Reply With Quote
First question: That's rather obvious -- in some cases.
Second: Maybe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8485198.stm
The carmaker made $2.7bn (£1.7bn) in 2009, compared with a loss of almost $15bn in 2008, and said it expects to be profitable this year as well.
For the final three months of last year, the company made $868m, a dramatic improvement on the $6bn loss it made a year earlier.
Ford said its return to profitability was in part due to cutting costs and reducing debt levels.
Ford employed 89,000 people in the US at the start of 2009, but that number dropped to about 80,000 through buyouts and layoffs by the end of the year.
The importance of cutting costs was highlighted by the fact that revenue for the full year was $118.3bn, $19.8bn less than in 2008.
'Challenges ahead'
The firm is also enjoying goodwill for avoiding bankruptcy, analysts said.
The carmaker's big rivals General Motors and Chrysler, which together with Ford make up the so-called Detroit Three, both took billions of dollars in state aid and went into bankruptcy protection last summer.
"While we still face significant challenges ahead, 2009 was a pivotal year for Ford and the strongest proof yet that our One Ford plan is working and that we are forging a path toward profitable growth," said Ford president and chief executive Alan Mulally.
Most carmakers struggled last year because of falling sales during the downturn.
As a direct result, a number of governments, including the US administration, introduced scrappage schemes which paid motorists to trade in their old cars.
The so-called "cash-for-clunkers" scheme in the US helped to boost Ford sales.
__________________________________________________ ____________
Does Ford help prove the bailout money, in some cases, was unnecessary? Does it also show that Obama and co.'s plans for the economy (including stimulus packages and cash for clunkers) have the capacity to work ideally?
First question: That's rather obvious -- in some cases.
Second: Maybe.
Cash for clunkers was an en lement to Ford and other car makers...so its disingenious to say that Ford hasn't taken tax-payer money
In that case, so did Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Hyundai, Kia, ...
....with whitacre ready to take the helm of GM permanently, I'm expecting good things from GM soon too....he certainly seems to be taking the company in the right direction with its more updated models, a 100k power train warranty and customer satisfaction guarantee...
what percentage of cash for clunkers went towards Ford? GM?
Simple answer: Yes. Some of the companies we gave bailout money to could have found a way to survive without it.
Complex answer: Depends how strongly you feel about free markets. Are the taxpayers better served by letting these companies live or die on their own, believing that those companies that die will eventually be replaced by stronger companies? Or are the taxpayers better served funding corporate welfare in order to protect the jobs at those struggling companies?
It's inconclusive. Did cash for clunkers convince a bunch of people to buy cars who wouldn't have bought them otherwise? Or did it just motivate people who were going to buy sometime within the next year anyways to go ahead and buy now?Does it also show that Obama and co.'s plans for the economy (including stimulus packages and cash for clunkers) have the capacity to work ideally?
lol
I bought Ford for less than $2.00/share in March of 2009. I've almost made 6 times my money. As of today it's going for $11.41/share.
I bought this BEFORE the cash for clunkers program or any bailouts.
Why did I buy Ford and not GM, even before knowing about any cash for clunkers thing?
When you figure this out, you'll know why Ford was a good investment...
Here's a hint, found on stock exchange symbol lookups.
And the writing on the wall was not too hard to see way before any of the govt. stupidity came to bear. You just had to be looking.GM is no longer valid. It has changed to MTLQQ.PK.
Cash for clunkers had absolutely no bearing on why FORD was a good buy...and still is.
Did it help it's bottom line. Sure. Did it help GM's bottom line? Look GM up and find out...
...oopsGM is no longer valid. It has changed to MTLQQ.PK.
Last edited by SouthernFried; 01-29-2010 at 09:07 AM.
Nice call SF. I had been a GM stockholder for many years but bailed on them back in 2007. Even though I got out of GM without having to take too many bruises I was still too chicken to trust another auto company.
Go drive a new F-150, Dodge Ram, & Chevy Silverado…You will understand why Ford is doing better than the rest…Ford has raised the bar on quality…
..and this is why I purchased a new 2008 F-150 pickup SuperCab in late 2008. My family-in-law are big investors, and like SouthernFried, always said "Ford is the most viable".
