is a further decline in the availability of credit in the lending market, the ability of these consumers to purchase vehicles could be limited which could have a material adverse effect on our business, revenues and profitability.

 

Our business may be adversely affected by import product restrictions and foreign trade risks that may impair our ability to sell foreign vehicles profitably.

 

A significant portion of our new vehicle business involves the sale of vehicles, parts or vehicles composed of parts that are manufactured outside the United States. As a result, our operations are subject to customary risks of importing merchandise, including fluctuations in the relative values of currencies, import duties, exchange controls, trade restrictions, work stoppages and general political and socio-economic conditions in other countries. The United States or the countries from which our products are imported may, from time to time, impose new quotas, duties, tariffs or other restrictions, or adjust presently prevailing quotas, duties or tariffs, which may affect our operations and our ability to purchase imported vehicles and/or parts at reasonable prices.

 

The seasonality of our business magnifies the importance of second and third quarter operating results.

 

Our business is subject to seasonal variations in revenues. In our experience, demand for automobiles is generally lower during the first and fourth quarters of each year. We therefore receive a disproportionate amount of revenues generally in the second and third quarters and expect our revenues and operating results to be generally lower in the first and fourth quarters. Consequently, if conditions surface during the second and third quarters that impair vehicle sales, such as higher fuel costs, depressed economic conditions or similar adverse conditions, our revenues for the year could be adversely affected.

 

General Risks Related to Investing in Our Securities

 

Concentration of voting power and anti-takeover provisions of our charter, bylaws, Delaware law and our dealer agreements may reduce the likelihood of any potential change of control.

 

Our common stock is divided into two classes with different voting rights. This dual class stock ownership allows the present holders of the Class B common stock to control us. Holders of Class A common stock have one vote per share on all matters. Holders of Class B common stock have 10 votes per share on all matters, except that they have only one vote per share on any transaction proposed or approved by the Board of Directors or a Class B common stockholder or otherwise benefiting the Class B common stockholders constituting a:

 

 

The holders of Class B common stock currently hold less than a majority of our outstanding common stock, but a majority of our voting power (which include O. Bruton Smith, Sonic’s Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director, his family members and entities they control). This may prevent or discourage a change of control of us even if the action was favored by holders of Class A common stock.

 

Our charter and bylaws make it more difficult for our stockholders to take corporate actions at stockholders’ meetings. In addition, stock options, restricted stock and restricted stock units granted under our 1997 Stock Option Plan and 2004 Stock Incentive Plan become immediately exercisable or automatically vest upon a change in control. Delaware law also makes it difficult for stockholders who have recently acquired a large interest in a company to consummate a business combination transaction with the company against its directors’ wishes. Finally, restrictions imposed by our dealer agreements may impede or prevent any potential takeover bid. Generally, our franchise agreements allow the manufacturers the right to terminate the agreements upon a change of control of our company and impose restrictions upon the transferability of any significant percentage of our stock to any one person or entity who may be unqualified, as defined by the manufacturer, to own one of its dealerships. The inability of a person or entity to qualify with one or more of our manufacturers may prevent or seriously impede a potential takeover bid. In addition, provisions of our lending arrangements create an event of default on a change in control. These agreements, corporate governance documents and laws may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control or preventing stockholders from realizing a premium on the sale of their shares if we were acquired.

 

The outcome of legal and administrative proceedings we are or may become involved in could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and profitability.

 

We are involved, and expect to continue to be involved, in numerous legal and administrative proceedings arising out of the conduct of our business, including regulatory investigations and private civil actions brought by plaintiffs purporting to represent a potential class or for which a class has been certified.

 

Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and several of our dealership subsidiaries that purport to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs and make allegations that certain products sold in the finance and insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner. One of these private civil actions has been filed in South Carolina state court against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and ten of our South Carolina subsidiaries. This group of plaintiffs’ attorneys has filed another one of these private civil class action lawsuits in state court in North Carolina seeking certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs. The South Carolina state court action and the North Carolina state court action have since been consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration. On November 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration filed a Motion for Class Certification as a national class action including all of the states in which we operate dealerships. Claimants are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers. The parties have briefed and argued the issue of class certification and an order from the arbitrator on class certification is expected in 2010. If a class is certified against us and our dealerships, there would still be a hearing to determine the merits of claimants’ claims and potential liability. We currently intend to continue our vigorous defense of this combined arbitration proceeding and to assert all available defenses.

 

Several of our South Carolina dealership subsidiaries are defendants, along with most of the automobile dealerships in the State of South Carolina, in a private civil lawsuit filed in Aiken County, South Carolina state court, Herron, et al. v CarMax, et al. and/or two related lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the manner in which South Carolina dealerships charged customers administrative fees in connection with the sale of motor vehicles violated applicable South Carolina law and seek monetary damages. Our dealership named in the Herron suit, Century BMW, previously moved to compel arbitration of the claims asserted against it. The trial court denied that Motion to Compel Arbitration. Century BMW appealed the decision and the appeal was taken by the South Carolina Supreme Court and argued in January 2010. The South Carolina Supreme Court will likely render a decision on that appeal in 2010. If the trial court’s decision is affirmed, Century BMW will proceed in the Herron lawsuit like the other defendants. If the trial court’s decision is reversed, then Century BMW’s claim will proceed in arbitration. We currently intend to continue our vigorous defense of these lawsuits and to assert all available defenses.

 

The outcomes of the civil actions brought by plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of customers, as well as other pending and future legal proceedings arising out of the conduct of our business, including litigation with customers, employment related lawsuits, contractual disputes, class actions, purported class actions and actions brought by governmental authorities, cannot be predicted with certainty. An unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could result in the payment of significant costs and damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or prospects.

 

Our company is a defendant in the matter of Galura, et al. v. Sonic Automotive, Inc., a private civil action filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. In this action, originally filed on December 30, 2002, the plaintiffs allege that we and our Florida dealerships sold an antitheft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of any customer of any of our Florida dealerships who purchased the antitheft protection product since December 30, 1998. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers. In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for certification of the requested class of customers, but the court has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in this lawsuit. We have subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court’s class certification ruling with the Florida Court of Appeals. In April 2007, the Florida Court of Appeals affirmed a portion of the trial court’s class certification, and overruled a portion of the trial court’s class certification. In November 2009, the Florida trial court granted Summary Judgment in our favor against Plaintiff Enrique Galura, and his claim has been dismissed. Marisa Hazelton’s claim is still pending. We currently intend to continue our vigorous defense of this lawsuit, including the aforementioned appeal of the trial court’s class certification order, and to assert available defenses. However, an adverse resolution of this lawsuit could result in the payment of significant costs and damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

 

Our business may be adversely affected by claims alleging violations of laws and regulations in our advertising, sales and finance and insurance activities.

 

Our business is highly regulated. In the past several years, private plaintiffs and state attorney generals have increased their scrutiny of advertising, sales, and finance and insurance activities in the sale and leasing of motor vehicles. The conduct of our business is subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent trade practices (including advertising, marketing, sales, insurance, repair and promotion practices), truth-in-lending, consumer leasing, fair credit practices, equal credit opportunity, privacy, insurance, motor vehicle finance, installment finance, closed-end credit, usury and other installment sales. Claims arising out of actual or alleged violations of law may be asserted against us or any of our dealers by individuals, either individually or through class actions, or by governmental entities in civil or criminal investigations and proceedings. Such actions may expose us to substantial monetary damages and legal defense costs, injunctive relief and criminal and civil fines and penalties, including suspension or revocation of our licenses and franchises to conduct dealership operations.

