Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / October 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Ford Posts Loss of $5.8 Billion, Worst Since '92

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Grover C. McCoury III - 24 Oct 2006 13:28 GMT
New York Times
DEARBORN, Mich., Oct. 23, 2006 - The Ford Motor Company reported its worst financial results in more than 14 years Monday and warned that its business was likely to worsen further in the months ahead, as it and other Detroit auto companies struggle to reinvent themselves.

Indeed, the new chief executive at Ford, Alan R. Mulally, a former Boeing executive, said the automaker would require a full transformation in the way it thought about consumers and approached the American market.

The typical Detroit turnaround, based on plant closings and introducing a few hit vehicles but with little change in attitude, will not be enough to see Ford through, Mr. Mulally said in an interview at Ford's headquarters here on Monday.

The company, posting a $5.8 billion loss for the third quarter, has to first acknowledge the grim realities of the marketplace and then realign itself to be more productive and nimble.

"The most important thing to watch," Mr. Mulally said, "is do the leaders have a view that's different than the way it's being done today. Because if they don't, we are surely not going to get there."

But there will not be much good news anytime soon for Ford or for the Chrysler Group, which is expected to join Ford on Wednesday in reporting dismal results for the last three months.

Only General Motors, which is slowly bouncing back from one of the worst stretches in its history with savings from deep cost cuts, is expected by Wall Street to earn a profit in the third quarter, of about $300 million, though its American operations may well remain in the red.

The dire straits in Detroit represent the continuing fallout from the auto companies' too-long reliance on gasoline-consuming sport utility vehicles, as well as their failure to develop new cars and trucks to fend off their Asian competitors, particularly Toyota and Honda of Japan and Hyundai of South Korea.

Those foreign companies have built factories in the United States during the last two decades and focused on fuel-efficient vehicles, even as they added S.U.V.'s and pickup trucks to compete in Detroit's last stronghold. That two-part approach paid off in record sales for the Asian makers this summer, when gasoline prices soared above $3 a gallon on average nationwide.

The rapid shift in the preferences of American consumers has been especially hard on Ford and Chrysler, which have been slow to wean themselves away from big vehicles and the outsize profits that such vehicles typically produce.

Including the loss reported Monday - Ford's worst showing since early 1992 - the company could be on track to lose more than the $10.6 billion that G.M. did last year, even though G.M. is one-third bigger. Ford's recent losses were deeper than it, and many on Wall Street, had expected.

Ford executives said the company's operating performance in the final three months of the year would be even worse than its results in the quarter recently ended. And it indicated that it expected its problems to continue through at least the first half of 2007.

At Chrysler, meanwhile, executives are warning Wall Street that it will lose at least $1.5 billion for the last three months when it reports on Wednesday. That is twice as much as Chrysler previously cautioned analysts to expect.

And in another unexpected disclosure, Chrysler acknowledged Monday that it had nearly 100,000 more unsold vehicles on hand this summer than it previously disclosed, at a time when its backlog soared well above industry norms. [Page C6].

The worsening conditions at Ford and Chrysler have, by contrast, made G.M. appear healthier. It began a plan nearly a year ago to cut 30,000 jobs and close all or parts of a dozen plants by 2008.

G.M. has curbed its North American losses, gaining a valuable head start on Ford, said John Casesa, a longtime auto industry analyst.

"This is where G.M. was a year ago," Mr. Casesa said of Ford. Like G.M., "Ford can do two things: borrow more money and sell assets" to buy time until their operations problems are fixed.

Ford already has put a British maker of luxury cars, Aston Martin, up for sale and is believed to be seeking buyers for its other British marques, Land Rover and Jaguar. It has begun a restructuring plan, called the Way Forward, which includes more than 40,000 job cuts and a dozen or more plant closings through 2008.

As a sign of its need for fresh thinking, Ford reached outside the auto industry for a new chief executive, Mr. Mulally, who succeeded William Clay Ford Jr. in the post last month. Mr. Ford continues as chairman.

Mr. Mulally said the company's restructuring plan, devised before he arrived, would continue.

But he is also mounting efforts of his own to make Ford more productive and eventually profitable, following similar steps he took at Boeing. During his time there, Mr. Mulally streamlined production and helped the company remain profitable even when airlines reduced orders after the September 2001 attacks.

At the same time, he must convince Ford employees, shaken by job cuts and the threat to long-cherished benefits like health care, that the company has a vibrant future. Ford, once among the most respected names in corporate America, has been rattled in recent years by a series of high- and midlevel departures, producing a brain drain.

"Even more than turnaround, I would use the word transformation," Mr. Mulally said. "It will require a transformation of the product line and a transformation of the business. You can't do one without the other."

For now, Mr. Mulally is still in a sort of honeymoon period, which, analysts said, may last longer than that of the typical auto company executive, given his newcomer status. After just two weeks on the job, he sent Ford employees an e-mail message telling them that he had three priorities: people, products and productivity.

"I know that the people of Ford have been through some tough times in the past few years," he wrote. "I wasn't here to share that with you, but I am here now to help move us forward," adding that it is "at once the most humbling and exciting prospect of my professional life."

This year, Toyota, which had lagged behind the three Detroit companies in American sales, has passed DaimlerChrysler, which includes its Mercedes and Chrysler Group divisions, to rank by sales as the No. 3 auto company in the United States.

Given the slide at Ford, Toyota is likely to pass it, too, in the next few years. Ford executives have already acknowledged that their company is likely to hold only 14 percent to 15 percent of the American market once its transformation is complete, or about 10 percentage points less than at the beginning of the decade.

In fact, Ford's market share declined to 15.5 percent in the third quarter, a drop of two percentage points from the corresponding period in 2005, and a central reason for its significant loss, which included more than $3 billion in special charges related to the Way Forward plan.

That in itself did not shake Wall Street, but investors were surprised when Ford's chief financial officer, Donat R. Leclair, said in a conference call with analysts that the company expected fourth-quarter performance to be worse than that in the third quarter.

In trading Monday, Ford shares fell 11 cents, to $7.90.

Yet these heavy losses. and the prospect of more, come as the company is seeking to enter the market with a new group of small, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

These include a new crossover vehicle, the Edge, which Ford introduced last week, and it is promising to eventually introduce a subcompact to compete with models sold by G.M., Toyota, Honda and Nissan. Unfortunately for Ford, the smaller vehicles come with an expectation of smaller profits.

In revising its Way Forward plan last month, Ford said it did not expect to earn money in North America until 2009, a year later than it originally predicted. Mr. Leclair said in an interview Monday that Ford anticipated a profit of 3 percent to 5 percent once it emerged from the red.

But getting there will be difficult. Mr. Mulally said Mr. Ford had been "really clear" during its courtship of him that grim days lay ahead. But he said he was not deterred.

"The Ford company is looking at business reality and dealing with it," Mr. Mulally said.

Ford's third-quarter loss, equivalent to $3.08 a share, is more than 20 times that a year earlier, when it lost $284 million, or 15 cents a share.

"Let me make it clear - these results are unacceptable," Mr. Mulally said in the conference call, his first, with analysts and journalists.

Ford also disclosed that it would restate its financial results because of incorrect accounting of derivatives linked to interest rate by its finance arm, Ford Motor Credit.

The company said it was still studying most of the period affected, from 2001 through the third quarter of 2006, but that earnings from 2002 "will improve materially."

Through the first nine months of the year, Ford has lost $7.24 billion, with more than 80 percent of that coming from June to September. By contrast, it earned $1.8 billion in the comparable nine months of 2005.

In the third quarter, Ford's automotive operations lost $1.2 billion, or 62 cents a share, roughly what analysts had expected.

To reduce its work force, Ford is offering buyouts and other incentives valued as high as $140,000 each to all 75,000 hourly workers in the United States. Those workers have until Nov. 27 to decide whether to take one of eight severance packages, while white-collar workers who are offered buyouts are expected to leave by spring.

Shelly Lombard, a senior high-yield bond analyst with the research firm Gimme Credit in New York, said, "We don't expect to see any improvement until the second half of next year, when most of the employees who take the buyout will have exited."

Mr. Casesa said Monday that Mr. Mulally's presence was a rare bright spot for Ford.

"You've got a new C.E.O. with a fresh pair of eyes on Ford's problems," he said. "Increasingly, the market will look to this new C.E.O. for some creative ideas to reinvigorate the revenue line."

For his part, Mr. Mulally said he took the job "because I think we can do this."

"This is an important industry" and Ford has so much opportunity for improvement, he added.

Asked whether he felt pressure from the expectations being placed on his performance, Mr. Mulally replied, "There's no reason why we can't do this, so it's no pressure."

Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 2001 Ranger and a 1970 Mustang Mach 1 @ http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt
duty-honor-country - 24 Oct 2006 15:40 GMT
> New York Times
> DEARBORN, Mich., Oct. 23, 2006 - The Ford Motor Company reported its worst financial results in more than 14 years Monday and warned that its business was likely to worsen further in the months ahead, as it and other Detroit auto companies struggle to reinvent themselves.
[quoted text clipped - 298 lines]
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C6F746.6CC662F0--

corporate losses are merely written off at tax time- the fed, state,
local governments end up giving the corp. about a 50% or more tax break

due to the loss- and "billions" to Ford is like a nickel in our
pockets- it's nothing

Ford owns several overseas car companies- and they aren't all doing
bad- some major names like LAND ROVER- MAZDA- JAGUAR-VOLVO- ASTON
MARTIN- etc.

take a look for yourself- they are still the #3 carmaker in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automobile_manufacturers#World_Motor_Vehicl
e_Production_by_Manufacturer


laying people off just means they will make more money next year- less
paychecks to send out

they've had loss years before- no biggie

here is their world holdings

3. Ford Motor Company (United States) - 6,418,416 vehicles
Aston Martin United Kingdom Subsidiary Luxury / Performance Global
Ford Motor Company United States Division Mainstream Global
Jaguar United Kingdom Subsidiary Luxury Europe/North America
Land Rover United Kingdom Subsidiary Luxury Truck Global
Lincoln United States Division Luxury North America
Mercury United States Division Near-Luxury North America
Volvo Cars Sweden Subsidiary Near-Luxury
Mazda

doesn't mean they are going out of business any time soon
phaeton - 24 Oct 2006 19:30 GMT
> > New York Times
> > --huge snip for improper newsreader usage--
>
> corporate losses are merely written off at tax time- the fed, state,
> local governments end up giving the corp. about a 50% or more tax break

Gotta love Corporate Welfare.

> laying people off just means they will make more money next year- less
> paychecks to send out

interesting concept.

> doesn't mean they are going out of business any time soon

I don't think anyone expects them too.  Chrysler has been 'going out of
business' since the late 1960s, iirc.

-phaeton
C. E. White - 25 Oct 2006 13:07 GMT
> I don't think anyone expects them too.  Chrysler has been 'going out of
> business' since the late 1960s, iirc.

Chrysler is out of buisness. Just because they renamed Diamler-Benz,
DiamlerChrysler, don't fool yourself into thinking that "Chrysler" as we
knew it exists any more. Chrysler is no more a going concern than Nash,
Hundson, American Motors, Dodge, Sunbeam, Simca, or Maxwell.

Ed
Mike Hunter - 31 Oct 2006 01:12 GMT
That's is odd, unlike those listed, I see the name Chrysler on many brand
new vehicles  ;)

mike hunt

>> I don't think anyone expects them too.  Chrysler has been 'going out of
>> business' since the late 1960s, iirc.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Ed
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com - 31 Oct 2006 08:17 GMT
> That's is odd, unlike those listed, I see the name Chrysler on many brand
> new vehicles  ;)

I see "Chrysler" only on newly-built old vehicles.
Jeff - 25 Oct 2006 02:26 GMT
<copyrighted material deleted>

> corporate losses are merely written off at tax time- the fed, state,
> local governments end up giving the corp. about a 50% or more tax break

Really? That means they still lose 50% or so. Pretty big.

> due to the loss- and "billions" to Ford is like a nickel in our
> pockets- it's nothing

Really? Ford had total assests of about $50 billion on Dec. 31. So that is
like losing 10% of your total assets. Imagine if you had $50,000 and lost
$5000. It is far from nothing.

> Ford owns several overseas car companies- and they aren't all doing
> bad- some major names like LAND ROVER- MAZDA- JAGUAR-VOLVO- ASTON
> MARTIN- etc.

And they are trying to sell some. Mazda is not wholly owned by Ford. And
there is no etc. THat is all the car companies they own.

> take a look for yourself- they are still the #3 carmaker in the world
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automobile_manufacturers#World_Motor_Vehicl
e_Production_by_Manufacturer

>
> laying people off just means they will make more money next year- less
> paychecks to send out

Well, maybe they will start making money 3 or 4 years out.

> they've had loss years before- no biggie

And if they don't make big changes now, they will have more loss years.

> here is their world holdings
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> doesn't mean they are going out of business any time soon

But they are doing poorly. If they don't change, they won't be in business.

Jeff
duty-honor-country - 25 Oct 2006 12:45 GMT
> <copyrighted material deleted>
>
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>
> Jeff

you're mistaken there, and I disagree- here's why

they posted a $5.8 billion loss- that means they can WRITE IT OFF

in that so-called "loss", is a lot of accounting tricks, i.e.
DEPRECIATION.

what you really need to see, is their STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW

it's possible to show a loss on the P&L statement, and actually have a
POSITIVE cash flow

i.e. an ACCOUNTING LOSS, that can be written off over time

now, being they showed this alleged "loss" of $5.8 bill, that is 5.8
bill in PROFITS they don't have to pay TAXES on

corporations pay taxes at an extraordinary percentage- like 40% or
more.

so basically, if they made a 5.8 bill PROFIT they'd owe Uncle Sam 40%
of it anyway, or around 2.3 billion

the government basically "picks up" a piece of that "loss", with
reduced tax revenue

in the meantime, Ford lays off thousands of people, which is less cash
they send out

the cash flow IMPROVES even more

so it's not really a loss- it's an accounting trick

do you REALLY THINK that Jaguar, Volvo, Mazda- all owned by Ford- lost
money ??

your sarcasm shows you don't know diddley squat about corp.
accounting...

nuff said...
ZombyWoof - 25 Oct 2006 21:58 GMT
<snip>

>you're mistaken there, and I disagree- here's why
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
>nuff said...

While all true, and even more so since corporations never really pay
taxes only collect them from me & you to pass them on to the
government anyway the entire thing is eyewash anyways.  Many people
just don't understand this.  When a company, any company, sets a price
on a product the tax liability of the profit is factored in yielding a
net profit after tax.  The tax bite is already calculated and it is on
the consumer end.  The consumer is always the one who is ultimately
paying the tax.  

What is hurting Ford is the layoff & early retirement packages they
are having to give to people at some of the plants they are closing.
This is upfront cash in todays dollars.  At my local plant here in
Norfolk Va workers will be seeing a $100,000 or 140,000 pre-tax cash
payout depending on years service if not eligible to retire and do not
move to another plant.  They are estimating around 1800 people are
going to take that buyout.  That's hundreds of millions to cough up
sometime in `07 at just one plant.  How many are they closing?

That amount of money along with rebates & slow sales hurt at the cash
register.  Not to mention losing on currency conversion with the Euro
whopping the dollars a.s on the global exchange rate.
--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
Jeff - 26 Oct 2006 01:59 GMT
> <snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> going to take that buyout.  That's hundreds of millions to cough up
> sometime in `07 at just one plant.  How many are they closing?

Plus the health care costs for employees and retirees and pension costs for
retirees. It is eastimated that over $1000 per car sold goes to pay for
these.

> That amount of money along with rebates & slow sales hurt at the cash
> register.  Not to mention losing on currency conversion with the Euro
> whopping the dollars a.s on the global exchange rate.

Actually, the currency conversion doesn't matter that much, because Ford
cars sold in the US are not made in Europe. However, any profits in Europe
would actually increase, because of the rate.

Jeff

> --
>
> You can run, but you'll only die tired.
>
> ZombyWoof
Jeff - 26 Oct 2006 01:56 GMT
>> <copyrighted material deleted>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>
> they posted a $5.8 billion loss- that means they can WRITE IT OFF

Show me that they can "write it off." Sure, their taxes will go down. But,
they don't have an unlimited supply of cash.

> in that so-called "loss", is a lot of accounting tricks, i.e.
> DEPRECIATION.

Actually, there was a negative cash flow of $3,000,000,000 at the end of the
quarter, meaning the company spent $3,000,000,000 than it took in.

> what you really need to see, is their STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> do you REALLY THINK that Jaguar, Volvo, Mazda- all owned by Ford- lost
> money ??

No. But they don't make up for Ford's othter losses.

> your sarcasm shows you don't know diddley squat about corp.
> accounting...

Actually, I don't know everything. But I know that if you have a minus
$3,000,000,000 cash flow each quarter for a few years, you will not have a
company.

I also know that the market cap of Ford is about $15B, less than the cash it
has in the bank. That should tell you something about the underlying value
of the company.

Jeff

> nuff said...
Joe Pfeiffer - 25 Oct 2006 05:34 GMT
> corporate losses are merely written off at tax time- the fed, state,
> local governments end up giving the corp. about a 50% or more tax break

Good grief, are you really that ignorant?  Corporate taxes are paid
on, you know, um, profit.  So yes, if you show a loss, you get a
substantial tax break.  But that's because *you're* *losing* *money*.

> due to the loss- and "billions" to Ford is like a nickel in our
> pockets- it's nothing

googlegooglegoogle looks like Ford is currently reporting a net worth
of $14B.  So a loss of $5B is like a nickle if you live in a cardboard
box under a bridge.

> Ford owns several overseas car companies- and they aren't all doing
> bad- some major names like LAND ROVER- MAZDA- JAGUAR-VOLVO- ASTON
> MARTIN- etc.

I'm not going to look all these up, but Jaguar kind of stands out.
Ford paid $2.5B for them in 1989, and assumed $1B in Jaguar debt.
Since then they've lost $10B on the it.
Signature

Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D.       Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science       FAX   -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University          http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

ZombyWoof - 25 Oct 2006 22:02 GMT
>> corporate losses are merely written off at tax time- the fed, state,
>> local governments end up giving the corp. about a 50% or more tax break
>
>Good grief, are you really that ignorant?  Corporate taxes are paid
>on, you know, um, profit.  So yes, if you show a loss, you get a
>substantial tax break.  But that's because *you're* *losing* *money*.

Hey you owe me nothing so you only have to pay me half of that.

