Nippon Steel Set to Buy U.S. Steel, Union Dismayed

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

On Monday, Japan's Nippon Steel expressed its intention to purchase the United States Steel Corporation. The iconic American business supplies numerous industries, with the automotive sector being one of the largest.

Nippon Steel is reportedly offering a deal worth $14.9 billion and the assumption of any debt. However, the United Steel Workers don’t seem pleased with the arrangement and were said to have backed an earlier offer from domestic rival Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. totaling $7.25 billion.


The Cliffs deal fell through by August of 2023, at which time U.S. Steel started mulling over larger offers from Japan.


"We remained open throughout this process to working with US Steel to keep this iconic American company domestically owned and operated, but instead it chose to push aside the concerns of its dedicated workforce and sell to a foreign-owned company," said United Steelworkers president David McCall.


"To say we're disappointed in the announced deal between US Steel and Nippon is an understatement, as it demonstrates the same greedy, shortsighted attitude that has guided US Steel for far too long.”


Japan’s Nikkei reported that this would represent the largest ever purchase made by the Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC). The company is allegedly shifting focus to the United States, which it sees as a growth marking as Japanese birth rates have declined. The Japanese company also said it plans to adhere to all commitments U.S. Steel has with its employees – including the collective bargaining agreements currently in place with the union.


Reports have suggested that Nippon’s interest stems from benefits associated with the BIden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act. The plan created loads of incentives (tax credits, government subsidies, etc) for projects pertaining to “renewable energy.” U.S. Steel has clients in the solar industry and likewise supplies materials for some of the heavy machinery and structural materials used to construct some of the projects the federal government has recently deemed environmentally friendly and therefore potentially eligible for financial incentives.


U.S. Steel’s stock valuation spiked dramatically in 2005 only to absolutely collapse in 2008 during the Great Recession. The price has been somewhat volatile ever since, jumping and falling between years.


Some of this has been attributed to the company sticking with older blast-furnace technologies. While wholly effective, the overhead is quite high and requires staggering amounts of volume and a surplus of iron ore to maximize profitability. That was fine when U.S. Steel was the top dog. But it is no longer the largest domestic steel producer. Foreign suppliers are likewise much larger than they used to be, often dwarfing U.S. firms, and they are easier to do business since the American economy has become more globalized.


The company’s largest domestic rival, Nucor, focuses on electric arc furnaces that offer lower maximum yields. But the fact that its system is more scalable means production downtimes aren’t as financially dire. While U.S. Steel has built electric arc mini-mills (pictured) and pivoted toward more reclaimed scrap metal, it is still having trouble finding a good balance. Primary steel (made from iron) is still needed, and in massive quantities. It just isn’t something the industry can easily predict demand for.

Analysts tend to see U.S. Steel as an undervalued property due to these periods of cyclical demand. A good run will have the company outperforming Nucor shares by a significant margin. However, a bad stretch often sends investors running until there’s another bounce in demand for primary steel — increasing the propensity for investors to short the stock.


The automotive sector is going to be watching the deal closely. Bidding wars within the steel industry are likely to impact materials pricing, especially as corporate consolidation continues. Had U.S. Steel opted to sell to Cleveland-Cliffs, the hypothetical company would have owned 100 percent of domestic iron ore reserves. Normally, such a deal would end up getting flagged by antitrust regulators. Though the government doesn’t seem all that concerned with monopolies these days.


Granted, massive companies can offer competitive pricing to consumers via economies of scale. But they also run the risk of price fixing, due to a lack of competition, and tend to implode whole business sectors when things do go wrong because there are no smaller businesses left to take up the slack.


Cleveland-Cliffs cites the automotive industry as making up roughly a third of its entire revenue. Buying U.S. Steel would have pushed it beyond that while also cornering the domestic iron supply. But the United States has also been getting muscled out of the steel industry by Chinese businesses that now dominate the market. Japan and India similarly produce more steel, leading to questions about whether selling to a foreign entity is a good strategy for American industry.


Regardless, both U.S. Steel and Nippon have confirmed the deal. Unless regulators tell the company to hit the breaks, it appears to be going through.


“We are excited that this transaction brings together two companies with world-leading technologies and manufacturing capabilities, demonstrating our mission to serve customers worldwide, as well as our commitment to building a more environmentally friendly society through the decarbonization of steel," stated Nippon Steel President Eiji Hashimoto. "NSC has long admired U. S. Steel with deep respect for its advanced technologies, rich history, and talented workforce and we believe we can jointly take on the challenge of raising our aspirations to even greater heights. The transaction builds on our presence in the United States and we are committed to honoring all of U. S. Steel’s existing union contracts. We look forward to collaborating closely with the U. S. Steel team to bring together the best of our companies and move forward together as the ‘Best Steelmaker with World-Leading Capabilities.'"