They, just as SF, made a ing killing on Ford stock in 2009. The gains made in that investment alone offset nearly their entire portfolio.
So buy ing American. Thats the only time I'll say that.
I bought it at $6... sold it for ~$7 after cash for clunkers. Whoops. Back in at $11 as of a few weeks ago. I'm not good at this.
Last edited by Spurminator; 01-29-2010 at 10:42 AM.
I just bought a Ford. They probably have the highest quality of all the domestics.
Ford also had some other things going for it. Part their doing, part just good fortune.
1. They replaced their incompetent CEO back in 2006. No small feat considering that CEO shared a last name with the company.
2. They had just borrowed a bunch of money right before everything blew up. Where GM found itself screwed by not being able to find anyone to lend them money, Ford just had to keep current on their payments.
3. Ford management and the UAW workers there were smart enough to recognize that they wanted no part of what was happening with GM. So they were able to come to an agreement on labor concessions that allowed Ford to cut it's costs.
Don't get too y about GM's rebound.
I know many people who were DIEHARD GM lovers, myself included, who have completely ditched ties with that company for its unholy alliance.
Still, Ford is Ford maaaan. I might just have to buy used GM trucks
Man, I just don't know if I can take another blood bath on a Ford F150. I got absolutely killed on two of them I bought, one in the late 80's with that POS 5.0 and a brand new diesel in '04 that ate turbos for lunch. Horrible trucks, both of them. I'd like to buy American and will soon, but F150 is not high on my list.
I bought a 1993 Chevy S-10 extended cab about 10 years ago and gave it to my son to drive. He just gave it back to me recently.....it only has 198,000 miles on it and runs beautifully. It's a very simple truck 2.8 V6, 5 spd.....simple=reliable.
Last edited by TeyshaBlue; 01-29-2010 at 11:38 AM.
Consumer Reports: Ford Is "World Class"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5425543.shtml
(CBS/AP) Ford is the only Big Three automaker to be cited by Consumer Reports as producing cars with "world class reliability," according to the magazine's latest survey.
Asian brands again dominated the magazine's 2009 Annual Car Reliability Survey, with eight of the top 10 brands from Japanese and Korean companies. But several Ford Motor Co. models were as dependable - or better - than the industry's best, scoring above perennial leaders Honda and Toyota.
Consumer Reports found that 90 percent (or 46 out of 51) of Ford, Mercury and Lincoln vehicles had average or better reliability.
"Ford is definitely doing something right," said Rik Paul, the magazine's automotive editor.
Brands from Chrysler and General Motors, on the other hand, continued to struggle, with Chrysler coming up last among 33 brands sold in the U.S.
Asian brands have scored best in the survey for years. The magazine said Toyota's Scion small-car brand topped the reliability list for the second year in a row.
Honda, Toyota, Infiniti and Acura rounded out the top five. Ford's Mercury, finishing at 10, was the only Detroit brand to rank in the top tier.
The Ford brand finished 16th, and Lincoln finished 20th, largely due to higher-end models - many with all-wheel-drive - scoring below average in reliability, said Jake Fisher, Consumer Reports' senior automotive engineer.
"Those types of problems are keeping them from being truly world class," Fisher said.
Bennie Fowler, Ford's vice president of global quality, said the company is applying the same methods that worked with the Fusion and other models to the ones that didn't perform as well. The company constantly listens to customer complaints and tracks warranty claims to improve quality, he said.
"We know that the quality levels today have to be greater tomorrow," he said.
Of the 48 models with top reliability scores, 36 are from Asian automakers: Toyota (18), Honda (8), Nissan (4), and three each from Hyundai/Kia and Subaru.
The findings, released today, are based on surveys taken in March by magazine or online subscribers who own or lease 1.4 million vehicles. Based on those responses, Consumer Reports predicted the reliability of 2010 models.
