backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 81 comment(s) - last by Spuke.. on Nov 3 at 1:27 PM

Ford Taurus SHO

Ford Flex

Ford Mustang GT
Ford charges ahead, with sales picking up

When a U.S. automaker posts a profit of $997M USD, it's sure to turn heads in the investment community in this economic climate.  After all, automakers these days just aren't turning profits.  Thus it's exciting news for Ford, the only member of the Big Three to refuse nationalization, to turn a profit in its fiscal third quarter.

In Q1 and Q2, Ford lost $4.7B USD as the recession continued to churn.  Fortunately, though, Ford had positioned itself well, mortgaging many of its assets and cutting costs before the worst of the recession hit.  Because of this, it had enough of a cash cushion to stay independent and avoid bankruptcy and a government takeover.

Now Ford has posted a positive cash flow of $1.3B USD -- the most since Q2 2007.  Net profit, as mentioned were up to $997M USD, up from a $161M USD loss from the year before.  Better yet, it says more good times are in store for Q4 2009 and that it will be "solidly profitable" by 2011.  Chief Financial Officer Lewis Booth cheered the news, stating, "[The positive cash flow is] a huge deal.  Our third-quarter results clearly show that Ford is making tremendous progress despite the prolonged slump in the global economy."

Erich Merkle, an Autoconomy.com analyst comments, "Ford proved they can be profitable at much lower sales levels. A lot of it came from cost-cutting but also from market share gains.  Now, as the market starts to turn and sales volumes start to recover, Ford should be solidly in the black next year -- certainly ahead of schedule."

Overall Ford's revenue was down just slightly, dipping $800M USD to $30.9B USD, but this was easily compensated for, thanks to cost cutting.  One promising metric is that every one of Ford's major regions -- North America, South America, Europe and Asia Pacific -- reported a pre-tax operating profit.

A key factor in Ford's return to success is its industry-leading SYNC in-car electronics system, made with the help of Microsoft.  Tying together such diverse components such as MP3 audio, turn by turn navigation, news, weather, and more, the system is increasing the value of Ford's vehicles.  Another crucial technology is Ford's EcoBoost engines, which use turbocharging and direct injection to produce better fuel economy and power with a smaller engine.  Ford is slowly rolling the tech out over its entire lineup.

Sales of Ford's high-tech green offerings were also up.  Sales of Ford hybrids in the first three quarters totaled 26,016, up 73 percent from the previous year.  Ford is just barely trailing Honda, which sold 29,958 hybrid in nine months (up 8 percent).  At its current growth rate, Ford should soon leap Honda and challenge Toyota for the hybrid sales crown.  It still has a ways to go before hoping to match Toyota, the world's largest automaker, in hybrid sales (Toyota sold 144,000 hybrids in nine months).

Ford is looking forward to releasing electric vehicles next year.  Next year the automaker will launch its 2010 Ford Transit Connect BEV to U.S. and Canadian markets.  The electric vehicle has a targeted 80 miles-per-charge range, provided by batteries from Johnson Controls-Saft.  It is designed and produced through a partnership with Azure Dynamics, which provides the Force Drive battery electric drive train.  The vehicle is targeted towards businesses.

Then in 2011, Ford will release a plug-in electric version of its Ford Focus hybrid.  A prototype retrofitted EV focus has already been making the rounds on the Jay Leno Show in the "Jay's Green Car Challenge" spot.  Rounding off Ford's upcoming tech is a new electric vehicle and hybrid platform, due out in 2012.


Comments     Threshold


Excess capacity in market
By bjacobson on 11/2/2009 11:12:40 AM , Rating: 1
They, Toyota, and Honda would all be doing a lot better if we didn't have GM, Chrysler, etc. still in the market. People would take the money they would have spent on a GM car and instead bought another car from one of the remaining, surviving companies.

This is why government bailing out companies is so bad. It penalizes the performers and removes incentive to create the best profit. If, in the hard times, there's no benefit to having made sound financial decisions as a company (and not pursued too-risky profit), then nobody will do it in the future; they'll just pursue the extra-risky profit because hey, if it works they get to give themselves bigger bonuses, and if it doesn't there's no consequences.