 

Our business may be adversely affected by unfavorable conditions in our local markets, even if those conditions are not prominent nationally.

 

Our performance is subject to local economic, competitive, weather and other conditions prevailing in geographic areas where we operate. We may not be able to expand geographically and any geographic expansion may not adequately insulate us from the adverse effects of local or regional economic conditions. In addition, due to the provisions and terms contained in our operating lease agreements, we may not be able to relocate a dealership operation to a more favorable location without incurring significant costs or penalties.

 

The loss of key personnel and limited management and personnel resources could adversely affect our operations and growth.

 

Our success depends to a significant degree upon the continued contributions of our management team, particularly our senior management, and service and sales personnel. Additionally, manufacturer franchise agreements may require the prior approval of the applicable manufacturer before any change is made in franchise general managers. We do not have employment agreements with certain members of our senior management team,

our dealership managers and other key dealership personnel. Consequently, the loss of the services of one or more of these key employees could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

 

In addition, as we expand we may need to hire additional managers. The market for qualified employees in the industry and in the regions in which we operate, particularly for general managers and sales and service personnel, is highly competitive and may subject us to increased labor costs during periods of low unemployment. The loss of the services of key employees or the inability to attract additional qualified managers could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. In addition, the lack of qualified management or employees employed by potential acquisition candidates may limit our ability to consummate future acquisitions.

 

Governmental regulation and environmental regulation compliance costs may adversely affect our profitability.

 

We are subject to a wide range of federal, state and local laws and regulations, such as local licensing requirements, retail financing and consumer protection laws and regulations, and wage-hour, anti-discrimination and other employment practices laws and regulations. Our facilities and operations are also subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to environmental protection and human health and safety, including those governing wastewater discharges, air emissions, the operation and removal of underground and aboveground storage tanks, the use, storage, treatment, transportation, release, recycling and disposal of solid and hazardous materials and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated property or water. The violation of these laws and regulations can result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties against us or in a cease and desist order against our operations that are not in compliance. Our future acquisitions may also be subject to regulation, including antitrust reviews. We believe that we comply in all material respects with all laws and regulations applicable to our business, but future regulations may be more stringent and require us to incur significant additional compliance costs.

 

Our past and present business operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations. We may be required by these laws to pay the full amount of the costs of investigation and/or remediation of contaminated properties, even if we are not at fault for disposal of the materials or if such disposal was legal at the time. Like many of our competitors, we have incurred, and will continue to incur, capital and operating expenditures and other costs in complying with these laws and regulations. In addition, soil and groundwater contamination exists at certain of our properties. We cannot assure you that our other properties have not been or will not become similarly contaminated. In addition, we could become subject to potentially material new or unforeseen environmental costs or liabilities because of our acquisitions.

 

Climate change legislation or regulations restricting emission of “greenhouse gases” could result in increased operating costs and reduced demand for the vehicles we sell.

 

On December 15, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published its findings that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other “greenhouse gases” present an endangerment to public health and the environment because emissions of such gases are, according to the EPA, contributing to warming of the earth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes. These findings allow the EPA to adopt and implement regulations that would restrict emissions of greenhouse gases under existing provisions of the federal Clean Air Act. Accordingly, the EPA has proposed regulations that would require a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles and could trigger permit review for greenhouse gas emissions from certain stationary sources. In addition, on October 30, 2009, the EPA published a final rule requiring the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from specified large greenhouse gas emission sources in the United States, including facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases on an annual basis, beginning in 2011 for emissions occurring in 2010. At the state level, more than one-third of the states, either individually or through multi-state regional initiatives, already have begun implementing legal measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The adoption and implementation of any regulations imposing reporting obligations on, or limiting emissions of greenhouse gases from, our equipment and operations or from the vehicles that we sell could adversely affect demand for those vehicles and require us to incur costs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases associated with our operations.

 

Potential conflicts of interest between us and our officers or directors could adversely affect our future performance.

 

O. Bruton Smith serves as the chairman and chief executive officer of Speedway Motorsports. Accordingly, we compete with Speedway Motorsports for the management time of Mr. Smith.

 

We have in the past and will likely in the future enter into transactions with Mr. Smith, entities controlled by Mr. Smith or our other affiliates. We believe that all of our existing arrangements with affiliates are as favorable to us as if the arrangements were negotiated between unaffiliated parties, although the majority of these transactions have neither been verified by third parties in that regard nor are likely to be so verified in the future. Potential conflicts of interest could arise in the future between us and our officers or directors in the enforcement, amendment or termination of arrangements existing between them.

 

We may be subject to substantial withdrawal liability assessments in the future related to a multi-employer pension plan to which certain of our dealerships make contributions pursuant to collective bargaining agreements.

 

Six of our dealership subsidiaries in Northern California currently make fixed-dollar contributions to the Automotive Industries Pension Plan (the “AI Pension Plan”) pursuant to collective bargaining agreements between our subsidiaries and the International Association of Machinists (the “IAM”). The AI Pension Plan is a “multi-employer pension plan” as defined under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, and our six dealership subsidiaries are among approximately 100 automobile dealerships that make contributions to the AI Pension Plan pursuant to collective bargaining agreements with the IAM. In June 2006, we received information that the AI Pension Plan was substantially underfunded as of December 31, 2005. In July 2007, we received updated information that the AI Pension Plan continued to be substantially underfunded as of December 31, 2006, with the amount of such underfunding increasing versus year end 2005. In March 2008, the Board of Trustees of the AI Pension Plan notified participants, participating employers and local unions that the Plan’s actuary, in accordance with the requirements of the federal Pension Protection Act of 2006, had issued a certification that the AI Pension Plan is in Critical Status effective with the plan year commencing January 1, 2008. In conjunction with this finding, the Board of Trustees of the AI Pension Plan adopted a Rehabilitation Plan that implements reductions or eliminations of certain adjustable benefits that were previously available under the Plan (including some forms of early retirement benefits, and disability and death benefits), and also implements a requirement on all participating employers to increase employer contributions to the Plan for a seven year period commencing in 2013. Under applicable federal law, any employer contributing to a multiemployer pension plan that completely ceases participating in the plan while the plan is underfunded is subject to payment of such employer’s assessed share of the aggregate unfunded vested benefits of the plan. In certain circumstances, an employer can be assessed withdrawal liability for a partial withdrawal from a multi-employer pension plan. In addition, if the financial condition of the AI Pension Plan were to continue to deteriorate to the point that the Plan is forced to terminate and be assumed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the participating employers could be subject to assessments by the PBGC to cover the participating employers’ assessed share of the unfunded vested benefits. If any of these adverse events were to occur in the future, it could result in a substantial withdrawal liability assessment that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

 

A change in historical experience and/or assumptions used to estimate reserves could have a material impact on our earnings.

 

As described in Item 7 under the heading “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Use of Estimates and Critical Accounting Policies” management relies on estimates in various areas of accounting and financial reporting. For example, our estimates for finance, insurance and service contracts and insurance reserves are based on historical experience. Differences between actual results and our historical experiences and/or our assumptions could have a material impact on our earnings in the period of the change and in periods subsequent to the change.

 

Impairment of our goodwill could have a material adverse impact on our earnings.