>> due to the loss- and "billions" to Ford is like a nickel in our
>> pockets- it's nothing
>
>googlegooglegoogle looks like Ford is currently reporting a net worth
>of $14B.  So a loss of $5B is like a nickle if you live in a cardboard
>box under a bridge.

Sounds more like a third of a loss of assets to me.

>> Ford owns several overseas car companies- and they aren't all doing
>> bad- some major names like LAND ROVER- MAZDA- JAGUAR-VOLVO- ASTON
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Ford paid $2.5B for them in 1989, and assumed $1B in Jaguar debt.
>Since then they've lost $10B on the it.

That isn't the way most people like to see their investments go.
--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
DeserTBoB - 24 Oct 2006 16:13 GMT
>"This is an important industry" and Ford has so much opportunity for improvement, he added. <snip>

First "improvement" Mulally has to accomplish is to clean up Billy Boy
Ford's doo doo messes.  We will never see another Ford family scion at
the top of this company.  After the disasters of King Henry II and the
latest dingbat, the Ford Family Duchy is finally gone.

>Asked whether he felt pressure from the expectations being placed on his performance, Mr. Mulally replied, "There's no reason why we can't do this, so it's no pressure." <snip>

Ask him again in six months.
Whitelightning - 25 Oct 2006 00:18 GMT
> >"This is an important industry" and Ford has so much opportunity for improvement, he added. <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> >Asked whether he felt pressure from the expectations being placed on his performance, Mr. Mulally replied, "There's no reason why we can't do this,
so it's no pressure." <snip>

> Ask him again in six months.

Don't bet anything but wooden nickels on that line of thinking.
My opinion, and that's all it is, is my opinion, is that the Ford family
wants to take the company private, drive the stock down and its cheaper to
do.
The worst thing for a company is board of directors and a ton of share
holders  more interested in short term stock dividends and ratings, than
long term health of the company and the product.
And public traded companies end up just that way.
Whitelightning
SnoMan - 25 Oct 2006 03:28 GMT
>> >"This is an important industry" and Ford has so much opportunity for
>improvement, he added. <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>And public traded companies end up just that way.
>Whitelightning

I think Ford (and GM and Chysler) is in a lot worse shape than they
admit.  They only chance any of them have to survive is to get labor
cost way down and improve quality. It will never happen in current
structuring. They are kidding themselve (managemtn and Labor) if they
think they can pull it off otherwise. Prices have reached critical
mass and can no longer sell to support current costs and benifits. If
they all could cut labor costs 30% or more they could sell vehicle 15%
cheaper across the board and make a profit and boost sales but they
seem to keep hoping that people will except pay more for their car
than some did for a house 20 years ago. The worst is yet to come for
them.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
Roy - 25 Oct 2006 04:46 GMT
>>> >"This is an important industry" and Ford has so much opportunity for
>>improvement, he added. <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> mass and can no longer sell to support current costs and benifits. If
> they all could cut labor costs 30% or more

You friggin idiot! How about you take a 30% pay cut and donate it to the big
3. Your pretty free with everybody else's money, put your's where your big
mouth is!

they could sell vehicle 15%
> cheaper across the board and make a profit and boost sales but they
> seem to keep hoping that people will except pay more for their car
> than some did for a house 20 years ago. The worst is yet to come for
> them.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
SnoMan - 25 Oct 2006 05:32 GMT
>You friggin idiot! How about you take a 30% pay cut and donate it to the big
>3. Your pretty free with everybody else's money, put your's where your big
>mouth is!

Oh the real idiot speaks! You really are clueless but as usual shoot
you mouth off about thing you hane no real understanding of. Currently
70% of the cost of building a new car is LABOR!!!!! The market will
not longer support it plan and simple. The big three will go under if
this is not changed as the writing in on the wall. The airlines have
been going through this for years and do not make what they once did.
You are free to beilve othersie but wishing do not make it happen. It
is going to basicall come down to in the next 3 to 5 years tops that
there will either be big waage concessions or they will be out of a
Job because the Big 3 will go bankrupt. The pot is not limitless and
it is getting empty fast and higher fuel prices will be here soon two
with $4 a gallon fuel not far away one day and Detriot is still stuck
on gas hogs that they have to beg people to buy. I bet you beleive
that we can grow our way out of this in the field with ethanol too.
The only problem with tis is if all of the corn was used (leaving none
for food at all) it would only replace about 25 to 30% of the gas used
daily tops but since we have to eat too it will not make that big of
impact. Detriot has their head in the sand and just keeps build the
gas hogs that will soon have gas payments bigger than car payments.
They only way they can survive long term is to get costs down and
lower price of product to offset higher fuel costs or go out of
bussiness. Sure you can blame Toyota and Honda but Detriot gave the
market to them with their limited vision and there fixation with high
profit SUVs since mid 90's that paid labors bills but are not longer
bringing in profit because they are not selling without big discounts
and incentives but you would know this too if you knew math and
ecomonics.  
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
aarcuda69062 - 25 Oct 2006 06:08 GMT
> >You friggin idiot! How about you take a 30% pay cut and donate it to the big
> >3. Your pretty free with everybody else's money, put your's where your big
> >mouth is!
>
> Oh the real idiot speaks!

What made you decide to move your signature to the top of your
posts?
Bob - 26 Oct 2006 03:06 GMT
Don't you think it was an improvement?
                                 Bob

>> >You friggin idiot! How about you take a 30% pay cut and donate it to the
>> >big
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> What made you decide to move your signature to the top of your
> posts?
aarcuda69062 - 26 Oct 2006 04:12 GMT
> Don't you think it was an improvement?
>                                   Bob

It's the first honorable thing he's done in a long time.
Bob - 26 Oct 2006 04:30 GMT
>> Don't you think it was an improvement?
>>                                   Bob
>
> It's the first honorable thing he's done in a long time.

I think to call it honorable may be a stretch...... let's call it a good
start.
                                      Bob
aarcuda69062 - 27 Oct 2006 04:05 GMT
> >> Don't you think it was an improvement?
> >>                                   Bob
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> start.
>                                        Bob

Sorry my friend, I can't use the word good and Snoman in the same
conversation.
Roy - 25 Oct 2006 06:10 GMT
>>You friggin idiot! How about you take a 30% pay cut and donate it to the
>>big
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Oh the real idiot speaks! You really are clueless but as usual shoot
> you mouth off about thing you hane no real understanding of.

How do you know what I know about or what my background is, or what I have a
understanding of?

I'm waiting for you to take a 30% cut in pay! Well?

> Currently
> 70% of the cost of building a new car is LABOR!!!!!

Now it is 70%? Make up your mind.

Oh while I have your attention. Nice one on the chevy group about the
brakes. You are such a idiot.

> TheAssHoleMan.com
SnoMan - 25 Oct 2006 12:59 GMT
>How do you know what I know about or what my background is, or what I have a
>understanding of?

Given your comments,  it is easy to figure out.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
Roy - 25 Oct 2006 13:31 GMT
>>How do you know what I know about or what my background is, or what I have
>>a
>>understanding of?
>
> Given your comments,  it is easy to figure out.

Well, well, That has to be the first time you have answered a question!
Now, how about explaining the brake info you posted?
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
ZombyWoof - 25 Oct 2006 22:38 GMT
>>>You friggin idiot! How about you take a 30% pay cut and donate it to the
>>>big
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>I'm waiting for you to take a 30% cut in pay! Well?

Well if I was a Ford Assembly Line worker at a plant facing closure I
think I just might take a 30% pay cut as opposed to a 100% one.  So I
go from making $70k to $49k a year to screw on door handles.  Its
still better then food stamps.  (BTW those are real numbers as a guy I
used to work with went on with the plant three years ago.  We still
keep in touch.  He was making about $32k a year as an industrial
mechanic when he worked with me.)

The Norfolk Va F-150 plant is closing sometime in 2007.  Ford claims
that it costs $300 per unit more to make a F-150 at that plant then
any other one making F-150's.  The plant is old, not as highly
automated as some others and not worth the capital investment even
though it makes Ford's best selling vehicle.  Do you think that labor
at that plant got together and said "Ok for the sake of our jobs will
reduce labor by $305 per unit to make us the cheapest plant making
F150's"?

It could have been done, but it would have been unprecedented.  Union
labor working with management to cut production costs and save jobs.
Perish the thought.
--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
Whitelightning - 26 Oct 2006 04:08 GMT
> Well if I was a Ford Assembly Line worker at a plant facing closure I
> think I just might take a 30% pay cut as opposed to a 100% one.  So I
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> keep in touch.  He was making about $32k a year as an industrial
> mechanic when he worked with me.)

He was feeding you a line of BS as to how much he was making, unless he
was working 15 hours over time every week, and as he only has 3 years with
Ford thats is stretching it very hard.

Whitelightning
DeserTBoB - 26 Oct 2006 05:00 GMT
>He was feeding you a line of BS as to how much he was making, unless he
>was working 15 hours over time every week, and as he only has 3 years with
>Ford thats is stretching it very hard. <snip>

I think it's just a figment of this guy's imagination.  He hates union
workers, because they do better than he does.  I see it every
day...stupid people, working more for less, but wanting no one else to
do well, either.  The Japs laugh their a.ses off at people like this
every day, and take advantage of them in all their scab plants now in
the US every day.
ZombyWoof - 26 Oct 2006 13:46 GMT
>>He was feeding you a line of BS as to how much he was making, unless he
>>was working 15 hours over time every week, and as he only has 3 years with
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>every day, and take advantage of them in all their scab plants now in
>the US every day.