We fundamentally can't move on from this recession and return to profit if excess capacity isn't extinguished. Ford would be doing a lot better right now if GM weren't still clogging up the works.




RE: Excess capacity in market
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Excess capacity in market
By FITCamaro on 11/2/2009 11:46:46 AM , Rating: 5
So its better that the American tax payer (I don't say people because a large number of Americans don't pay any taxes) have to subsidize the company for decades? Costing us even more.

I own a GM vehicle. In no way do I support the company being government run. I would rather it have failed and been liquidated than the federal government unconstitutionally assume control and violate laws.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 12:09:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So its better that the American tax payer (I don't say people because a large number of Americans don't pay any taxes) have to subsidize the company for decades? Costing us even more.
I don't know that it is better. I don't like the GM acquisition much more than you do. Still, the consequence of it failing would have cost the average tax-payer far more than bailing out GM did. I just wish they had come up with a solution that avoided both Chapter 11 and buying GM.

quote:
I own a GM vehicle. In no way do I support the company being government run.
I concur wholeheartedly. I've said it here before and I'll say it again: There are certain industries and services that can logically be provided by the government -- regardless of your ideology, there are reasonable arguments as to why the government should own, run, or heavily regulate certain industries. The automotive industry is not among them. A government has no business owning or operating a consumer automotive manufacturer no matter your ideology.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By weskurtz0081 on 11/2/2009 12:24:11 PM , Rating: 5
There was a solution that could have avoided the initial bailout which was just money in a fire, it's called CH 11.

Taxpayers put all that money into a run down company to avoid CH 11, as if this mystical demon (CH 11) would gobble up GM and the United States.

Look at us now! GM went through CH 11 afterall! WOW! Maybe that should have happened to begin with rather than just passing out the bucks all willy nilly! At least that way it would have been under bankruptcy protection and everything would have been overseen.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Excess capacity in market
By weskurtz0081 on 11/2/2009 12:53:56 PM , Rating: 5
I do understand, I did a massive report over this very subject which required quite a bit of research.

I am not arguing the profitability of GM right here, I haven't mentioned it ONE TIME.

What I have been discussing is the handing out of tax payer money.

So, consider this. You have a company that is in very bad financial shape. So, the options are, Ch 7, Ch 11, bailout.

In this case, we chose bailout. All the bailout money is spent, GM is still in the same shape.

Next option, Ch 11, reorganization. In this option, GM still gets funding, but the bankruptcy judge, and in this case, the government is overseeing the process and making sure the supplied funding is getting thrown in a fire.

What I am proposing is, GM, from the get go, should have gone directly into Ch 11, get the funding, but in a manner that is actually overseen by the bankruptcy judge.

The way it actually happened was, GM was given a bunch of money, pretty much it.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By AEvangel on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Excess capacity in market
By foolsgambit11 on 11/2/2009 6:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
Really? You want private companies to own and run National Security? Unregulated health care? No national currency, just bank notes from any and every (totally unregulated) bank?

I think it's time you backpedalled a little bit. Pedal over to your local library and pick up some economic theory. Maybe start with Adam Smith, he was an advocate for a more hands-off approach to the economy by governments, and the U.S. Founding Fathers were huge fans of his work, using his ideas as the basis of the early American economy. But he still supports some role for government in the economy, for the good of the country and its people.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By Reclaimer77 on 11/2/2009 6:51:27 PM , Rating: 4
Governments are just a body of people who are notably, usually, ungoverned.

I agree that the government has "some role", but the problem with governments is that they have a thirst for power that eventually leads to them being unchecked completely. Like what's happening in this country (USA) right now.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By Reclaimer77 on 11/2/2009 11:59:35 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The cost to the general consumer would have been enormous if GM had gone under.


False.

quote:
But the consequences of GM filing for chapter 11 would be hard-felt far and wide.


Wrong again. Gm would be in the same shape as they are today under chapter 11. Chapter 11 is government suppervised and supported bankruptcy.