 

Pursuant to applicable accounting pronouncements, we test goodwill for impairment annually or more frequently if an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying amount. We describe the process for testing goodwill more thoroughly in Item 7 under the heading “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Use of Estimates and Critical Accounting Policies.” If we determine that the amount of our goodwill is impaired at any point in time, we are required to reduce goodwill on our balance sheet. Based on the results of our impairment evaluation as of December 31, 2008, we recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $797.4 million. If goodwill is further impaired based on a future impairment test, we will record another non-cash impairment charge that may also have a material adverse effect on our earnings for the period in which the impairment of goodwill occurs. As of December 31, 2009, our balance sheet reflected a carrying amount of approximately $472.3 million in goodwill (including goodwill classified as assets held for sale).

 

 

None.

 

 

Our principal executive offices are located at 6415 Idlewild Road, Suite 109, Charlotte, North Carolina 28212, and our telephone number is (704) 566-2400. We lease these offices from a related party. See Note 8 to our accompanying consolidated financial statements.

 

Our dealerships are generally located along major U.S. or interstate highways. One of the principal factors we consider in evaluating an acquisition candidate is its location. We prefer to acquire dealerships or build dealership facilities located along major thoroughfares, which can be easily visited by prospective customers.

 

We lease the majority of the properties utilized by our dealership operations from affiliates of Capital Automotive REIT (“CARS”) and other individuals and entities. The properties utilized by our dealership operations that are owned by us or one of our subsidiaries are pledged as security for our 2010 Credit Facilities or under mortgages. We believe that our facilities are adequate for our current needs.

 

Under the terms of our franchise agreements, each of our dealerships must maintain an appropriate appearance and design of its dealership facility and is restricted in its ability to relocate.

 

 

We are a defendant in the matter of Galura, et al. v. Sonic Automotive, Inc., a private civil action filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. In this action, originally filed on December 30, 2002, the plaintiffs allege that we and our Florida dealerships sold an antitheft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of any customer of any of our Florida dealerships who purchased the antitheft protection product since December 30, 1998. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers. In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for certification of the requested class of customers, but the court has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in this lawsuit. We subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court’s class certification ruling with the Florida Court of Appeals. In April 2007, the Florida Court of Appeals affirmed a portion of the trial court’s class certification, and overruled a portion of the trial court’s class certification. In November 2009, the Florida trial court granted Summary Judgment in our favor against Plaintiff Enrique Galura, and his claim has been dismissed. Marisa Hazelton’s claim is still pending. We currently intend to continue our vigorous appeal and defense of this lawsuit and to assert available defenses. However, an adverse resolution of this lawsuit could result in the payment of significant costs and damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Currently, we are unable to estimate a range of potential loss related to this matter.

 

Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and several of our dealership subsidiaries that purport to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs and make allegations that certain

products sold in the finance and insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner. One of these private civil actions has been filed in South Carolina state court against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and 10 of our South Carolina subsidiaries. This group of plaintiffs’ attorneys has filed another private civil class action lawsuit in state court in North Carolina seeking certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs. The South Carolina state court action and the North Carolina state court action have since been consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration. On November 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration filed a Motion for Class Certification as a national class action including all of the states in which we operate dealerships. Claimants are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers. The parties have briefed and argued the issue of class certification and an order from the arbitrator on class certification is expected in 2010. If a class is certified against us, and our dealerships, there would still be a hearing to determine the merits of claimants’ claims and potential liability. We currently intend to continue our vigorous defense of this arbitration and to assert all available defenses. However, an adverse resolution of this arbitration could result in the payment of significant costs and damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Currently, we are unable to estimate a range of potential loss related to this matter.

 

We are involved, and expect to continue to be involved, in numerous legal and administrative proceedings arising out of the conduct of our business, including regulatory investigations and private civil actions brought by plaintiffs purporting to represent a potential class or for which a class has been certified. Although we vigorously defend ourselves in all legal and administrative proceedings, the outcomes of pending and future proceedings arising out of the conduct of our business, including litigation with customers, employment related lawsuits, contractual disputes, class actions, purported class actions and actions brought by governmental authorities, cannot be predicted with certainty. An unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or prospects.

 

 

Not applicable.

 

 

Our Class A common stock is currently traded on the NYSE under the symbol “SAH.” Our Class B Common Stock is not traded on a public market.

 

As of February 18, 2010, there were 40,109,558 shares of Sonic’s Class A common stock and 12,029,375 shares of our Class B common stock outstanding. As of February 18 2010, there were 95 record holders of the Class A common stock and three record holders of the Class B common stock. As of February 18, 2010, the closing stock price for the Class A common stock was $9.80.

 

Our Board of Directors approved four quarterly cash dividends on all outstanding shares of common stock totaling $0.48 per share during 2007 and 2008. On February 11, 2009, our Board of Directors indefinitely suspended Sonic’s dividend. See Note 6 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements and Item 7: Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional discussion of dividends and for a description of restrictions on the payment of dividends.

 

The following table sets forth the high and low closing sales prices for Sonic’s Class A common stock for each calendar quarter during the periods indicated as reported by the NYSE Composite Tape and the dividends declared during such periods.

 

 

During the majority of 2009, share repurchases and the payment of dividends were expressly prohibited by our 2006 Credit Facility, with limited exceptions, and under the terms of our 6.0% Convertible Notes. Under our 2010 Credit Facilities, share repurchases and dividends are permitted to the extent that no event of default exists and we are in compliance with the financial covenants contained therein. See Note 6 to our Consolidated Financial Statements and Item 7: Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional discussion of dividends and for a description of restrictions on the payment of dividends.

 

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

 

The following table sets forth information about the shares of Class A Common Stock we repurchased during the quarter ended December 31, 2009.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

We have accounted for all of our dealership acquisitions using the purchase method of accounting and, as a result, we do not include in our consolidated financial statements the results of operations of these dealerships prior to the date we acquired them. Our selected consolidated financial data reflect the results of operations and financial positions of each of our dealerships acquired prior to December 31, 2009. As a result of the effects of our acquisitions and other potential factors in the future, the historical consolidated financial information described in selected consolidated financial data is not necessarily indicative of the results of our operations and financial position in the future or the results of operations and financial position that would have resulted had such acquisitions occurred at the beginning of the periods presented in the selected consolidated financial data.

 

 

 

 

2009 Events

 

We were challenged by a difficult retail operating environment throughout 2009 and an even more challenging capital markets environment through most of 2009. During the first half of 2009, the new vehicle industry SAAR (Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate of new vehicle sales) averaged 9.6 million units, while the second half averaged 11.2 million units due, in part, to the United States government’s Cash Allowance Rebate System (“CARS”) program. We responded to the weak economic environment through activities that included efforts to gain new and used vehicle market share through the implementation of best practices and leveraging technology to increase our digital footprint and communicate with our customers. We also aggressively evaluated our cost structure and reduced or eliminated costs to remain competitive in the marketplace. The bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler also negatively affected consumer confidence and retail activity related to those manufacturers’ brands.