Nah I don't "hate" union workers.  I'm able to do quite well for
myself without the need for collective bargaining or the paying of
Union dues.  However, I do realize that not everyone is able to
effectively deal in the market place on their own skills & abilities
and need the benefits of collective bargaining to get them anywhere.  

That wasn't my point.  I think that unfortunately collective
bargaining for salary & benefits has now got them to the point where
they may have priced themselves out of the current market.  It can
happen when economics shift.

--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
ZombyWoof - 26 Oct 2006 13:52 GMT
>> Well if I was a Ford Assembly Line worker at a plant facing closure I
>> think I just might take a 30% pay cut as opposed to a 100% one.  So I
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>was working 15 hours over time every week, and as he only has 3 years with
>Ford thats is stretching it very hard.

I forgot to mention that it was with overtime, an average of about
20-hours and a shift differential.  If I remember correctly he started
at ~$22.00 an hour with an excellent benefits package.  His job really
is to mount the door handles on F-150's.  Not a very demanding job for
the wage.  

We have several people in the area who have multiple generations of
their family who have worked at the plant which is the case in this
guys family, he has a Da & brother who work there also.  The very
first thing many do after High School graduation is sign up on the
plants hire list.  It took about eight years for this guy to get
called for a job.  He had planned on staying there forever.  No one
saw the closing coming since they make F-150's.  It is a pretty big
deal here locally and getting a lot of media coverage.

--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
DeserTBoB - 26 Oct 2006 04:58 GMT
>Well if I was a Ford Assembly Line worker at a plant facing closure I
>think I just might take a 30% pay cut as opposed to a 100% one. <snip>

Liar.  First of all, these people are getting good buyouts.  You can't
get one.  Sounds like typical jealousy.

> So I
>go from making $70k to $49k a year to screw on door handles.  Its
>still better then food stamps.  (BTW those are real numbers as a guy I
>used to work with went on with the plant three years ago.  We still
>keep in touch.  He was making about $32k a year as an industrial
>mechanic when he worked with me.) <snip>

...and had rotted teeth and no routine medical care.

What are you proposing...dropping the standard of living in America
even more?

>The Norfolk Va F-150 plant is closing sometime in 2007.  Ford claims
>that it costs $300 per unit more to make a F-150 at that plant then
>any other one making F-150's.  The plant is old, not as highly
>automated as some others and not worth the capital investment even
>though it makes Ford's best selling vehicle. <snip>

Not anymore.  Seen F-150 sales figures lately?  Off 30%.

>Do you think that labor
>at that plant got together and said "Ok for the sake of our jobs will
>reduce labor by $305 per unit to make us the cheapest plant making
>F150's"? <snip>

You're dealing with pro-management/anti-labor smoke and mirrors.  The
biggest F-150 plant is...tada...the Rouge plant in Dearborn, and they
make MORE than your local plant does.  They're not closing
Rouge...they're closing YOURS.  Obviously, labor cost per unit is NOT
the problem.  Get the picture?

Oh yeah...the Rouge has been around for some 90 years.  There goes
your "old plant" theory, too.

>It could have been done, but it would have been unprecedented.  Union
>labor working with management to cut production costs and save jobs.
>Perish the thought. <snip>

You obviously are oblivious to all the cuts Chrysler workers took to
keep them afloat in the late '70s/early '80s...sometimes MORE that
30%, and that was when interest rates were in the high 'teens.
ZombyWoof - 26 Oct 2006 14:07 GMT
>>Well if I was a Ford Assembly Line worker at a plant facing closure I
>>think I just might take a 30% pay cut as opposed to a 100% one. <snip>
>
>Liar.  First of all, these people are getting good buyouts.  You can't
>get one.  Sounds like typical jealousy.

I know what the buyouts are.  They have been discussed to death in the
press.  Depending on years service and program picked the basic offer
is 100,000 or 140,000 cash pre-tax.  That isn't an awful lot of money
to be left without any job and no other major manufacturing job to go
to.  Our other major industry is call centers.  

I have no worry about a buyout as I am retired military, have a decent
job making good money that isn't going anywhere and am covered by a
pretty good pension program.

>> So I
>>go from making $70k to $49k a year to screw on door handles.  Its
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>Not anymore.  Seen F-150 sales figures lately?  Off 30%.

Still the best selling vehicle in America.

>>Do you think that labor
>>at that plant got together and said "Ok for the sake of our jobs will
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Oh yeah...the Rouge has been around for some 90 years.  There goes
>your "old plant" theory, too.

The Rouge plant is larger and has been modernized.  There is no money,
because Ford is bleeding money, to modernize the Norfolk plant.  Ford
claims that it costs $300 per unit more to make F-150's at Norfolk and
that is the reason for closing.  I have no idea if that is the truth
or not, just that is what Ford said.  If it is the case and I worked
there, I would be willing to take a pay cut in order to make the
numbers work as opposed to losing my job.

>>It could have been done, but it would have been unprecedented.  Union
>>labor working with management to cut production costs and save jobs.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>keep them afloat in the late '70s/early '80s...sometimes MORE that
>30%, and that was when interest rates were in the high 'teens.

Apparently I am oblivious to those particular cuts.  However, I'm not
calling you names over it.  Were those proposals that management made
to labor or that labor presented to management.  I was talking about
labor coming up with proposals to cut production costs in order to
keep their plant open & save their jobs.  It seems that it is always
management that has to come up with the ideas and drive them down as
opposed to the people closer to the problem.  Labor is one of the
biggest cost factors in production.  Allowing them input into the
process of how to reduce that cost seems natural to me.
--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
Whitelightning - 27 Oct 2006 00:45 GMT
> You obviously are oblivious to all the cuts Chrysler workers took to
> keep them afloat in the late '70s/early '80s...sometimes MORE that
> 30%, and that was when interest rates were in the high 'teens.

The American government kept Chrysler afloat.  Over night Dodge replaced
the jeep built 5/4 ton truck with an over rated under powered dodge, those
that served will remember the M880 and M890 series trucks as the junk they
were..  Ford Mavericks disappeared out of the TMP Motor Pools and were
replaced with Dodge Aspens.  Ford Medium duties disappeared and Dodges came
in their place.
Iacoca took a stripped down Simca 1100 design, slapped a VW 1.7 ltr engine
in it to get it through emissions and sold the snot out of them, along with
the K-cars that followed.  Damn things didn't even have automatic brake
adjusters on the rear brakes.  Dodge Diplomats became the number one cop
car.

Whitelightning
ZombyWoof - 27 Oct 2006 14:17 GMT
>> You obviously are oblivious to all the cuts Chrysler workers took to
>> keep them afloat in the late '70s/early '80s...sometimes MORE that
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>adjusters on the rear brakes.  Dodge Diplomats became the number one cop
>car.

The government certainly did a lot to help keep Chrysler out of the
dumpster, but so did a lot of other people.  Chrysler pushed a lot of
technology into the American marketplace at that time as well.  Pretty
much inventing the concept of the minivan and bringing the concept of
frontwheel drive vehicles into the big threes frontal lobes.  While
both cars may not have been much.  They certainly sold the hell out of
them.  Chrysler has been sitting on the sidelines through the entire
SUV war until now just bringing out the Aspen which may be to little
to late for them in that market segment.  I'm surprised they've waited
this long to compete in that area.
--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
Jeff - 28 Oct 2006 00:41 GMT
>>> You obviously are oblivious to all the cuts Chrysler workers took to
>>> keep them afloat in the late '70s/early '80s...sometimes MORE that
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> to late for them in that market segment.  I'm surprised they've waited
> this long to compete in that area.

I know. It is not like they bought a company that makes SUVs. Wait, they
did. They bought Jeep. Plus, they made a ton of money on the Durango.

Jeff

> --
>
> You can run, but you'll only die tired.
>
> ZombyWoof
Whitelightning - 28 Oct 2006 01:34 GMT
> I know. It is not like they bought a company that makes SUVs. Wait, they
> did. They bought Jeep. Plus, they made a ton of money on the Durango.
>
> Jeff

and lets not forget the Dodge Ramcharger and Plymouth Trailduster.

Whitelightning
Whitelightning - 28 Oct 2006 02:46 GMT
> The government certainly did a lot to help keep Chrysler out of the
> dumpster, but so did a lot of other people.  Chrysler pushed a lot of
> technology into the American marketplace at that time as well.  Pretty
> much inventing the concept of the minivan and bringing the concept of
> frontwheel drive vehicles into the big threes frontal lobes.

How about front wheel drive is  cheaper to build.  That's the only reason
every manufacturer
that has jumped on that band wagon has jumped on it.  a transaxle is 40%
cheaper to manufacture than a transmission assy and rear differential assy.
The rear suspension is cheaper to manufacture because it doesn't have to be
strong enough to handle the torque of moving the vehicle.  which means the
chassis doesn't have to be as strong ether.  Its got nothing to with
technology and everything to do with cost.  I don't see Mercedes jumping on
the front wheel drive band wagon.  And with the exception of the Mini Cooper
I don't see BMW doing it ether.
But beyond that, Chevy had the Citation out in 1980, and it was Motor Trends
car of the year in 1980.  GM actually had the car in 1979 wanting to race it
as the X-11 in the SSB/SCCA class.  Ford was actually working on the front
wheel drive escort with its European counterpart in 1978 as replacement to
the rear wheel drive Escort MKII.  Sad really, I had a 1975 Escort MK I, the
last year for the body style, its was a real runner and embarrassed more
than a few muscle cars on the autobahn, and in the mountains.