The only difference between Chapter 11 and the bailout is that now the government and the Unions are running GM. Everything else happened exactly the same. Just more underhanded and shady.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Excess capacity in market
By Reclaimer77 on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Excess capacity in market
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 12:47:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Are you an idiot ? Look around !!! Things ARE worst ! You would be hard pressed to find many periods where things were worst than they are now, besides the great depression.
Things aren't much worse than they were in late 2008. Numerically, maybe, but it's about as hard to find jobs. In any case, things were going to get worse no matter what.

quote:

YOU MEAN LIKE WE HAVE NOW !? Forget the 10% number, when you factor in the people who have already lost jobs and have given up looking, we're at about 20% right now. That IS depression level moron.
When you factor in such things, a depression has much higher unemployment than 20%. We don't have depression-level unemployment as a country by any definition but yours. Unless you live in Michigan, it's hard to make the argument that we're very close to a depression. Unemployment, GDP growth, and general living conditions are nothing compared to a depression. Talk to anyone who remembers the 1930s. We are not in a depression by any human or economic definition.

quote:
Says you and your crystal ball apparently.
Says simple economics. GM had no feasible strategy to return to profitability. They couldn't convince the 110th United States Congress -- the same Congress that gave away hundreds of billions to banks who admitted they couldn't maintain profitability -- that they had any way to return to profitability.

There's no conjecture or guesswork on my part. It's math and economics. GM was not making money or about to start making money. Eventually a company operating at a loss has to file Chapter 7.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By weskurtz0081 on 11/2/2009 12:48:57 PM , Rating: 3
Ch 11, reorganize and trim the fat, secure funding, move on down the road.

This is what GM is doing now, this is what they could have done before the bailout.

The reason no one wanted to go that route is because:
-everyone hoped they would be able to get through without having to go through bankruptcy protection
-claims were made that no one would buy a GM product if they entered bankruptcy.

So, the money was passed over, the bailout FAILED, and they went into bankruptcy anyway.

Ch 11 is what should have happened from day 1.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By Spuke on 11/2/2009 3:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
-claims were made that no one would buy a GM product if they entered bankruptcy.
That's the funny one. People were still buying their cars during the Ch 11. Even afterwards, they still have 5 cars in the top 20 and 2 cars in the top 10. As a company, they are not doing well because like others have said, they really have no solid plan to be profitable. I honestly see them back in court within the next 5 years.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By weskurtz0081 on 11/2/2009 3:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I don't support that idea, just saying it was one of the arguments for GM not entering Ch 11 back when the stuff first hit the fan.

I don't think the other guy really understood what I was saying or understand how a Ch 11 bankruptcy works.

In Ch 11, the company, especially GM, would still receive funding from whatever source gives it to them, which would have helped them survive the cash crunch they were having.

GM, if they cut enough fat off, would have NO REASON to go into Ch 7. They take that case to a bankruptcy attorney, he will say "If you remove all these costs, your business model is still good and you can be profitable". Then, take that to a judge and they say "We need to figure out how to cut these costs, you still have a good business model, your company can make a profit, get to work and figure it out".

It's not like it takes 6 months to enter Ch 11, no one wanted to do it because bankruptcy is viewed as such a bad thing and as the end of a company, which it is not, and clearly isn't in GM's case because they are still making and selling vehicles.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By sinful on 11/2/2009 10:07:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In Ch 11, the company, especially GM, would still receive funding from whatever source gives it to them, which would have helped them survive the cash crunch they were having.

Uh, you seem to be missing the whole "Credit Crisis" situation.
Where was this magical funding coming from?

Small businesses couldn't get loans for $10,000, but GM/et al were magically going to get BILLIONS in loans from the same source?

Riiiggghhhhtttt.

I'm not sure what planet you're living on, but if you think there was a wealth of investors willing to dump that kind of money into *GM*, you've been absent the last 20 years.

Heck, most of the people that propose that solution are the sames ones going "GM will *NEVER* be profitable!".

That kind of sentiment makes securing BILLIONS in loans pretty difficult, if not impossible, during a credit crunch.

The *Only* entity with that kind of funding is the government.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By weskurtz0081 on 11/3/2009 9:11:02 AM , Rating: 2
Like I have said in other posts, people apparently don't know how this works.

GM could have received loans from the Fed's/Government even under CH 11, but IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER A CLOSE WATCH OF THE BANKRUPTCY JUDGE.

The point is, they should have entered bankruptcy immediately, that's the whole point of it. They still would have been able to get funding from the Government or the Fed, but it may have been in the form of a low or no interest loan, and it would have been under a close watch, not the BS that actually happened.