 

During 2009, we also had to address our near-term debt maturities which included a May 7, 2009 bond maturity of $105.3 million, a revolving credit and floor plan facility expiring in February of 2010 and another bond maturity of $160.0 million becoming putable to us by the holders in November of 2010. During the last half of 2008 and the first half of 2009, the capital markets were effectively frozen. We encountered a very difficult situation related to the May 7, 2009 maturity of $105.3 million in principal of our 5.25% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due 2009 (the “5.25% Convertible Notes”). Ordinarily, we would have been able to access the capital markets to refinance this obligation. However, since the capital markets were not active, our best option was to negotiate private repurchases with the holders of the 5.25% Convertible Notes and repay those 5.25% Convertible Notes with cash, shares of common stock and new convertible notes to satisfy the 5.25% Convertible Notes in full. In order to complete these private repurchases, we had to amend certain terms of our 2006 Credit Facility which allowed these private repurchases to occur and also agreed to pricing increases and additional restrictions on our operating activities. These private repurchases were completed at the maturity of the 5.25% Convertible Notes.

 

In the third quarter of 2009, we completed a debt and equity offering and used the capital raised in these transactions to effectively retire the new convertible notes issued in May 2009 to holders of the 5.25% Convertible Notes and repurchase all but $17.0 million principal of our 4.25% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes putable November 2010 (the “4.25% Convertible Notes”).

 

We continued our debt refinancing activities in January 2010 through the replacement of our 2006 Credit Facility with a new revolving credit and vehicle floor plan facility (the “2010 Credit Facilities”) and additional manufacturer-affiliated finance company floor plan arrangements. As a result of these refinancing activities, with the exception of principal payments due on mortgage notes, the $17.0 million principal payment due in November 2010 related to our 4.25% Convertible Notes and certain term notes, we do not have another significant debt maturity until the 2010 Credit Facilities expire in 2012 or when our 8.625% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2013 (the “8.625% Notes) mature.

 

A summary of significant events discussed above that occurred during 2009 and early 2010 are as follows:

 

 

 

General Motors offered financial assistance with winding down the operations of the franchises for which we executed termination agreements. Assistance to be received from General Motors totals $3.3 million, of which $1.2 million was received or receivable as of December 31, 2009. The remaining assistance, $2.1 million, has not been recorded as a receivable from General Motors as of December 31, 2009 as certain conditions required for the payments to occur have not yet been satisfied. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we also recorded impairment and other charges associated with the termination of the General Motors franchises. See the following heading, “Impairments and Other Charges” for the detail of these items. With the exception of the sale of the Hummer and the discontinuation of the Saturn brand, the new General Motors Company announced that it expects to continue its current brand portfolio going forward. However, we are unable to predict what impact the discontinuation or sale of additional brands in the future will have on our operations. As of December 31, 2009, we operated 27 General Motors franchises (under the Cadillac, Chevrolet, Hummer, Saab and Buick nameplates) at 20 dealership locations.

 

The result of the Chrysler franchise terminations was not material to our results of operations, balance sheet or cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2009. However, it is uncertain whether Fiat will continue supporting the Chrysler brand or whether Fiat’s ownership of the Chrysler brand will have a positive or negative impact on our Chrysler franchises’ operations. As of December 31, 2009, we owned six Chrysler franchises at two dealership locations.

 

Subsequent to December 31, 2009, Toyota Motor Corporation issued a recall of certain of its most popular models in certain model years due to design problems with accelerator pedals. Toyota Motor Corporation also instructed its dealership partners to stop selling affected vehicles until it developed a solution to the design problem and provided the necessary parts and instructions to fix the issue. As a result, for a period of time during the first

quarter of 2010, our dealerships did not sell affected vehicles. Within a week of Toyota Motor Corporation’s communication to halt sales of affected models, Toyota Motor Corporation had developed a plan to fix the issue and began to ship the necessary parts and instructions to dealers. During the period of time when affected vehicles could not be sold, Toyota Motor Corporation offered its dealers floor plan assistance to help reduce dealers’ cost of carrying vehicles which it could not sell due to the recall.

 

As of December 31, 2009, we operated eleven Toyota franchises. Typically vehicle recalls increase the profitability of our franchises because corrective measures to remedy the issues are provided free of charge to the customer at dealership franchise locations. The manufacturer will pay the dealership franchise to perform the corrective procedures. However, in the event recalls are of a nature which alter consumer preferences, over a longer term, manufacturers’ franchises may be negatively affected. We believe the effect of the recall will reduce our sales of Toyota vehicles in the first quarter of 2010, but will also increase our fixed operations business for work performed to correct the issue. We can not estimate how this recall will affect consumer preferences over the long-term.

 

The following discussion and analysis of the results of operations and financial condition should be read in conjunction with the Sonic Automotive, Inc. and Subsidiaries Consolidated Financial Statements and the related notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The financial and statistical data contained in the following discussion for all periods presented reflects our December 31, 2009 classification of franchises between continuing and discontinued operations in accordance with the ASC on “Presentation of Financial Statements”.

 

Overview

 

We are one of the largest automotive retailers in the United States. As of January 31, 2010, we operated 145 dealership franchises, representing 29 different brands of cars and light trucks, at 122 locations and 26 collision repair centers in 15 states. As a result of the way we manage our business, we have a single operating segment for purposes of reporting financial condition and results of operations.

 

Our dealerships provide comprehensive services including sales of both new and used cars and light trucks, sales of replacement parts, performance of vehicle maintenance, manufacturer warranty repairs, paint and collision repair services, and arrangement of extended service contracts, financing, insurance and other aftermarket products for our customers. Although vehicle sales are cyclical and are affected by many factors, including general economic conditions, consumer confidence, levels of discretionary personal income, interest rates and available credit, our parts, service and collision repair services are not closely tied to vehicle sales and are not as dependent upon near-term sales volume.

 

The automobile industry’s total amount of new vehicles sold decreased by 21.2% to 10.4 million vehicles in 2009 from 13.2 million vehicles in 2008. From an industry perspective, new vehicle unit sales on a year-over-year basis decreased 16.2% for import brands and 26.8% for domestic brands. Current industry analyst expectations for new vehicle sales volume in 2010 are between 11.0 and 12.0 million vehicles, a 5.8% to 15.4% increase from 2009. Changes in consumer confidence, availability of consumer financing or changes in the financial stability of the automotive manufacturers could cause 2010 industry results to vary. Many factors such as brand and geographic concentrations have caused our past results to differ from the industry’s overall trend. The government’s CARS program defined the third quarter 2009, by increasing the August 2009 SAAR to 14.1 million units. The program was designed to help consumers buy or lease more fuel-efficient vehicles and boost the economy and the auto industry.

 

In the ordinary course of business, we evaluate our dealership franchises for possible disposition based on various performance criteria. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we disposed of 18 franchises and, at December 31, 2009, had 4 other franchises (at 3 dealership locations) held for sale. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we identified six franchises to be held for sale that were included in continuing operations in our Annual Report on Form 10-K dated December 31, 2008, and 29 franchises that were held for sale and included in discontinued operations in our Annual Report on Form 10-K dated December 31, 2008, that we chose to continue to hold and operate in continuing operations in 2009. A significant number of dealerships were reclassified back into continuing operations during 2009 as a result of our generation of capital in the debt and equity markets to

address our near-term debt maturity issues rather than addressing those issues through asset sales. Franchises have been identified as held for sale because of unprofitable operations or other strategic considerations. In the future we may also sell other franchises that are not currently held for sale.

 

Use of Estimates and Critical Accounting Policies

 

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

 

Critical accounting policies are those that are both most important to the portrayal of our financial position and results of operations and require the most subjective and complex judgments. The following is a discussion of what we believe are our critical accounting policies and estimates. See Note 1 in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for additional discussion regarding our accounting policies.