Chief Executive Officer of U. S. Steel, David B. Burritt, has also praised the arrangement and likewise made sure to include all the relevant corporate buzz phrases in his statement.


“NSC has a proven track record of acquiring, operating, and investing in steel mill facilities globally – and we are confident that, like our strategy, this combination is truly Best for All. This transaction realizes the tremendous value today in our company and is the result of our Board of Directors’ comprehensive and thorough strategic alternatives process. For our U. S. Steel employees, who I continue to be thankful for, the transaction combines like-minded steel companies with an unwavering focus on safety, shared goals, values, and strategies underpinned by rich histories," said CEO Burritt.


"For customers, U. S. Steel and NSC create a truly global steel company with combined capabilities and innovation capable of meeting our customers’ evolving needs. Today’s announcement also benefits the United States – ensuring a competitive, domestic steel industry, while strengthening our presence globally. Our shared decarbonization focus is expected to enhance and accelerate our ability to provide customers with innovative steel solutions to meet sustainability goals.”

[Images: United States Steel]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 50 comments
  • SCE to AUX SCE to AUX on Dec 19, 2023

    For perspective, Tesla's revenue and employee count are both 5x that of US Steel's.

  • Tsarcasm Tsarcasm on Dec 19, 2023

    I support Nippon Steel. Japanese Executives actually take a pay-cut when the company underperforms. USS has been misled by braindead US MBA's for decades. They can actually have job security under the Japanese.


    Xenophobic morons!

  • El scotto No rag-top, no rag-top(s) = not a prestigious car brand. Think it through. All of the high-end Germans and Lexus have rag-tops. Corvette is really its own brand.World-leading engines. AMG, M, S and well Lexus is third-world tough. GM makes one of the best V-8s in the world in Bowling Green. But nooooo, noooo, we're GM only Corvettes get Corvette engines. Balderdash! I say. Put Corvette engines in the top-tier Cadillacs. I know GM could make a world-class 3.5 liter V-6 but they don't or won't. In the interior everything that gets touched, including your butt, has to feel good. No exceptions.Some think that those who pay above MSRP and brag about it are idiots. Go the opposite direction, and offer an extended 10-year 100,000-mile factory warranty. At a reasonable price. That's Acura's current business model.
  • Carrera 2014 Toyota Corolla with 192,000 miles bought new. Oil changes every 5,000 miles, 1 coolant flush, and a bunch of air filters and in cabin air filters, and wipers. On my 4th set of tires.Original brake pads ( manual transmission), original spark plugs. Nothing else...it's a Toyota. Did most of oil changes either free at Toyota or myself. Also 3 batteries.2022 Acura TLX A-Spec AWD 13,000 miles now but bought new.Two oil changes...2006 Hyundai Elantra gifted from a colleague with 318,000 when I got it, and 335,000 now. It needed some TLC. A set of cheap Chinese tires ($275), AC compressor, evaporator, expansion valve package ( $290) , two TYC headlights $120, one battery ( $95), two oil changes, air filters, Denso alternator ( $185), coolant, and labor for AC job ( $200).
  • Mike-NB2 This is a mostly uninformed vote, but I'll go with the Mazda 3 too.I haven't driven a new Civic, so I can't say anything about it, but two weeks ago I had a 2023 Corolla as a rental. While I can understand why so many people buy these, I was surprised at how bad the CVT is. Many rentals I've driven have a CVT and while I know it has one and can tell, they aren't usually too bad. I'd never own a car with a CVT, but I can live with one as a rental. But the Corolla's CVT was terrible. It was like it screamed "CVT!" the whole time. On the highway with cruise control on, I could feel it adjusting to track the set speed. Passing on the highway (two-lane) was risky. The engine isn't under-powered, but the CVT makes it seem that way.A minor complaint is about the steering. It's waaaay over-assisted. At low speeds, it's like a 70s LTD with one-finger effort. Maybe that's deliberate though, given the Corolla's demographic.
  • Mike-NB2 2019 Ranger - 30,000 miles / 50,000 km. Nothing but oil changes. Original tires are being replaced a week from Wednesday. (Not all that mileage is on the original A/S tires. I put dedicated winter rims/tires on it every winter.)2024 - Golf R - 1700 miles / 2800 km. Not really broken in yet. Nothing but gas in the tank.
  • SaulTigh I've got a 2014 F150 with 87K on the clock and have spent exactly $4,180.77 in maintenance and repairs in that time. That's pretty hard to beat.Hard to say on my 2019 Mercedes, because I prepaid for three years of service (B,A,B) and am getting the last of those at the end of the month. Did just drop $1,700 on new Michelins for it at Tire Rack. Tires for the F150 late last year were under $700, so I'd say the Benz is roughly 2 to 3 times as pricy for anything over the Ford.I have the F150 serviced at a large independent shop, the Benz at the dealership.
Next