It's not rocket science.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By weskurtz0081 on 11/2/2009 11:58:33 AM , Rating: 2
Since when did filing for Chapter 11 mean that a company would dissolve? You do realize that GM already HAS filed for CH 11 right?

Do you understand what happens under CH 11, and that it DOESN'T mean that the company will just disappear, as is evident in the fact that GM is still an operational company post CH 11 bankruptcy proceedings?


RE: Excess capacity in market
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Excess capacity in market
By weskurtz0081 on 11/2/2009 12:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
The point is, GM would not have filed CH 7 to begin with. They would file Ch 11, gone into protection, and then they would have been loaned money while being SUPERVISED by the bankruptcy judge etc. Everything would have been under strict scrutiny, not just opening up the vault doors and allowing the unions and execs to take what they want while we turn our heads.

This should have happened from the beginning, that's my point. The bailout as it happened was completely irresponsible and unnecessary.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 12:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point is, GM would not have filed CH 7 to begin with. They would file Ch 11, gone into protection, and then they would have been loaned money while being SUPERVISED by the bankruptcy judge etc. Everything would have been under strict scrutiny, not just opening up the vault doors and allowing the unions and execs to take what they want while we turn our heads.
Every economic and business model, including GM's, disagrees with your assessment. GM did file for Chapter 11 and came out just as unprofitable. GM is still unprofitable. The "end" of the recession is the only thing that could bring the company back to profitability, but realistically it could never have paid back its debt.

GW was going to have to liquidate. I'm against the public acquisition of GM not just because I don't think the government should own a car company, but because GM was a terrible business purchase. Nothing shy of divine intervention was or is going to change that.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By weskurtz0081 on 11/2/2009 12:41:27 PM , Rating: 3
There must be some sort of communication problem here.

Tell me, why would GM have chosen Ch 7 over Ch 11 before bailout?

You do understand that during Ch 11, pre or post bailout, that GM would have been able to secure funding right? They would have been able to receive loans from the Fed, but it would have been in a MUCH more controlled state.

The only reason GM would have to liquidate is if they would not have been able to receive funding, which would NOT have been the case under Ch 11 pre OR post bailout.

The point is, either way, GM would have been able to get the cash needed to run, but the difference would have been that GM would have been on the road to recovery much faster and the money given to GM would have come with a lot more rules and consequences than it did with the bailout.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 12:51:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Tell me, why would GM have chosen Ch 7 over Ch 11 before bailout?
There is not a communication problem. There is a problem with your knowledge of the situation. GM did file for Chapter 11.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By weskurtz0081 on 11/2/2009 12:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
You don't understand what I am saying, there is a communication problem.

I am saying:
-Instead of bailout pre bankruptcy, GM should have gone straight into Ch 11 like every other business.
-Once in Ch 11, reorganization would have occurred, funding would have been supplied, just like is happening now.
-The point is, that is what should have happened to begin with, not wait until GM blows Billions of dollars with little to nothing to show for it during that time.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By TSS on 11/2/2009 7:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
i think what the other poster is of the oppinion of is that, once in chapter 11, without the government supplying the funds, GM wouldn't have gotten those funds on the private capital market and thus, would need to file for chapter 7, liquidation.

Otherwise the government would've still seized control while it went through chapter 11 which happened when the company *did* go through chapter 11. Which is what the other poster disagrees to.

But you where right it's a communication problem :)


RE: Excess capacity in market
By weskurtz0081 on 11/3/2009 9:14:12 AM , Rating: 2
The whole point is, I never said the government shouldn't supply any funds, I was saying it should only have been done under CH 11, and not like it was.

It would have been much more controlled under CH 11, and would not have forced them into Ch 7.

Instead of giving all this money to GM before hand, had they just gone into Ch 11 to begin with, they could have saved billions, who knows.

My point, it was stupid to bail them out. Send them into bankruptcy, that's what the law is there for. Once in bankruptcy, the government would have funded them, but it would have been under a watchful eye.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 12:25:36 PM , Rating: 1
Can I please rate myself down, this one time, for saying "11" instead of "7" as intended?