 

Finance, Insurance and Service Contracts

 

We arrange financing for customers through various financial institutions and receive a commission from the lender either in a flat fee amount or in an amount equal to the difference between the actual interest rates charged to customers and the predetermined base rates set by the financing institution. We also receive commissions from the sale of various insurance contracts and non-recourse third party extended service contracts to customers. Under these contracts, the applicable manufacturer or third party warranty company is directly liable for all warranties provided within the contract.

 

In the event a customer terminates a financing, insurance or extended service contract prior to the original termination date, we may be required to return a portion of the commission revenue originally recorded to the third party provider (“chargebacks”). The commission revenue for the sale of these products and services is recorded net of estimated chargebacks at the time of sale. Our estimate of future chargebacks is established based on our historical chargeback rates, termination provisions of the applicable contracts and industry data. While chargeback rates vary depending on the type of contract sold, a 100 basis point change in the estimated chargeback rates used in determining our estimates of future chargebacks would have changed our estimated reserve for chargebacks at December 31, 2009 by approximately $0.8 million. Our estimate of chargebacks ($11.7 million as of December 31, 2009) is influenced by early contract termination events such as vehicle repossessions, refinancings and early pay-off. If these factors negatively change, the resulting impact would affect our future estimate for chargebacks and could have a negative adverse impact on our operations, financial position and cash flows. Our actual chargeback experience has not been materially different from our recorded estimates.

 

Goodwill and Franchise Assets

 

Goodwill is tested for impairment at least annually, or more frequently when events or circumstances indicate that impairment might have occurred. In completing step one of our impairment analyses as of December 31, 2009, we used a discounted cash flow (“DCF”) model to calculate fair value. We believe a discounted cash flow model is the most reliable valuation method to use because the fair value of our business is dependent on our ability to generate cash through sales and service of new and used vehicles. The DCF method is based on forward-looking projections that incorporate current trends and market expectations. We also analyzed our market capitalization along with potential adjustments to market capitalization such as control premium and cost synergies in evaluating our estimate of fair value. The results of our DCF model compared to our adjusted market capitalization determine whether the DCF model provided an accurate measure of fair value for the purpose of the impairment test. Our estimate of fair value was then compared to our book value at December 31, 2009 to determine whether an indicator of impairment existed. No indicator of impairment existed at December 31, 2009.

 

The significant assumptions in our DCF model include projected earnings, weighted average cost of capital (and estimates in the weighted average cost of capital inputs) and residual growth rates. To the extent the reporting unit’s earnings decline significantly or there are changes in one or more of these assumptions that would result in

lower valuation results, it could cause the carrying value of the reporting unit to exceed its fair value and thus require us to conduct the second step of the impairment test described above. In projecting our reporting unit’s earnings, we develop many assumptions which include, but are not limited to, new and used vehicle unit sales, internal revenue enhancement initiatives, cost control initiatives, internal investment programs such as training and technology, infrastructure and inventory floor plan borrowing rates. Our expectation of new vehicle unit sales is driven by our expectation of the SAAR of new vehicles. The estimate of the industry SAAR in future periods is the basis of our assumptions related to new vehicle unit sales volumes in our DCF model because we believe the historic and projected SAAR level of the SAAR is the best indicator of our new vehicle unit sales trends. The level of SAAR assumed in our projection of earnings for 2010 was approximately 11 million units with a gradual increase in the level of SAAR to approximately 14 million units in 2013, and remaining level thereafter.

 

Our DCF model is dependent on the assumptions used and is sensitive to changes in assumptions. For example, assuming all other factors remain the same, a 10% change in projected earnings would change the calculated fair value estimate as of December 31, 2009 by approximately $136.3 million. In the event the weighted average cost of capital changed 100 basis points, assuming all other factors remain the same, the calculated fair value estimate as of December 31, 2009 would change by approximately $143.9 million. Finally, if the residual growth estimate changed 100 basis points, assuming all other factors remain the same, the calculated fair value estimate as of December 31, 2009 would change by approximately $119.9 million. Based on our DCF model estimating the fair value of our reporting unit, none of the items above, if realized, would have resulted in lowering the fair value of the reporting unit below the reporting unit’s carrying value.

 

At December 31, 2009, the fair value of our reporting unit exceeded the carrying value of the reporting unit. As a result, we were not required to conduct the second step of the impairment test.

 

We continue to face a challenging automotive retail environment. As a result of these conditions, there can be no assurances that a material impairment charge will not occur in a future period. We will continue to monitor events in future periods to determine if additional asset impairment testing should be performed. If we are required to apply the second step of the goodwill impairment test in future periods, we could be required to record an impairment charge to goodwill that would have a material adverse impact on our financial condition.

 

We test franchise assets for impairment annually or more frequently if events or circumstances indicate possible impairment. We estimate the value of our franchise assets using a discounted cash flow model. The discounted cash flow model used contains inherent uncertainties, including significant estimates and assumptions related to growth rates, projected earnings and cost of capital. We are subject to financial risk to the extent that our franchise assets become impaired due to deterioration of the underlying businesses. The risk of a franchise asset impairment loss may increase to the extent the underlying businesses’ earnings or projected earnings decline. As a result of our impairment testing in 2009, we recorded franchise asset impairment charges of $4.3 million for the year ending December 31, 2009, all of which was recorded in continuing operations. The balance of our franchise assets (related to continuing operations and discontinued operations) totaled $64.8 million at December 31, 2009.

 

Insurance Reserves

 

We have various high deductible insurance and retention programs which require us to make estimates in determining the ultimate liability we may incur for claims arising under these programs. We accrue for insurance reserves on a pro-rata basis throughout the year based on the expected year-end liability. We estimate the ultimate liability under these programs is between $18.9 million and $20.9 million. At December 31, 2009, we had $19.4 million reserved for such programs. Changes in significant assumptions used in the development of the ultimate liability for these programs could have a material impact on the level of reserves, our operating results, financial position and cash flows. These significant assumptions would include the volume of claims, medical cost trends, claims handling and reporting patterns, historical claims experience, the effect of related court rulings and current or projected changes in state laws. From a sensitivity analysis perspective, it is difficult to quantify the effect of changes in any of these significant assumptions with the exception of the volume of claims. Generally, we believe a 10% change in the volume of claims would have a proportional effect on our reserves. We believe our actual loss experience has not been materially different from our recorded estimates.

 

Lease Exit Accruals

 

The majority of our dealership properties are leased under long-term operating lease arrangements. When leased properties are no longer utilized in operations, we record lease exit accruals. These situations could include the relocation of an existing facility or the sale of a franchise where the buyer will not be subleasing the property for either the remaining term of the lease or for an amount equal to our obligation under the lease, or in situations where a store is closed as a result of the associated franchise being terminated by the manufacturer and no other operations continue on the lease. The lease exit accruals represent the present value of the lease payments, net of estimated sublease rentals, for the remaining life of the operating leases and other accruals necessary to satisfy lease commitments to the landlords. At December 31, 2009, we had $47.8 million accrued for lease exit costs. A significant change in our assumptions regarding the time period to obtain a subtenant or the amount of the anticipated sublease income could have a material effect on our accrual and, as a result, earnings. For example, assuming all other factors remain the same, a 50% decrease in our estimated proceeds from subleases would change our lease exit accruals by approximately $1.2 million. In addition, based on the terms and conditions negotiated in the sale of franchises in the future, additional accruals may be necessary if the purchaser of the franchise does not assume the lease of the associated franchise, or we are unable to negotiate a sublease with the buyer of the franchise on terms that are identical to or better than those associated with the original lease.