As to the mini van concept, I think the VW Micro bus and the Chevy Corvair
Greenbrier Van both predate chrysler's mini van entry  by about three
decades. Not to leave out the entry in 1961 of the Ford Falcon Van, the
Chevy Sport Van in 64, , and the1964  Dodge A100 for that matter

>While  both cars may not have been much.  They certainly sold the hell out
of
> them.

Given the number of Yugos imported, Yugo sold the hell out their cars too.
They were cheap.
Mitsibishi sold the hell out of the Precis, and Hyundai its clone of it, the
Excel.  I wouldnt wish none of them on anyone, well maybe on one or two
people.
The fact they sold so many just proves the point that there are too many
idiots that would rather buy a piece of junk new car, rather than a
dependable used car.

Whitelightning
ZombyWoof - 25 Oct 2006 22:27 GMT
>>You friggin idiot! How about you take a 30% pay cut and donate it to the big
>>3. Your pretty free with everybody else's money, put your's where your big
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>ecomonics.  
>-----------------

The issue with the automakers & the airlines is a different economic
model.  The don't have to run an entire plant just to make one run of
cars, but they do have to run a flight if it isn't fully booked.  The
Airline business is very capital (fixed asset) intensive.  The
variable costs per passenger is pretty small.  

When auto sales slow down they can idle a plant, cut back shifts,
layoff workers.  When planes are flying at less then capacity its a
bitch.

However, I agree with you that something has to be done to control the
escalating labor costs facing domestic automakers.  Hyundai must be
making a small fortune on its vehicles because I know they don't pay
their workers at the same level as us.  I personally haven't seen that
big of a price differential between their cars and domestically
produced Big 3 ones.  Perhaps I'm missing something.

--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
Jeff - 26 Oct 2006 02:54 GMT
>>>You friggin idiot! How about you take a 30% pay cut and donate it to the
>>>big
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> Airline business is very capital (fixed asset) intensive.  The
> variable costs per passenger is pretty small.

Yet, it costs a lot to design a vehicle and retool a auto plant.

Plus, both airlines and car makers had a lot of overhead costs with pensions
and health care.

> When auto sales slow down they can idle a plant, cut back shifts,
> layoff workers.  When planes are flying at less then capacity its a
> bitch.

They can cut back the number of planes that they fly or fly smaller planes
(or atternatively, other airlines can fly smaller planes).

> However, I agree with you that something has to be done to control the
> escalating labor costs facing domestic automakers.  Hyundai must be
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> ZombyWoof
Whitelightning - 26 Oct 2006 04:02 GMT
> However, I agree with you that something has to be done to control the
> escalating labor costs facing domestic automakers.  Hyundai must be
> making a small fortune on its vehicles because I know they don't pay
> their workers at the same level as us.  I personally haven't seen that
> big of a price differential between their cars and domestically
> produced Big 3 ones.  Perhaps I'm missing something.

Because there isn't one.  Lets look at 1971. A Chevy Nova, six banger, auto,
ac, ps,pb AM radio  was $2,200, a Ford Maverick similarly equipped was
$2,100, a Plymouth Duster w/o ac was $1,975, and a VW Beetle 4 spd manual,
no ac, no power steering, no power brakes, no radio was $2,350. The VW was
advertised as a low cost car, yet cost more than the big 3.  The Toyota
entry was the Corolla and it was $1,960, the little sh.t box Honda was $20
cheaper. The Datsun 210 sedan was same price as the Corolla.  None of them
had AC, PS, or automatic tranny at that price.  The whole "cheaper" thing
was all an illusion, but advertising made it seem otherwise, and the
American public will swallow anything.
A lie told often enough becomes "truth".  The Opel Kadette was $1,800, had
more room than the three ricers, a cheaper price, and a better engine, why
didn't it take off?

The biggest issue I see is the big three have some of the lamest advertising
on the market
GM's best car ad in a long time was the one for the Cobalt where it bumps
the Vette.  Mitsubishi is a pile of fertilizer, yet they sell like hot
cakes, they have great advertising.
again a lie told often enough........

Whitelightning
DeserTBoB - 26 Oct 2006 04:52 GMT
>The Opel Kadette was $1,800, had
>more room than the three ricers, a cheaper price, and a better engine, why
>didn't it take off? <snip>

Because the Opels were in the shop more than they were on the road and
had a lousy reliability rep.  They were NOT very good cars.  How could
they be?  They were a GM product!

>The biggest issue I see is the big three have some of the lamest advertising
>on the market <snip>

DING DING DING...we have a winner!  After castigating auto workers for
making a good living and other stupidity, someone's finally hit upon a
big chunk of the problem.

>GM's best car ad in a long time was the one for the Cobalt where it bumps
>the Vette.  Mitsubishi is a pile of fertilizer, yet they sell like hot
>cakes, they have great advertising.
>again a lie told often enough........ <snip>

You've got it...in spades.  The Japs learned in the '80s (from us) the
power of false and hyped advertising, and the advantage of pummeling
couch potatoes with tons of it.  Log your cable or broadcast viewing
any given week...Toyota and hell, even Subaru and Mazda will
out-advertise GM OR Ford by as much as 3 to 1.

One has to remember...Americans, by and large, aren't very bright.
They fall for advertising scams like this every time, and have for
over a century.
Nemisis - 26 Oct 2006 19:43 GMT
> >The biggest issue I see is the big three have some of the lamest advertising
> >on the market <snip>
>
> DING DING DING...we have a winner!  After castigating auto workers for
> making a good living and other stupidity, someone's finally hit upon a
> big chunk of the problem.

Does anybody know what kind of recreational drugs the ad writers are
on?
It looks like really good stuff.

Mark
C. E. White - 26 Oct 2006 20:55 GMT
Signature

Regards,

Ed White
http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/


> The biggest issue I see is the big three have some of the lamest
> advertising
> on the market

And you are comparing there ads to what? Toyota, the brand that is causing
then the most trouble? The best Toyota ads are completely content free and
the worst are outright insulting. The Tundra ads are not just bad, they are
deceptive if not outright lies. The ones where they compare the Tundra to
F150 insult my intelligence. The next time I need to haul 6.6 foot long
boards with the tailgate closed, I'll wish I had a Tundra. The next time I
have stuff of just the right density so that it will fit in a Tundra's box,
but not a Ford's and weighs 100 lbs more, I'll wish I had a Tundra. The next
time I can't pull a little boat up a shallow ramp with a ten year old VW,
I'll wish I had a Tundra. Then there are the Tundra radio commercials where
the guy raves about how HUGE his Tundra is. Heck, a Tundra is hardly bigger
than a Tacoma and it is the smallest "full size" truck by a significant
margin. And that brings me around to the ridiculous Tacoma ads. The next
time I am worried about meteors, or viscous girl friends, or leaving my
truck parked in the surf, I'll wish I had a Tacoma. After seeing the Toyota
Truck ads, I can only assume Toyota thinks all truck buyers are idiots. At
least Nissan emphasizes the positive qualities of their trucks.

Can you tell me one great thing about Toyota car ads? I can't think of a
single positive thing they have said that made any sense in the last ten
years. What exactly does "Moving Forward" mean? "Oh what a feeling" means?

Ed
Whitelightning - 26 Oct 2006 23:58 GMT
> And you are comparing there ads to what? Toyota, the brand that is causing
> then the most trouble? The best Toyota ads are completely content free and
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> single positive thing they have said that made any sense in the last ten
> years. What exactly does "Moving Forward" mean? "Oh what a feeling" means?

Ed, the common buyer doesn't know all of what you just stated, he only knows
what he sees on TV, and what the biased car buyers mags like hachettes car
and driver  say(hachette, its a fitting name most everything they publish is
a hatchet job)
The "young" market buying Mitsi's and Honda's aren't looking at anything but
the "kool" factor.
The older market has had the myth of Toyota quality and American lack there
of shoved down their throat so long they don't know anything else, even
though in 2005 the Toyota Camry had 4 times the number of recalls and
service bulletins than the Ford Focus.had, and its been that way for years,
but it never makes the media. I wonder why not?
it's like the earlier poster's comments about Opel, cant be any good because
its a GM product, yet it was the number one selling car in Germany, and the
only thing I saw more of on the road over there were VW's when I was there
in the mid 70's.  My family had one, a '67 wagon, old man beat it to death,
and it just wouldn't quit.  In 69 opel was the number 2 import car in this
country.  Biggest issue, the 1.1 ltr was gutless, the 1.5 a lot better the
1.9 was a good engine.
Never understood why Ford didn't bring in European Fords. yeah we got the
Capri, why not the Escort?  The German Escort was a great little car and
bore no resemblance at all to the American one that came later, it was
offered as a standard looking two door and 4 door sedan, and so was the
German Taurus and Tanus.
Oh what a feeling means they were nice enough to use Vaseline.

Whitelightning
ZombyWoof - 25 Oct 2006 22:20 GMT
>>>> >"This is an important industry" and Ford has so much opportunity for
>>>improvement, he added. <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>3. Your pretty free with everybody else's money, put your's where your big
>mouth is!