RE: Excess capacity in market
By Reclaimer77 on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Excess capacity in market
By Masospaghetti on 11/2/2009 12:10:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
They, Toyota, and Honda would all be doing a lot better if we didn't have GM, Chrysler, etc. still in the market. People would take the money they would have spent on a GM car and instead bought another car from one of the remaining, surviving companies.


Why on earth would you, presumably an American citizen, care about the health of a Japanese-owned company?

While the bailout was less than ideal, we'd be royally f*cked as a country when our entire manufacturing base is destroyed.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 12:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why on earth would you, presumably an American citizen, care about the health of a Japanese-owned company?
Toyota employs more Americans than Ford or GM. I don't want to make up numbers, but I'd venture a guess that Toyota might employ more Americans than Ford and GM.

Yes, ultimately domestic profits are most helpful to the economy (in theory, anyway). Still, it's important to remember that these "foreign" automakers employ a lot of middle-class Americans. Every Toyota sold in the Western Hemisphere is made in North America, and the vast majority in the United States. The same can't be said for Ford or GM.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By Boiler99 on 11/2/2009 8:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
Look, can you please get your facts straight?

At the end of 2008, before the junk hit the fan, GM employed almost as many people as all of the foreign makes combined.

http://www.levelfieldinstitute.org/files/scorecard...

Additionally, GM had 75% domestic content while the foreign makes had 33%.

Now for the comment that "Every Toyota sold in the Western Hemisphere is made in NA". The Prius is 100% made in Japan. They were going to open a factory here to make it, but when things went south they idled the place. Every single Lexus is not only 100% made in Japan, but has 0% (zero percent) N.A. content. While the Camry is made here, there are others that are not.

Now look, I'm not saying that the domestics are in good shape at the moment, and I'm not saying that the foreign makes don't employ a lot of Americans and Canadians. But come on, don't spew mis-information like it is your job. Domestic quality has come way up now that they have mostly pulled their heads out of their arses, and I don't think it will go back down from here.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By sinful on 11/2/2009 8:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Toyota employs more Americans than Ford or GM. I don't want to make up numbers, but I'd venture a guess that Toyota might employ more Americans than Ford and GM.

Um, no. Not even close. The only way that's true is if you make up numbers. GM itself employs more than 2x as many Americans as Toyota.

GM USA Direct Employment: 88,000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Toyota USA Direct Employment: 35,000
http://www.toyota.com/about/our_business/our_numbe...

FYI, in 1979, GM's *USA* Direct Employment was 618,365 employees.

In 2006, Ford's USA employment was around 110,000 employees.

quote:
Every Toyota sold in the Western Hemisphere is made in North America, and the vast majority in the United States. The same can't be said for Ford or GM.


That's so horribly wrong I don't know where to begin.
While many Toyota vehicles may indeed be assembled in the USA, the majority of the parts are foreign.

On average, a Toyota vehicle uses about 50% domestic parts, 50% foreign parts.
An equivalent GM or Ford vehicle typically averages about 75% domestic parts.

Granted, there are exceptions, but by & large Toyota is a foreign company, employing very few US employees, using few US parts, and sending most of those profits overseas.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By Spuke on 11/3/2009 1:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM USA Direct Employment: 88,000
This link doesn't say whether or not that number is direct employment or a combination of direct and indirect. What is DOES say is:

quote:
Debate over the plan rippled across the nation yesterday as communities protested proposals to close or idle 17 GM plants and warehouses. About 2,000 dealerships will be shut down, as well. U.S. employment at the company is slated to shrink by 25,000, from about 88,000 to 63,000 next year.

It seems to imply direct employment but it's not very clear. The sentence before it confuses it a bit.

Anywho, you also say:
quote:
That's so horribly wrong I don't know where to begin. While many Toyota vehicles may indeed be assembled in the USA, the majority of the parts are foreign.


Then you say right afterwards:
quote:
On average, a Toyota vehicle uses about 50% domestic parts, 50% foreign parts.

How does 50% equal a majority?

I know you pro-domestic guys only consider a company that started on American soil to be American and more than likely will NEVER consider Toyota or anyone else American even if they moved their main HQ here. What I find funny is that Canadian based production or parts are considered "American". LOL!