 

Legal Proceedings

 

We are involved, and expect to continue to be involved, in numerous legal proceedings arising out of the conduct of our business, including litigation with customers, employment related lawsuits, contractual disputes and actions brought by governmental authorities. As of December 31, 2009, we had accrued $9.2 million in legal reserves. Although we vigorously defend ourself in all legal and administrative proceedings, the outcomes of pending and future proceedings arising out of the conduct of our business, including litigation with customers, employment related lawsuits, contractual disputes, class actions, purported class actions and actions brought by governmental authorities, cannot be predicted with certainty. An unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could exceed the amount of our legal reserve and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or prospects.

 

Classification of Franchises in Continuing and Discontinued Operations

 

We classify the results from operations of our continuing and discontinued operations in our consolidated statements of income based on the provisions of “Presentation of Financial Statements” in the Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”). Many of these provisions involve judgment in determining whether a franchise will be reported as continuing or discontinued operations. Such judgments include whether a franchise will be sold or terminated, the period required to complete the disposition and the likelihood of changes to a plan for sale. If in future periods we determine that a franchise should be either reclassified from continuing operations to discontinued operations or from discontinued operations to continuing operations, previously reported consolidated statements of income will be reclassified in order to reflect that classification. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we identified six franchises to be held for sale that were previously included in continuing operations, and 29 franchises that were held for sale and previously included in discontinued operations, that we chose to continue to hold and operate in continuing operations in 2009. A significant number of dealerships were reclassified back into continuing operations during 2009 as a result of our generation of capital in the debt and equity markets to address our near-term debt maturity issues rather than addressing those issues through asset sales. At December 31, 2009 there were four franchises held for sale and classified as discontinued operations.

 

Income Taxes

 

As a matter of course, we are regularly audited by various taxing authorities and from time to time these audits result in proposed assessments where the ultimate resolution may result in us owing additional taxes. We believe that our tax positions comply, in all material respects, with applicable tax law and that we have adequately provided for any reasonably foreseeable outcome related to these matters. Included in other accrued liabilities at December 31, 2009 is $31.2 million in reserves that we have provided for these matters (including estimates related to possible interest and penalties). From time to time, we engage in transactions in which the tax consequences may be

subject to uncertainty. Examples of such transactions include business acquisitions and disposals, including consideration paid or received in connection with such transactions. Significant judgment is required in assessing and estimating the tax consequences of these transactions. We determine whether it is more-likely-than-not that a tax position will be sustained upon examination, including resolution of any related appeals or litigation processes, based on the technical merits of the position. In evaluating whether a tax position has met the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold, we presume that the position will be examined by the appropriate taxing authority that has full knowledge of all relevant information. A tax position that does not meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold is measured to determine the amount of benefit to be recognized in the financial statements. The tax position is measured at the largest amount of benefit that is likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement.

 

We adjust our estimates periodically because of ongoing examinations by and settlements with the various taxing authorities, as well as changes in tax laws, regulations and precedent. The effects on our financial statements of income tax uncertainties are discussed in Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements.

 

At December 31, 2009, we believe it is more likely than not that we will be able to realize approximately $32.0 million of net deferred income tax assets. As a result, at December 31, 2009, we had a total of $61.9 million of valuation allowances recorded related to our deferred tax asset balances, $15.9 million related to state net operating loss carryforwards and $46.0 million related to all other deferred tax asset balances. The valuation allowance of $46.0 million at December 31, 2009 was recorded due to the uncertainty that exists related to the realization of the net deferred tax asset balance of $78.0 million. At December 31, 2008, we had a total of $116.3 million of valuation allowances recorded related to our deferred tax asset balances, $16.7 million related to state net operating loss carryforwards and $99.6 million related to all other deferred tax asset balances. The valuation allowance charge of $99.6 million was recorded in 2008 as a result of the downturn in the economy of the United States and, in particular, the automotive retail industry, and our operating loss in 2008 principally caused by goodwill impairment charges recorded in 2008.

 

We continually review all deferred tax asset positions (including state net operating loss carryforwards) to determine whether it is more-likely-than-not that the deferred tax assets will be utilized. Certain factors considered in evaluating the realizability of deferred tax assets include the time remaining until expiration (related to state net operating loss carryforwards) and various sources of taxable income that may be available under the tax law to realize a tax benefit related to a deferred tax asset. This evaluation requires management to make certain assumptions about future profitability, the execution of tax strategies that may be available to us and the likelihood that these assumptions or execution of tax strategies would occur. This evaluation is highly judgmental. The results of future operations, regulatory framework of these taxing authorities and other related matters cannot be predicted with certainty. Therefore, actual realization of these deferred tax assets may be materially different from management’s estimate.

 

We accrue for income taxes on a pro-rata basis throughout the year based on the expected year end liability. These estimates, judgments and assumptions are made quarterly by our management based on available information and take into consideration estimated income taxes based on prior year income tax returns, changes in income tax law, our income tax strategies and other factors. If our management receives information which causes us to change our estimate of the year end liability, the amount of expense or expense reduction required to be recorded in any particular quarter could be material to our operating results, financial position and cash flows.

 

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

 

Effective July 1, 2009, the ASC has become the sole source of authoritative U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“U.S. GAAP”). The ASC only affects the referencing of financial accounting standards and does not change or alter existing U.S. GAAP.

 

We adopted the updated provisions of “Debt with Conversion and Other Options” in the ASC as of January 1, 2009. The updates to this provision apply to convertible debt instruments that, by their stated terms, may be settled in cash (or other assets) upon conversion, including partial cash settlement, unless the embedded conversion option is required to be separately accounted for as a derivative. These provisions require that the issuer of a convertible debt instrument separately account for the liability and equity components in a manner that reflects the issuer’s nonconvertible debt borrowing rate when interest cost is recognized in subsequent periods. The excess of the

principal amount of the liability component over its initial fair value must be amortized to interest cost using the effective interest method.

 

This provision, when adopted, applied to our 4.25% Convertible Notes and our 5.25% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due May 2009 (the “5.25% Convertible Notes”). In conjunction with the adoption of these provisions, we estimated the nonconvertible borrowing rates related to our 4.25% Convertible Notes and 5.25% Convertible Notes to be 8.0% and 10.0%, respectively. Accordingly, the fair value of the equity component of the 4.25% Convertible Notes was $25.1 million ($15.1 million, net of tax) at the date of issuance and the fair value of the equity component of the 5.25% Convertible Notes was $31.6 million ($19.0 million, net of tax) at the date of the issuance. This pronouncement requires retrospective treatment of its provisions to all periods presented. Therefore, previously reported balances (prior to January 1, 2009), have been adjusted to record a debt discount equal to the fair value of the equity component, a deferred tax liability for the tax effect of the recorded debt discount and an increase to paid-in capital for the tax-effected fair value of the equity component as of the date of issuance of the underlying notes. Previously reported balances have also been adjusted to provide for the amortization of the debt discount through interest expense and the associated decrease in the deferred tax liability recorded through income tax expense.