Well seeing as the majority of us who are employed pretty much see 30%
of our wages go to the man, when the big 3 ain't paying taxes were
left picking up the slack.
--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
duty-honor-country - 25 Oct 2006 12:48 GMT
> >> >"This is an important industry" and Ford has so much opportunity for
> >improvement, he added. <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

your wrong there- how "bad off" can they be, when GM is #1 in sales
units, and Ford is #3 ??

Toyota is number 2, gee, they must be worse off than GM then, aren't
they...

stop listening to CNN and the gloom and doom liberal press- the
American Big Three are alive and well.

If Ford "lost" 5.8 billion, and had 50 billion in assets, well 2nd
grade math says, they still have 44.2 billion in assets.  And that
"loss" can be disputed, as it's an accounting loss, taking in wasting
assets, depreciation, bad debts, etc.   Lots of stuff they can write
off and save on taxes with.

that's a lotta dough, pal !
JohnR66 - 26 Oct 2006 03:17 GMT
>> >> >"This is an important industry" and Ford has so much opportunity for
>> >improvement, he added. <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>
> that's a lotta dough, pal !

You can be #1 in sales, but still taking losses if it it is costing you too
much per vehicle to produce. Toyota can be #4 for that matter and be making
a killing. For example, Ford can cut the price of their vehicles in half.
Sales would go way up as people flocked to get half price cars, but they
could not exist long in doing so.
John
John
Nemisis - 25 Oct 2006 17:00 GMT
> I think Ford (and GM and Chysler) is in a lot worse shape than they
> admit.  They only chance any of them have to survive is to get labor
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

The real culprit in all this is over-regulation by the federal
government.  All of the "safety" and "emissions" regs the automakers
have to put up with are driving the cost of vehicles beyond the point
where someone making an average salary can't afford one.  I was just
reading today that the average US family income is $34,500.  The
average cost of a new car is up around $22,000.  By that token a new
car costs 2/3 of income.  And a lot of the cost is all this safety and
emissions equipment.  And the feds keep piling it on.  I heard
somewhere that in the 2010 model year all cars are required to be
drive-by-wire with electronic stability control.  By the time the feds
are done regulating only CEO's and Senators will be able to afford a
new car!

Mark
ZombyWoof - 25 Oct 2006 22:46 GMT
>> I think Ford (and GM and Chysler) is in a lot worse shape than they
>> admit.  They only chance any of them have to survive is to get labor
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
>Mark

It isn't just but other things that the Feds have mandated that large
employers must have as well.  Workers Compensation, Unemployment
Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Health Insurance, the list goes on.  On
average it is safe to assume about another 33% over and above salary
in additional costs for each employee.  So the Bubba making $34,500 is
costing the company $45,885.00.  

On the other hand poor Bubba isn't seeing his $34,500 because the Feds
& the State are chewing away from it at the other end as well.  Same
story for Bubba.  He's got to pay Social Security taxes, FICA, State
Taxes, Medicare, Health care, Sales Taxes and his list goes on.
Usually again to the tune of about 33% so when all is said and done
his $34,500 magically turns into $23,115 which is right about the
price of a new car.  Bubba can't freakin win.

--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
Jeff - 26 Oct 2006 03:20 GMT
>>> I think Ford (and GM and Chysler) is in a lot worse shape than they
>>> admit.  They only chance any of them have to survive is to get labor
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> employers must have as well.  Workers Compensation, Unemployment
> Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Health Insurance, the list goes on.

I don't think there is a mandate for health insurance. And there is not one
for retirement, except for Soc. Sec.

The mandates are not larger for big companies than small companies.

>  On
> average it is safe to assume about another 33% over and above salary
> in additional costs for each employee.  So the Bubba making $34,500 is
> costing the company $45,885.00.

That is true for all companies, including airlines and Walmart.

> On the other hand poor Bubba isn't seeing his $34,500 because the Feds
> & the State are chewing away from it at the other end as well.  Same
> story for Bubba.  He's got to pay Social Security taxes, FICA, State
> Taxes, Medicare, Health care, Sales Taxes and his list goes on.

The same thing is true for teachers in school and the workers at Walmart.

> Usually again to the tune of about 33% so when all is said and done
> his $34,500 magically turns into $23,115 which is right about the
> price of a new car.  Bubba can't freakin win.

But Bubba can buy a used car for about 1/4 of that. Alternatively, he can
take public transportation, like I do.

Jeff

> --
>
> You can run, but you'll only die tired.
>
> ZombyWoof
ZombyWoof - 26 Oct 2006 14:13 GMT
>>>> I think Ford (and GM and Chysler) is in a lot worse shape than they
>>>> admit.  They only chance any of them have to survive is to get labor
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>
>Jeff

I think the point I was trying to make Jeff is that the Feds on are
eating away on both sides of the equation taking money out of the
functioning economy.  This hurts both the people producing products
and those buying those products.  When people can't buy products the
company that makes products don't need as many people to make them
which leads to less people making money and hence a death spiral into
Burger King jobs.

I'm glad that you have good reliable public transportation where you
live.  I certainly wish I did, but I realize that the economics of it
simply don't work.  I could walk about 45 minutes to the Mall where
there is a bus stop, take a two-hour bus trip to go twenty miles to
work, and then walk about another thirty minutes to my work place, but
I think you can see the overall logistics issues that presents.
--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
Jeff - 26 Oct 2006 23:40 GMT
>>>>> I think Ford (and GM and Chysler) is in a lot worse shape than they
>>>>> admit.  They only chance any of them have to survive is to get labor
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
> which leads to less people making money and hence a death spiral into
> Burger King jobs.

Yet, people also benefit from the federal government. The Soc. Sec. taxes go
towards retirement, people get government-sponsored health care, Congress
gets paid to make laws, the courts get their share, grants made made for
fire trucks and training, schools get money, a lot of research gets done,
transportation dollars go for highways and subways, soldiers get pay so they
can defend the country, etc.

> I'm glad that you have good reliable public transportation where you
> live.  I certainly wish I did, but I realize that the economics of it
> simply don't work.  I could walk about 45 minutes to the Mall where
> there is a bus stop, take a two-hour bus trip to go twenty miles to
> work, and then walk about another thirty minutes to my work place, but
> I think you can see the overall logistics issues that presents.

Well, ride a bike or set up a car pool.

Jeff

> --
>
> You can run, but you'll only die tired.
>
> ZombyWoof
ZombyWoof - 27 Oct 2006 13:59 GMT
<snip>

>> I think the point I was trying to make Jeff is that the Feds on are
>> eating away on both sides of the equation taking money out of the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>transportation dollars go for highways and subways, soldiers get pay so they
>can defend the country, etc.

Yes they do, but the Federal government also wastes just to damn much.
How many Billions to Iraq?  How much is wasted in social programs that
has just led people to become dependant on public largess?  Social
Security dollars dumped into the general fund to be squandered year
after year with no return on investment.  I was a soldier, a career
one matter of fact.  At no time during my entire career did I ever
really feel I was really defending the country.  I could go on, but
the only point I am making is that it is a two-sided coin with worth
that has grown a little to large for its britches.

>> I'm glad that you have good reliable public transportation where you
>> live.  I certainly wish I did, but I realize that the economics of it
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Well, ride a bike or set up a car pool.

Yeah I guess my old a.s could bike 20 miles each way along a major
highway, but I think I'll pass.  I do motorcycle in good weather
though.  Does that count?  

--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
Nemisis - 26 Oct 2006 18:16 GMT
> >>The real culprit in all this is over-regulation by the federal
> >>government.  All of the "safety" and "emissions" regs the automakers
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Jeff

Really?  Where do you buy your used cars?

Here in the real world used cars go for about 3/4 the price of a new
one, with 50K-70K on the odometer.  As a matter of fact I have seen
used cars selling in suburban Phillly for more than the new ones cost.
Don't know who would buy them.    The local Jeep dealer had a used
Wrangler on the lot with a sticker of $16,900 while on the other side
of the lot sat a new Wrangler with a sticker of $16,800.  The used Jeep
had about 50K miles on ot too!
I think they keep the price of used stuff high to get people to buy
new.

Mark
Gosi - 26 Oct 2006 19:17 GMT
Price stickers are startingpoint for negotiations

A used car may have a lot of extras installed

> Here in the real world used cars go for about 3/4 the price of a new
> one, with 50K-70K on the odometer.  As a matter of fact I have seen
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Mark
Whitelightning - 26 Oct 2006 23:27 GMT
> Here in the real world used cars go for about 3/4 the price of a new
> one, with 50K-70K on the odometer.  As a matter of fact I have seen
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Mark

Because the new car side of the lot doesn't offer buy here pay here, the the
fool buying the over priced used one's credit is soo screwed up he cant buy
a new one, and the lot doesnt mind repoing it and selling six times before
its actualy gone.

Whitelightning
Jeff - 26 Oct 2006 23:54 GMT
>> >>The real culprit in all this is over-regulation by the federal
>> >>government.  All of the "safety" and "emissions" regs the automakers
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Here in the real world used cars go for about 3/4 the price of a new
> one, with 50K-70K on the odometer.

Really? According to Kelly Blue Book, a 2001 Ford Taurus with 70,000 mi
should be around $5,000 to $6,000 depending on condition and accessories
(private party price).