The Camaro has 60% domestic content and the Accord has 70% but the Camaro is "American" and the Accord isn't. This is hypocrisy at it's best and quite amusing.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By bjacobson on 11/2/2009 12:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
History lessons, bud, free trade has always been best for all parties involved. Look at what happened to India after Ghandi's recommended trade policies were enacted. Good for 10 years, downhill after that.


RE: Excess capacity in market
By walk2k on 11/2/2009 12:46:11 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks to the taxpayers.


Post Recession...
By spwrozek on 11/2/2009 11:42:09 AM , Rating: 5
Let us not be naive here Jason...




RE: Post Recession...
By Scabies on 11/2/2009 11:44:06 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Ford is First U.S. Automaker to Post a Quarterly Profit Post-Recession

recession over?
can come out of bomb shelter nao?


RE: Post Recession...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Post Recession...
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 12:17:19 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Yeah the recession is not over just because Obama says it is. And I've never in my life seen the media try so hard to cover for a president. " Oh don't worry about the 500k jobs being lost every month, it's a 'lagging indicator', the recession is over."
I wouldn't demonize Obama specifically over this. It is indeed the news media and economists who define the recession as over. I think the economic definition of "recession" is a joke, but it is being used accurately -- not as political cover.


RE: Post Recession...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Post Recession...
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 12:33:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If 100 people lost their job under Bush, it was the worst economy EVER. Now we're sitting at 10% unemployment and it's just a "lagging indicator" ?
I don't know anyone who has used the word "ever" in that context. The Great Depression is still the worst economy the country has ever seen -- unless you look at modern-day Detroit specifically, which is arguably in worse shape than the country was in the early 30s.
quote:
I've never even heard of such a term before, it's absurd.
I don't mean this with quite the level of causticism or patronization that it appears to convey, but obviously you have never been through an economics class. I do disagree with the economic definition of recession for the same reason you question it, but unemployment is a lagging growth indicator compared to GDP, especially when leaving a recession.
quote:
The recession is not over by a long shot. Things will get way worst. This isn't Europe where 10-15% unemployment is normal.
That level of unemployment isn't normal in any economy nor sustainable. Even with my own level of cynicism, I don't think things are going to get too much worse. I do think the recovery in employment levels will be slow and painful.

Also, you need to consider how unemployment is calculated. We are actually going to see, most likely, an increased level of unemployment compared to last quarter. Why? Because as the economy improves, more people who had given up looking for work will go back to work. People not actively searching for work are not part of the work force. They are going to come back in droves, and unemployment will rise despite more jobs being gained and fewer being lost.


RE: Post Recession...
By CrystalBay on 11/2/2009 12:51:24 PM , Rating: 3
But we are creating more govt. jobs does that count ? ;)


RE: Post Recession...
By Hiawa23 on 11/2/2009 1:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
Let some of you tell it everytime you get a chance, it's all Obama's fault, nevermind this mess started before most even knew of him, so I will stay away from that nonsense. The man has said many times that when they start growing jobs is when the recession will be over, & honestly, I am not sure how most even put all that on the President, but when you are the many you get the credit & blame, even though in alot of cases they really had nothign to do with it.

On a more important note, I am glad to see Ford make some money, especially in these times. Whatever model they are using, GM needs to model their company after it, but Ford started restructuring years ago, so I really am glad to see them moving the right direction.


RE: Post Recession...
By TSS on 11/2/2009 7:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
Not really, as long as jobs are in the minus.

But you do get a free cookie when the national debt hits 12 trillion!


RE: Post Recession...
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 12:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
Recession, as defined by economists, is four or more consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. From an economics standpoint, we are out of the recession, and companies' bottom lines are going to reflect this.

From a human standpoint, we're still teetering on a depression. Unless you live in Detroit, in which case you already know what the Great Depression was like.


RE: Post Recession...
By walk2k on 11/2/2009 12:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
Also why did you pick the 3 worst Ford cars to show. That FLEX is FUGGGLY my god seriously what were they thinking worst ugly car since the AZTEK the Taurus is a big dumb boat and the Mustang hasn't been an interesting car since about 1970.