 

As of December 31, 2008, the unamortized debt discount associated with these provisions related to the 4.25% Convertible Notes and the 5.25% Convertible Notes was $10.8 million and $2.1 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2009, the unamortized debt discount associated with these provisions related to the 4.25% Convertible Notes was $0.5 million and the debt discount related to the 5.25% Convertible Notes had been fully amortized. The unamortized discount of the 4.25% Convertible Notes at December 31, 2009 will be amortized through interest expense into earnings over the remaining expected term of the 4.25% Convertible Notes, which is through November 2010. A summary of the effect of applying these provisions on our prior and current period consolidated statements of income is as follows:

 

 

“Debt with Conversion and Other Options” in the ASC was also applied to our 5.0% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due October 2029 which are redeemable by us and putable by the holders after October 1, 2014 (the “5.0% Convertible Notes”) upon their issuance in September 2009 which are not considered in the table above. The effects of the application of these provisions are discussed in Note 6 in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

 

In June 2008, the FASB issued an update to “Earnings Per Share” in the ASC, under which unvested share-based payment awards that contain rights to receive nonforfeitable dividends or dividend equivalents (whether paid or unpaid) are participating securities and, thus, should be included in the two-class method of computing earnings per share. This pronouncement was effective for fiscal years beginning after December 31, 2008 and interim periods within those years and requires that all prior period earnings per share disclosures be adjusted retrospectively to apply the two-class method of computing earnings per share. The adoption of this standard resulted in no material changes in the prior period or the current year period presentation of earnings per share.

 

In March 2008, the FASB issued an update to “Derivatives and Hedging” in the ASC, which changes the disclosure requirements for derivative instruments and hedging activities by requiring enhanced disclosures about how and why an entity uses derivative instruments, how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under this pronouncement, and how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s operating results, financial position and cash flows. This pronouncement was effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008. Our adoption did not have a material impact on our consolidated operating results, financial position or cash flows.

 

In December 2007, the FASB issued an update to “Business Combinations” in the ASC, which provides guidance regarding the allocation of purchase price in business combinations, measurement of assets acquired and liabilities assumed as well as other intangible assets acquired. Also in December 2007, the FASB issued an update to “Consolidation” in the ASC, which provides accounting and reporting standards for a noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary if certain conditions exist. These pronouncements were effective for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008. Our adoption of these provisions did not materially impact our consolidated operating results, financial position and cash flows, however, for future acquisitions we could be required to expense transaction costs as incurred, rather than capitalizing them as part of the purchase price allocation, which could impact our consolidated operating results.

 

Our adoption of the updated provisions of “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures” in the ASC on January 1, 2008, related to fair value measurements and related disclosures of financial assets and liabilities, did not have a material impact on our financial statements. Our adoption of the provisions of this pronouncement related to nonfinancial assets and liabilities on January 1, 2009, affects, among other items, the valuation of goodwill, franchise assets and fixed assets when assessing for impairments and the valuation of assets acquired and liabilities assumed in business combinations.

 

We adopted the updated provisions of “Subsequent Events” in the ASC in the second quarter of 2009. This pronouncement establishes the accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued or are available to be issued. It requires the disclosure of the date through which an entity has evaluated subsequent events and the basis for that date, that is, whether that date represents the date the financial statements were issued or were available to be issued. See Note 13 in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for the related disclosures. The adoption of this provision did not have a material impact on our financial statements.

 

Results of Operations

 

The following table summarizes the percentages of total revenues represented by certain items reflected in our Consolidated Statements of Income.

 

 

 

 

During the year ended December 31, 2009, we disposed of 18 franchises, and, at December 31, 2009, had four other franchises held for sale (at three physical dealerships). The results of operations of these dealerships, including gains or losses on disposition, have been included in discontinued operations on the accompanying consolidated statements of income for all periods presented. In addition to these dispositions, we disposed of 12 and ten franchises, respectively in each of the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2008. See additional discussions of franchises held for sale in the “Liquidity and Capital Resources” discussion.

 

Annual “same store” results of operations represent the aggregate of the same store results for each of the four quarters in that year. Same store results for each quarter include dealerships that were owned and operated for the entire quarter in both periods and that were classified as continuing operations at December 31, 2009. Unless otherwise noted, the following discussion of the Results of Operations under the headings “New Vehicles,” “Used

Vehicles,” “Wholesale Vehicles,” “Parts, Service and Collision Repair” and “Finance, Insurance and Other” is on a same store basis.

 

Impairments and Other Charges

 

We recorded various charges in connection with the decision to exit certain facility leases since the planned use of certain leased properties will not occur. See the table below for the amounts and classification of the charges recorded. Of the $27.6 million recorded in discontinued operations in the year ending December 31, 2009, $11.4 million relates to lease exit accruals for our General Motors dealerships which were terminated in the fourth quarter of 2009.

 

Annually, we review franchise asset and property and equipment valuations. Based on historical and projected operating losses for certain continuing operating dealerships, we determined that certain dealerships would not be able to recover recorded franchise asset and property and equipment asset balances and that the completion of certain capital projects at these stores would not occur. As such, we partially or fully impaired the franchise asset, property and equipment asset values as well as construction in progress for those stores. Furthermore, as a result of lowering the estimates of expected proceeds from the sale of certain dealership franchises held for sale based on market conditions, we recorded franchise asset, property and equipment and other asset impairment charges in discontinued operations. See the table below for the amounts and classification of the charges recorded. Of the $4.3 million franchise asset impairments recorded in continuing operations for the year ending December 31, 2009, $2.1 million relates to General Motors dealerships for which we executed termination agreements. Of the $3.9 million recorded for the year ending December 31, 2009 related to property and equipment, $3.8 million relates to impairments to our General Motors dealerships which were terminated in 2009.

 

Goodwill is tested for impairment at least annually, or more frequently when events or circumstances indicate that impairment might have occurred. Based on the results of our step one test as of December 31, 2009, we were not required to complete step two of the goodwill impairment evaluation. For the year ended December 31, 2009, we recorded goodwill impairment charges of $1.1 million within continuing operations and $1.6 million within discontinued operations due to the determination that a portion of the goodwill was not recoverable, based on estimated proceeds, while certain dealership operations were held for sale. For the year ended December 31, 2008, we recorded an impairment of $797.4 million related to our evaluation of goodwill. We recorded $795.6 million in continuing operations and $1.8 million in discontinued operations as a result of step two of our goodwill impairment test and based on the determination that a portion of goodwill was not recoverable from assets held for sale based on estimated proceeds. See additional discussions of goodwill impairment testing in the previous heading “Goodwill and Franchise Assets.”

 

For the year ended December 31, 2008, our results of operations were negatively impacted by the effects of Hurricane Ike and hail storms in the Houston and mid-west markets. We estimate the overall impact (physical damage and business interruption) in 2008 lowered pretax earnings by approximately $8.0 million.

 

As a result of the refinancing of our 2006 Credit Facility and the new terms of the 2010 Credit Facilities, it is no longer probable that we will incur interest payments that match the terms of certain interest rate swap agreements (“Fixed Swaps”) that previously were designated and qualified as cash flow hedges. Of the Fixed Swaps (including the two $100.0 million notional swaps which were settled in 2009), $565.0 million of the notional amount had previously been documented as hedges against the variability of cash flows related to interest payments on certain debt obligations. However, we estimate that under the new 2010 Credit Facilities and other facilities with matching terms, it is no longer probable that the expected debt balance with interest payments that match the terms of the Fixed Swaps will exceed $400.0 million and it is reasonably possible that the expected debt balance with interest payments that match the terms of the Fixed Swaps will be between $400.0 million and $500.0 million. As a result, amounts previously classified in accumulated other comprehensive income related to $165.0 million in notional amount of the Fixed Swaps were reclassified to earnings as a charge of approximately $4.5 million. In addition, in the third quarter of 2009 we reclassified $0.3 million from other comprehensive income to earnings as a result of cash flow swap ineffectiveness due to reductions in LIBOR-based debt balances.