Among family sedans, Ford's 4-cylinder Fusion and the Mercury Milan ranked higher than all other models except for Toyota's Prius. The Ford cars outscored Honda's Accord and Toyota's Camry, the two top-selling cars in America, "which many people view as the paradigms of reliability," Paul said.
The Lincoln MKZ also topped rivals in its class, the Acura TL and Lexus ES, but other Lincoln models fared less well.
The least reliable vehicle, Volkswagen's Touareg, is 27 times more likely to have a problem than the most reliable car, Honda's Insight hybrid, according to the magazine.
Among GM cars, 20 of 48 models surveyed had average reliability scores.
One third of Chrysler's models were much worse than average in reliability.
Last year Consumer Reports said it could not recommend any Chrysler product. However, this year the editors said they could recommend the redesigned, four-wheel-drive Dodge Ram 1500 pickup.
Paul said automakers often can only make quality improvements when new models come out, and those have been few for Chrysler in the last two years.
"Hopefully for them, when they do release new models, they will still have the same level of quality that we saw in the Ram," he said.
The Consumer Reports survey also found that higher-priced cars aren't necessarily more reliable than less-expensive ones. Inexpensive small cars and midsize family sedans were the most reliable in the survey, which questions subscribers about 17 potential problem areas.
Complete results will be in Consumer Reports' December issue (due out Nov. 2), or can be accessed by subscribers on the Consumer Reports Web site.
I have owned Ford trucks since the 80's. Never, ever had a problem with any of them. Always traded them in after 3 yrs or so and got new. The last one I bought was an F-250 Turbo Diesel in 2003. God, that thing was great.
Finally traded it in for a 2009 Fusion. Nice car, fully loaded with V6. Not as nice as the trucks I've had...but, it's a nice car.
...until I hit a deer in it going 65 on 1604.
Still was able to drive it home tho...got it fixed, and I still like it.
Haven't bought anything but ford in a quarter of century...and I've been happy the whole time.
One of the reasons I invested in them...happy about that as well
I have owned Ford trucks since the 80's. Never, ever had a problem with any of them. Always traded them in after 3 yrs or so and got new. The last one I bought was an F-250 Turbo Diesel in 2003. God, that thing was great.
Finally traded it in for a 2009 Fusion. Nice car, fully loaded with V6. Not as nice as the trucks I've had...but, it's a nice car.
...until I hit a deer in it going 65 on 1604.
Still was able to drive it home tho...got it fixed, and I still like it.
Haven't bought anything but ford in a quarter of century...and I've been happy the whole time.
One of the reasons I invested in them...happy about that as well
I just got finished leasing a Honda Accord and bought a 2006 Fusion. My only beef is the slightly large turn radius. Other than that, I'd say the Fusion drives every bit as nice as the Accord.
I am going to try to answer this as simply as possible. Ford proved that in Ford's case bailout money was unnecessary. GM and Chrysler proved, by virtue of going bankrupt anyway, that they didn't need the bailout money (at least they shouldn't have gotten any federal money guarantees until after the bankrupcy). The reason Ford was able to stave off bankrupcy and the others werent is because when Mulally (Ford CEO) came in, he had a vision for the company which he set about executing. Turns out that (so far) this is a pretty damn good vision. He knew, however, that he would need copious amounts of cash on hand to initiate this vision. So in 2006 (before market downturn), Ford borrowed a of a lot of money. When the downturn began, Ford had a lot of money on hand to burn through in the lean months of 2008 and early 2009. This leaves them currently with about $9 Billion more debt than cash (even after the last two quarters). Luckily that situation is improving because Ford started last year with $21 B more debt than cash.
Overall this ended up being the perfect storm for Ford because, while they didn't get to wipe their debts off their books like their compe ors, their image skyrocketed. Their cars had already been receiving awards for quality (due to the aforementioned vision) for the past several years, then they are the only company which doesn't take a bailout. When cash for clunkers came around their image was so sky high, that they took some of the spots for top selling cars/trucks etc. That seemed to be a point of turnaround in consumer confidence overall, and from then on, Ford has been added to the list (along with Honda and Toyota) of dealerships people want to visit. Now with this pedal thing for Toyota, Ford looks to benefit even further. It is estimated that GM will benefit more marketshare-wise, but this is only because they are paying toyota customers to buy a car from them. Ford will still gain market share, but will be charging full price.