As far as I've read the real big sellers for Ford are the F150 pickup-truck and the Focus under Cash for Clunkers, you know the real reason they made any profit at all? LOL


RE: Post Recession...
By JediJeb on 11/2/2009 1:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
Matter of opinion I guess. I have always liked the Mustang, except the 74-78 models of the Mustang II. The Flex I like also, not sure why but I think it looks good. The Taurus seems to be closing in on what the Crown Vic used to be. I have always owned a Ford Truck but I don't like the new ones, to big, to fancy, I can't justify spending $40k on something I am just going to run through the mud and bang up hauling stuff, and never do I want carpet flooring in one, to hard to keep clean. You never see a plain F150 on the lots anymore, you know one with just a cloth seat, vinly flooring, A/C, non power windows and locks, and a basic radio in it. It's why I am still driving my 96 F150 4x4 I bought back then for $18k, just a plain simple vehicle.


RE: Post Recession...
By Spuke on 11/2/2009 3:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You never see a plain F150 on the lots anymore, you know one with just a cloth seat, vinly flooring, A/C, non power windows and locks, and a basic radio in it.
Just have the dealership order a F150 "work truck". What's hard about that? Or buy used.

Here's one:
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=c&car_id=...

I wouldn't pay that much for it considering you can get a 3/4 ton for the same price but there you go.


Not surprising...
By Amiga500 on 11/2/2009 11:13:16 AM , Rating: 2
Ford are using their German floorpans for most of their cars. Engines are decent, chassis are great. Every Ford Europe chassis since the Focus back in '98 has been smashing. Richard Parry-Jones has been a key engineer for Ford in the past decade.

The pickups are still mince (compared to a Hilux).




RE: Not surprising...
By Shig on 11/2/2009 11:17:08 AM , Rating: 1
Hm I thought Ford took some bailout funds then paid them back right away, but I could be wrong.

The Sync system has also been proven to sell cars faster. Arg I can't find the article atm, but if you look for a bit you'll see that Sync enabled Ford cars sell 1.5x-2x faster than cars without it. Test drive a car with the Sync system, you'll love it.

Bottom line, Ford is doing the US proud in the car market.


RE: Not surprising...
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 11:32:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Hm I thought Ford took some bailout funds then paid them back right away, but I could be wrong.
Line of credit =! bailout. The government will actually make a tiny amount of profit from Ford's credit during the recession.


RE: Not surprising...
By 67STANG on 11/2/2009 11:38:19 AM , Rating: 3
I could be wrong, but I think that while Ford was extended a line of credit, they have utilized $0 of it. It was secured only in the event that the economy took longer to turn around.


RE: Not surprising...
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 11:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly, you might be correct. Ford secured the line of credit, but I don't know how much they've actually used.


RE: Not surprising...
By Spuke on 11/2/2009 12:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I could be wrong, but I think that while Ford was extended a line of credit, they have utilized $0 of it.
I was under this impression as well.


Nice Work Ford
By Bryf50 on 11/2/2009 11:07:13 AM , Rating: 5
Hopefully this starts getting people and the government believing in the power of capitalism again.




RE: Nice Work Ford
By FITCamaro on 11/2/2009 11:43:28 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Hopefully this starts getting people and the government believing in the power of capitalism again.


You're funny.

If anything the idiots in charge are wondering how they can force Ford under the management of the government and UAW. The UAW has already rejected a new contract saying Ford is doing too well to make any cuts (which would bring their price of labor to parity with GM).

They'll try even harder to drive the automaker into the ground since they've got Congress and the President behind them to bail the company out, violate contract law, and give control over to them. Just like GM.


RE: Nice Work Ford
By Bryf50 on 11/2/2009 12:50:12 PM , Rating: 1
I don't get it you seem to be agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time.


RE: Nice Work Ford
By Schrag4 on 11/2/2009 1:37:05 PM , Rating: 4
He IS agreeing with you. He just thinks it must be a joke that anyone in the government might take notice that giving up their power over the citizens might actually be in the citizens' best interest and change their policies and behavior accordingly. He's right, if anything, those in the govermnet see this as a 'problem' because people might look at Ford as an example where the government was not needed. They WANT you to depend on them.