 

In the year ended December 31, 2009, we recorded $12.0 million of debt restructuring charges. Of the $12.0 million, $6.6 million related to the amendment of our 2006 Credit Facility executed March 31, 2009, in which

we agreed to payment of amendment fees and increases in the interest rates for amounts outstanding and the quarterly commitment fees payable by us on the unused portion and $5.4 million related to the loan cost amortization on our 6.0% Convertible Notes which were repurchased on October 28, 2009.

 

At December 31, 2009, we had $61.9 million of valuation allowances recorded related to our deferred tax asset balances, $15.9 million related to state net operating loss carryforwards, and $46.0 million related to all other deferred tax asset balances. At December 31, 2008, we had a total of $116.3 million of valuation allowances recorded related to our deferred tax asset balances, $16.7 million related to state net operating loss carryforwards and $99.6 million related to all other deferred tax asset balances. The change in the recorded valuation allowance balances in the year ended December 31, 2009 was primarily driven by the assumption that state net operating loss carryforwards generated in 2009 would not be realizable, the utilization of net deferred tax assets to reduce income tax payments and changes in assumptions related to the overall realization of net deferred tax asset balances. See the table below for amounts and classification of the charges recorded.

 

The amount and location of the charges discussed above in the accompanying consolidated statements of income are presented in the following table:

 

 

 

New Vehicles

 

New vehicle revenues include the sale of new vehicles to retail customers, as well as the sale of fleet vehicles. New vehicle revenues are highly dependent on manufacturer incentives, which vary from cash-back incentives to

low interest rate financing. New vehicle revenues are also dependent on manufacturers to provide adequate vehicle allocations to meet customer demands and the availability of consumer credit.

 

The automobile manufacturing industry is cyclical and historically has experienced periodic downturns characterized by oversupply and weak demand. As an automotive retailer, we seek to mitigate the effects of this cyclicality by maintaining a diverse brand mix of dealerships. Our brand diversity allows us to offer a broad range of products at a wide range of prices from lower priced, or economy vehicles, to luxury vehicles. For the year ended December 31, 2009, 83.1% of our total new vehicle revenue was generated by import and luxury dealerships compared to 83.2% for 2008.

 

The automobile retail industry uses the SAAR to measure the amount of new vehicle unit sales activity within the United States market. The SAAR averages below reflect a blended average of all brands marketed or sold in the United States market. The SAAR includes brands we do not sell and markets in which we do not operate.

 

 

During 2009 we experienced a decline in customer traffic at our dealerships. We believe this was caused in part by the weaker overall economy and tightening of credit availability to consumers in 2009. Although the United States government has made various attempts to ease the lack of credit availability and strengthen consumer confidence, we believe these conditions likely will continue to impact our operations in 2010. Industry analyst expectations for the 2010 SAAR are currently between 11.0 and 12.0 million vehicles which, if realized, would be an increase of 5.8% to 15.4% from 2009.

 

 

 

 

 

Our new unit volume decline in 2009 tracked closely to the average industry declines. Our import and domestic dealerships experienced declines in new vehicle volume of 18.0% and 25.9%, respectively. The majority of our import brands experienced declines in new vehicle volume, with the most notable declines being experienced by our BMW, Mercedes, and Toyota dealerships. These stores have posted declines of 22.6%, 21.9% and 21.4%, respectively. All of our domestic brands posted declines in 2009 compared to the prior year. Our GM, Cadillac and Ford stores experienced declines in volume of 31.6%, 37.8% and 16.6%, respectively, which were caused primarily by the volatile economic condition and the lack of credit availability to consumers in 2009. We experienced improvement in our new vehicle volume over the last two quarters of 2009 compared to the same periods in 2008 and expect a gradual recovery of the new vehicle market over the course of 2010.

 

Our import dealerships’ average price per new unit decreased slightly by $445, or 1.3%, while our domestic dealerships’ average price per unit increased by $1,031, or 3.1%. Our new vehicle price per unit had a slight increase primarily due to a change in sales mix with truck and SUV sales increasing by 50 basis points as a percentage of total new vehicle units retailed.

 

Our increase in gross profit per unit in 2009 compared to the year ended December 31, 2008 can mainly be attributed to a larger percentage of our sales being generated by higher priced import vehicles. In 2009, our new import unit sales increased 160 basis points as a percentage of total new vehicle units sold, while new domestic unit sales decreased by 100 basis points as a percentage of total new vehicle units sold as compared to 2008.

 

During 2008, our import dealerships experienced a decline in new unit volume of 18,997 units, or 17.6%, while our domestic dealerships experienced a decline of 7,053 units, or 17.8%, as compared to 2007. These overall import and domestic same store new vehicle unit declines can be attributed to a downturn in the housing market and other economic uncertainties. Also, our price per unit and gross profit decreased in 2008 as compared to 2007. These decreases can be attributed to a weakening economy and consumers shifting their preferences from new trucks and SUV units to smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles due to increasing gas prices.

 

Used Vehicles

 

Used vehicle revenues are directly affected by a number of factors including the level of manufacturer incentives on new vehicles, the number and quality of trade-ins and lease turn-ins and the availability of consumer credit. In addition, various manufacturers provide franchised dealers the opportunity to “certify” pre-owned vehicles based on criteria established by the manufacturer. This certification process extends the standard manufacturer warranty. In 2009, we continued to see improvements in our CPO unit volume, which increased 2.4% as compared to 2008. However, our sales of CPO vehicles decreased to 37.4% of total used vehicle units from 41.1% in 2008. This percentage decrease was driven in part by an increase of our sales of non-CPO used vehicles by 7,804 units, or 19.2%, during 2009.

 

 

 

 

During 2009, our used vehicle unit volume increased, as compared to 2008, despite a significantly weaker economic environment. Additionally, we were able to outperform the national average in used vehicle unit volume, with the national average declining 2.8% for 2009. We were able to obtain an increase in used unit volume primarily due to the continued implementation of our standardized used vehicle merchandising process. This process allows us to price our used vehicles more competitively, market them more effectively and physically move certain used vehicles to specific dealerships within a particular region that have shown success in retailing the specific type of used vehicle. Our import dealerships posted an increase in used unit sales volume of 9,150, or 18.2%, when compared to 2008. The increase in our import used unit sales volume was partially offset by a decrease in our domestic dealerships used unit sales volume of 725, or 3.9%. In 2009, gross profit per unit from used vehicles declined as compared to the prior year due in part to a shift toward purchasing more vehicles from auction rather than obtaining them through trade.

 

In 2008, the overall decrease in gross profit when compared to 2007 can be mainly attributed to adverse consumer confidence levels and a challenging consumer credit environment. Gross margin rates for used vehicles declined in 2008 compared to 2007 primarily due to sourcing more vehicles through wholesale auctions versus trades and actively managing our vehicle days supply to offer more favorable pricing to customers.

 

Wholesale Vehicles

 

Wholesale vehicle revenues are highly correlated with new and used vehicle retail sales and the associated trade-in volume. Wholesale revenues are also significantly affected by our corporate inventory management policies, which are designed to optimize our total used vehicle inventory.