> As a matter of fact I have seen
> used cars selling in suburban Phillly for more than the new ones cost.
> Don't know who would buy them.    The local Jeep dealer had a used
> Wrangler on the lot with a sticker of $16,900 while on the other side
> of the lot sat a new Wrangler with a sticker of $16,800.  The used Jeep
> had about 50K miles on ot too!

And which had more accessories? Probably the used one. You are comparing a
Jeep that costs around $30,000 new to one that costs $20,000 new (list
price).

> I think they keep the price of used stuff high to get people to buy
> new.

And, if you were a dealer, what would you do? Sell cars at the minimum
profit to keep you in  business or try to make as much money as you can on
each vehible. Hell, if they could sell a used one for $50,000, they would.
In fact, if anyone is interested in my used Contour for only $50,000, you
can buy it today.

Jeff

> Mark
ZombyWoof - 27 Oct 2006 14:11 GMT
>>> >>The real culprit in all this is over-regulation by the federal
>>> >>government.  All of the "safety" and "emissions" regs the automakers
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>> I think they keep the price of used stuff high to get people to buy
>> new.

Ther are times & vehicles that are cheaper to buy new then used, oh
and yes if you are flexible on the options it does make a difference.
Case in point I originally want to buy a 2/3 year old pickup to avoid
the initial depreciation hit.  Most of the ones available for sale in
my area were fully equipped XLT/LT models in the $18k range with about
30/40k miles on the clock.  I was able to get a 2005 Ford SXT, V8,
auto, air, cd, tow package, stepside body new design during the 2005
model year for $18,444 out the door.  Which vehicle was the better
buying decision?  The used one with milage and a minimal warranty or
the new, redesigned model with a full factory warranty?

If their used pricing was a trick to get me to buy new it certainly
worked in my case, but what are they going to do with that used
vehicle?
--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
Whitelightning - 26 Oct 2006 04:10 GMT
> >Mark
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> in additional costs for each employee.  So the Bubba making $34,500 is
> costing the company $45,885.00.

Every employer with 5 or more emplyeees is required to do all of those
except the Health Insurance, and big companies arent mandated to do that
ether

Whitelightning
Jeff - 26 Oct 2006 03:16 GMT
>> I think Ford (and GM and Chysler) is in a lot worse shape than they
>> admit.  They only chance any of them have to survive is to get labor
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> have to put up with are driving the cost of vehicles beyond the point
> where someone making an average salary can't afford one.

Really? I see what you mean. There are fewer and fewer cars on the road and
fewer and fewer cars sold every year. Families have fewer cars than ever
before.</sarcasm>

In real life, more often, there are families with more cars than drivers.

Actually, adjusting for inflation, is the cost of a car more or less than it
was say 30 years ago? Actually, about 0.2% more for domestic cars. Then,
also adjust for the fact that cars last longer no than 30 years ago. So the
price of a car has actually been falling when adjusting for inflation,
decreased maintaince and increased life-span.

> I was just
> reading today that the average US family income is $34,500.  The
> average cost of a new car is up around $22,000.  By that token a new
> car costs 2/3 of income.  And a lot of the cost is all this safety and
> emissions equipment.  And the feds keep piling it on.

You can always by a used car without airbags, antilock brakes or other
safety equipment.

> I heard
> somewhere that in the 2010 model year all cars are required to be
> drive-by-wire with electronic stability control.  By the time the feds
> are done regulating only CEO's and Senators will be able to afford a
> new car!

Requiring drive by wire in 2 1/2 years? Are you nuts? No one does than now.
It will take more than 2 1/2 years to bring that on. It might be that some
cars will be drive by wire, but not more than a few.

Jeff

> Mark
Mike Hunter - 31 Oct 2006 01:29 GMT
It is all relative, I guess.  In 1955 the median income was $3,200.  I
bought my first HOT car, a Black/White 1955 Buick Century 2 dr hardtop for
around $3,900.  My wage at the time a quite respectable $1,84 an hour, about
$3,800 a year.

When I was in college in 1947 I worked in a gas station for the minimum wage
of .25c an hour and gas was .17c.  Today the minimum wage is around $5.70,
and going up, to over $7 and gas is down to 2.10 here   ;)

mike hunt

>> I think Ford (and GM and Chysler) is in a lot worse shape than they
>> admit.  They only chance any of them have to survive is to get labor
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Mark
Jeff - 31 Oct 2006 01:51 GMT
> It is all relative, I guess.  In 1955 the median income was $3,200.  I
> bought my first HOT car, a Black/White 1955 Buick Century 2 dr hardtop for
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> When I was in college in 1947 I worked in a gas station for the minimum
> wage of .25c an hour

You are off by a lot. The minimum wage was not a quarter of a cent, but
rather 40 cents.

and gas was .17c.  Today the minimum wage is around $5.70,
> and going up, to over $7 and gas is down to 2.10 here   ;)

Actually, the minimum wage varies by state, but the feds set it at $5.15 an
hour.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm

> mike hunt
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>>
>> Mark
Mike Hunter - 31 Oct 2006 16:49 GMT
Whatever, but I know I was paid a quarted an hour and 5c on each can quart
of oil   ;)

mike

>> It is all relative, I guess.  In 1955 the median income was $3,200.  I
>> bought my first HOT car, a Black/White 1955 Buick Century 2 dr hardtop
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>> mike hunt
ZombyWoof - 25 Oct 2006 22:19 GMT
<snip>

>I think Ford (and GM and Chysler) is in a lot worse shape than they
>admit.  They only chance any of them have to survive is to get labor
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>than some did for a house 20 years ago. The worst is yet to come for
>them.

Without a doubt something has to be done to control labor & benefits
costs.  I really do think that the quality paradigm is a figment of
Consumers Reports.  I am more then happy with my Ford & Lincoln
products from a quality standpoint.  The only major complaint I have
is the interiors still seem to wear faster then on my GM products, but
that just maybe my perception.

I think all corporations in America are battling major costs in the
benefit arena regardless if they are Unionized or not.  Health care
expenses are completely through the roof.  My own organization has
been experiencing double digit increases in premiums for a number of
years now.  Since our creation over two decades ago we offered no cost
coverage to all our employees with only a small additional charge for
family coverage.  Four years ago we simply could not eat the entire
increase in the premium and were forced to charge each employee $15 a
payday for primary coverage with a $10 co-pay.  This year that charge
has risen to $45 with a $20 co-pay with the company picking up
$417.00.  You really don't want to know what family rates are.

We pay a decent local wage, but no where near what people at the local
Ford plant (which will be closing next year) make for similar jobs.
Their health care plan also covers a lot more then ours does as well
and offers a lot more benefits with a more comprehensive dental plan.
However, later next year all of our employees will have a job and the
poor guys & gals over at the Ford plant won't be working there.  I
hope they find something, but it won't be making $70,000 a year for
putting on door handles.
--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
ZombyWoof - 25 Oct 2006 22:06 GMT
>> >"This is an important industry" and Ford has so much opportunity for
>improvement, he added. <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>And public traded companies end up just that way.
>Whitelightning

I don't know if they deliberately drove down the stock in order to do
so, but I do believe your right that the family would love to take the
company private again for the reasons you've listed and many more.  It
would be great to be able to run a car company for the long term as
opposed to short sighted return on investments & bond ratings.  We
actually get to see some really interesting products and some true
research into alternatives.  

I think Bill being a car guy really had something to do with some
recent Ford products that did turn out to be successful.  Without his
input/control there might not have been much soul in the Mustang redo.
We might have saw a four-banger econobox version instead of pretty
closer to performance six as the baseline offering.
--

You can run, but you'll only die tired.

ZombyWoof
Some O - 25 Oct 2006 09:21 GMT
> Indeed, the new chief executive at Ford, Alan R. Mulally, a former Boeing
> executive, said the automaker would require a full transformation in the way
> it thought about consumers and approached the American market.

Well at least he recognizes Ford has a consumer related problem.
That's a good start.
duty-honor-country - 25 Oct 2006 12:52 GMT
> > Indeed, the new chief executive at Ford, Alan R. Mulally, a former Boeing
> > executive, said the automaker would require a full transformation in the way
> > it thought about consumers and approached the American market.
>
> Well at least he recognizes Ford has a consumer related problem.
> That's a good start.

Good post- you hit the nail.

GM makes the best domestic cars, always have, always will.

Ford makes some "interesting" products, just like Chrysler did- but
overall, GM has the better engineers, better engines, better cars.

That's why GM has been the biggest car co. in the world- FOR DECADES.

It's pretty hard to sell new cars to people, when the old ones you sold
10-15 years ago were built so well, they are still running fine like
clocks.  Where's the incentive to go in debt $25grand and buy another
one ?

you can only drive a car so much !
Brent P - 25 Oct 2006 13:46 GMT
> GM makes the best domestic cars, always have, always will.

Um no. And if that's the way you feel, why are you in Ford NG's?

> That's why GM has been the biggest car co. in the world- FOR DECADES.

Biggest doesn't mean best. GM makes a lot of crap and has done so FOR
DECADES. It's size means that they have gotten away with it FOR DECADES.

> It's pretty hard to sell new cars to people, when the old ones you sold
> 10-15 years ago were built so well, they are still running fine like
> clocks.  Where's the incentive to go in debt $25grand and buy another
> one ?