All that said, GM and Chrysler didnt have the benefit of an even slightly competent management team, or the great luck of pulling out all of that money at the exact right moment. So their paths back to profitability were going to be different, and it was very likely that one way or another, gov't involvement was inevitable.
.... Ok sorry, I am not good with simple answers.
Excellent.
I knew about the Ford debt when I invested, they had problems...but they were positioned better than any other domestic carmaker...at least in the marketplace, imho. At a $1.80, I thought buying that stock was a no brainer. The decisions they made after that (not taking bailout money, etc...) gave me more confidence. Investing is always a risk, so you're never 100% confident.
The fact that Ford still has debt, and GM doesn't can be a potential problem. It also pisses me off.
Think about if you owned a business right across the street from a compe or. That compe or makes bad decisions, blows their money, is about to go bankrupt...and is given all the money they need by the govt in a bailout. You've tried to make all the right moves to deal with potential hard times, your compe or doesn't...and he get's the big government checks.
Everything you've experienced and learned about how free markets are supposed to work...is just thrown out the window. You do the right things...and the guy who doesn't gets the government's support.
Government is now supporting the people who are not doing the right things...and the government is now in direct compe ion with the people who have been doing the right things.
In the same arena...the Stimulus money was supposed to go to create jobs and "stimulate" the economy. It actually could have done that...if it was spent correctly. Unfortunately, where the govt spends the money, and who it gives it to and supports...has more to do with political motivations, than economic stimulus ones.
Which is why Govt intervention in free markets is almost universally a bad idea. And if absolutely necessary...done by people who actually understand free markets, and are at least marginal competent.
This administration doesn't understand free markets...and is flat out incompetent.
I'm glad I don't buy Ford. Or any American car for that matter.
I will start with your last comment first. At the risk of getting into a political battle, I will just say that it is likely that no administrations understand free markets. One thing that I really liked about Obama (no I am not one that has turned, but maybe my enthusiasm has waned a bit, but that has more to do with the democrats bungling in Congress than the decision the POTUS has made), was that he was not only educated, but highly educated at declorated universities. I believe that the whole, arugala-chomping angle that the Republicans were trying was a great compliment to him. Elitist should be a good word for the POTUS. I want my president to be elite. One thing that I didn't think about was what his education was in. I have no problem with him being a lawyer, but it would be nice to get a competent business man in the WH. I remember back in 96 (i think) when steve forbes ran, I thought, that would be great, have a business man in the WH to tackle this crippling national debt we have (Oh, doesnt that seem like such an innocent time?). I honestly don't remember anything else about his policies (I was young and I only focused on that one thing). Then it turns out that all we needed to tackle that debt/deficit was some cooperation between another highly educated lawyer who wouldn't back down, and congress. Either way, I don't think there are any admins that really understand free market.
As far as the bailouts (of the banks and car companies) I thought it would have been better if (a) the banks were allowed to fail, but if everyone would have freaked out then, then we could have gone with option (b). allow the bad banks to fail, and those regional banks that had solid balance sheets could get access to government money to buy the (good) assets from the bankrupt banks and to hire those laid off by the bankrupt banks. You know, reward good behavior and all. And as to the car companies, I said from the beginning, make them go bankrupt first, THEN give LOAN guarantees to help them rebuild if they need that money after the bankrupcy.
Oh, I got into ford at 1.92, but got married last october and needed that money to go on a honeymoon, so I got out at 8+ (and it hurt, I wanted to keep that for a long time), but cozumel was worth it. I have since shifted more towards an options based strategy and I have 10 Jun $15 calls for ford right now that I bought at 0.30 a piece. I fully expect that after this market correction we are seeing now, that I will profit handsomely off of it.
C'mon, we had a pretty good conversation going, and you throw out a sentence that doesn't go anywhere. The only possible response to this is "ok", "whatever", or "thats nice."
If that's the only possible response why is yours different? In fact those aren't the only possible responses.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