True... Which is why it takes an interesting car at a good price to get me
considering buying a new car. Another issue is the dealerships. No matter
how good the new product is, just going in there is an unpleasant
experience.
Gosi - 25 Oct 2006 14:14 GMT
General Motors Corp., the world's largest automaker, reported a
third-quarter loss of $115 million

> > GM makes the best domestic cars, always have, always will.
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> how good the new product is, just going in there is an unpleasant
> experience.
DeserTBoB - 25 Oct 2006 19:34 GMT
>> GM makes the best domestic cars, always have, always will.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Biggest doesn't mean best. GM makes a lot of crap and has done so FOR
>DECADES. It's size means that they have gotten away with it FOR DECADES.  <snip>

Exactly...GM is now paying for screwing customers since the late
1960s.

To evade stupid, useless crap posts like the one you just dealt with,
global kill file the following:

dutyhonorcountry2@hotmail.com
elkhound68@hotmail.com
prshgry@yahoo.com
backthetowerlines@yahoo.com

...and the problem will go away.

The "problem" is Charles M. Nudo, Jr. of Drums, PA...the "Jelly Jar
King of Drums," as he's known by, a paranoid delusional nut case who
likes to make his own reality as he goes along.  This nutbag has had
no less than 14 (soon to be more) Google Groups accounts shut down for
spam, harassment, posting of personal information, and other miscues.
There is NO reasoning with this fucktard....just kill file him.  He's
too stupid to use a newsreader, so he thinks that by "bumping" posts
he'll remain on top of the thread list.  Little does he realize that
only works in Google, which no one with a brain uses.

>True... Which is why it takes an interesting car at a good price to get me
>considering buying a new car. Another issue is the dealerships. No matter
>how good the new product is, just going in there is an unpleasant
>experience. <snip>

GM itself proved this with the Saturn project.  When people found out
that non-commissioned sales people would be simply filling orders for
new cars, Saturn took off like a Saturn rocket.  However, GM, always
looking to screw people, started allowing their Saturn dealers to
start doing "workarounds" to the non-commissioned sales rule, tacking
on huge "spiffs" onto things like finanacing, insurance and dealer
"add-ons."  Now, most Saturn dealers are just as bad as the rest of
them, and falling Saturn sales tell the tale.

Ford, over the years, has had some of the worst dealers of all, both
for sales abuse and service.  "Fence jobs" in Ford service departments
were the rule...take the car in, decide the customer's a dumb sh.t,
park the car along the back fence for about a week, call the customer
for pick-up, charge them $500 for transmission work, "tune up",
whatever.  They tried to "fence job" me on a new '70 Ford with a 3-2
part throttle downshift flare, and I caught them.  Ford's zone office
paid me for my trouble and made the dealer pay an independent shop for
a new intermediate band servo seal job.

To be fair, I caught a Toyota dealership doing this with '70s Toyotas
with B-W automatics.  They'd take the cars in, tell the owner that the
transmission was "shot," "fence line" it, then deliver the car in a
week with not a wrench being put to it.  A seal placed on the
transmission pan told the tale.  Toyota refused to revoke the dealer's
franchise, and that was back years ago, but the state threatened to
take away their license unless full refunds were paid out.
JohnR66 - 26 Oct 2006 03:21 GMT
>> > Indeed, the new chief executive at Ford, Alan R. Mulally, a former
>> > Boeing
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> you can only drive a car so much !

Friggin troll. GM piston slappin transmission eating junk...
I switched to Ford after problems with GM. Much better reliability.
DeserTBoB - 25 Oct 2006 19:52 GMT
>> Indeed, the new chief executive at Ford, Alan R. Mulally, a former Boeing
>> executive, said the automaker would require a full transformation in the way
>> it thought about consumers and approached the American market.
>
>Well at least he recognizes Ford has a consumer related problem.
>That's a good start. <snip>

After Billy Boy Ford's mismanagement, he has a LOT of clean-up work to
do, probably as much or more than Iacocca did when he started to turn
Chrysler around in the '70s.  Billy Boy thought that people would come
in droves to buy things like F-150/250s, Expeditions and Lincoln
pickups, while neglecting and not fixing problems with the Focus
project, following King Henry II's dictum of "mini cars, mini
profits," and banking the whole company's "car" future on the 500
project, which is turning out to be a turd, as is the Tempo-esque
"Fusion."  The "retro" Mustang has a limited market at best, and their
callous marketing ploys (you can only get upgraded interior and
appearance packages like the GT with a V8, silly in that sized car)
have dampened a lot of sales.

The challenge to Mulally will be to put Ford's money where their mouth
is on the fuel cell project.  If they can crack that nut, the Japs,
finally, will be in big trouble.  It will require regime change in
Washington (part of which will happen in about 10 days) and rejetion
of many Ford family paradigms.  The Ford family, like everyone in
power at GM, is too tied to the oil industry to be useful in
converting the country away from petroleum-based fuel.  For a
turnaround to work, the Ford family MUST be removed from company
operations, once and for all time.

The Ford family will NOT try to take the company private again.
They're not THAT stupid.  Doing so would rather be like Cunard
launching a new "Titanic II" in 1913.  The running away of Billy Boy
pretty much showed the family's hand...rats running from a sinking
ship.

Oh...before you decide to go for that V8 Mustang or F-150 gas guzzler,
oil spot market prices are back on the rise again, over $60/bbl and
rising as I write this.  Looks like the Saudis aren't waiting for the
election!
Brent P - 25 Oct 2006 22:23 GMT
> "Fusion."  The "retro" Mustang has a limited market at best, and their
> callous marketing ploys (you can only get upgraded interior and
> appearance packages like the GT with a V8, silly in that sized car)
> have dampened a lot of sales.

Ford's marketing tends to turn everything they touch bad if it wasn't
already a bad idea from the get go.

> The Ford family, like everyone in
> power at GM, is too tied to the oil industry to be useful in
> converting the country away from petroleum-based fuel.

The problem is not using petroleum-based fuel, as there is enough oil in
the americas alone to keep using gasoline. The problem is that oil isn't
a free market. Huge barriers to entry from infastructure to regulation to
politics allow big oil to do as they please. That's where a
non-petroleum-based fuel comes into play, to turn the fuel business back
to something more like a free market. Exactly what large corporations do
not want. They want the market fixed in their favor as much as possible.

> Oh...before you decide to go for that V8 Mustang or F-150 gas guzzler,
> oil spot market prices are back on the rise again, over $60/bbl and
> rising as I write this.  Looks like the Saudis aren't waiting for the
> election!

Actually I am not going to make my next purchase based on fuel economy.
I'd rather have a car I'll enjoy and use my bicycle (which I also enjoy)
to compensate for any shortage in fuel economy. Now what would have been
nice is to have had something come of the super-stallion project.
JohnR66 - 26 Oct 2006 03:26 GMT
>>> Indeed, the new chief executive at Ford, Alan R. Mulally, a former
>>> Boeing
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> rising as I write this.  Looks like the Saudis aren't waiting for the
> election!

WTH? I get 23mpg and 28mpg in my 03 v8 Mustang GT. that is not so bad...
Joe - 26 Oct 2006 05:26 GMT
 New York Times
 DEARBORN, Mich., Oct. 23, 2006 - The Ford Motor Company reported its worst financial results in more than 14 years Monday and warned that its business was likely to worsen further in the months ahead, as it and other Detroit auto companies struggle to reinvent themselves.

For such an interesting conversation piece, this thread sure has resulted in a lot of idiotic responses!  Wow!  

I notice there's no mention of special restructuring charges in this announcement, so we need that.  Here it is:  
"Excluding restructuring and other special charges, Ford said it lost $1.2 billion, or 62 cents per share, from continuing operations."  

That gives us an idea of the hemmoraging rate, but no the amount of money that's actually gone. Some of the restructuring charges can be real money, but a lot of it's fake. Can't tell from this.  Check these out:

"The charges included $2.2 billion to re-value assets in North America and $1.6 billion to decrease the value of Jaguar and Land Rover assets."  That's not money.  Just some numbers on a paper. So, of the 5.8 Billion, 3.8 is fake.

" Ford also took an $861 million charge for jobs bank benefits and employee separations due to its plans to idle factories in North America, a $259 million charge for continued global personnel reduction and a $437 million charge for the cost of employee retirements that occurred earlier than planned. "  There were also some special gains that make these numbers balance out (or at least I hope so).  This is real money, but it's not money they actually paid out already.  It's money that they are going to have to pay (really!) so they are considering it like it's already gone.

Other interesting information: Their sales revenue fell 10% year-over-year. The market share is down to 15.5%. The economy is strong, and consumers have a lot of spending money.  If the economy worsens, they will be in an awful world of hurt.  Just awful.

Now- - anybody remember how many billions they have to operate on?   Here it is:
" Ford also said it had $23.6 billion in cash available at the end of the quarter, but it was exploring the possibility of using its automotive assets as collateral to borrow cash to maintain liquidity as losses and restructuring costs mount. The company expects to spend about $3.5 billion more of its cash by the end of the year. "

I think they have about 2 years before they run out of money. This AP article from Monday mentions that they're going to have to borrow money to pay for the turnaround.  They can't borrow money like a normal company. They'll have to offer collateral to borrow anything.  I've never heard of that - I think this is about as far into a death spiral as you can fall. Wonder if they can turn it around.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.