RE: Nice Work Ford
By shaw on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
Nationalization
By bissimo on 11/2/2009 11:30:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ford, the only member of the Big Three to refuse nationalization,


Ford didn't "refuse nationalization." The government didn't force GM and Chrysler to take huge bailouts, as the author insinuates. The companies begged for it to stay afloat. Loaded information like this is not journalism, it's misinformation.




RE: Nationalization
By Ammohunt on 11/2/2009 1:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
whats the difference the government should have let the cards fall where they may and let GM and Chrysler go under. Their is a startk difference between loans to bail out and buying the majority interest in a company.


RE: Nationalization
By sinful on 11/2/2009 9:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
whats the difference the government should have let the cards fall where they may and let GM and Chrysler go under. Their is a startk difference between loans to bail out and buying the majority interest in a company.


But then you'd be complaining about Obama causing high unemployment, and going to Tea Parties because suddenly your tax burden went up when (when they shipped all those high paying jobs out of the US).


Good News for A Change...Nice
By callmeroy on 11/2/2009 12:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad to hear something positive for a change financially speaking.

Now if every other major corporation in the nation would follow suit we'd actually be out of the woods (maybe)...lol




socialism
By icanhascpu on 11/2/2009 5:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
The more I read about things like this the more I feel the waves of socialism coming from the current admin.

This administration needs to be restricted back down to guest access.




of course
By Screwballl on 11/2/2009 7:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
They are one of the few auto makers catering to all aspects of the US population...
There is the muscle car (Mustang) for the men that overcompensate for small packages, the overpowered family sedan (Taurus SHO), and the liberal/gay/feminine audience SUV (Flex), the working men (trucks), the overcompensating office workers (Volvo), the family with more than 1 kid, or soccer moms that refuse to get anything smaller (Exploder, Expedition and Windstar)... I am sure I am missing a few but this covers a majority of people.




Kudos
By eddieroolz on 11/2/2009 10:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
Kudos to Ford for persevering through tough times. It's a brand that I'd be proud to be seen driving.




Hilarious
By rudolphna on 11/2/2009 11:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
That everyone is STILL saying GM should have gone through Ch11 first thing. Well, I agree. But the end result would be the same. SOMEONE would need to pick up the tab, and take ownership of the company, and it would just as likely be the US Govt.

PS: I still don't get why the government is "the devil". AFAIK the country isn't falling apart at the seams. The recession was nobodies fault but our own (The consumer).




Very informative post
By wilyhopes on 11/3/2009 1:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
I enjoyed this article. I am looking forward to the continuation since it did not go into much depth.
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2145...




Congrats Ford
By MustangMike on 11/3/2009 10:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
I've owned 1991 Thunderbird, 2005 Focus and 2002 Mustang and I loved them all. I keep busting my friends chops on how many times we fix his Chevy S10, now he owns a F150. I am a blue oval fan always have been now I am reminded why.




Ford Stock!
By Manch on 11/3/2009 12:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
I bought 500$ worth at around 2.50, then 3.50, and then 4.25. I wish I had the money to buy when it was just over a 1$. Either way I'm not complaining!




Not surprising
By Shig on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not surprising
By Spivonious on 11/2/2009 11:07:31 AM , Rating: 2
Ford took zero bailout funds.


RE: Not surprising
By Bryf50 on 11/2/2009 11:05:23 AM , Rating: 2
When did Ford take any bailout funds?


RE: Not surprising
By Noya on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not surprising
By weskurtz0081 on 11/2/2009 11:48:41 AM , Rating: 2
So, just your expert opinion, no real facts to back any of that up? You sound more like a Ford hater than anything else.


RE: Not surprising
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/2/2009 11:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed, I like the Fusion myself and as an Acura TL driver the Fusion might be my next purchase.


RE: Not surprising
By Goty on 11/2/2009 2:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
Can I have the TL when you're done with it?

:D


RE: Not surprising
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 11:28:27 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ford took far less bailout funds than GM, promptly paid them back, and is pioneering the Sync system which is selling cars like crazy.
To clear up what people are immediately disagreeing with you about, Ford took no bailout funds.

GM was purchased by a mixture of the US Federal Government, the Government of Canada, and the United Auto Workers. GM had (has?) no viable business plan to return to profitability.

Ford was given a line of low-interest credit line the US Federal Government. Ford had and has a good business plan which indicated a likely return to profitability after the recession-induced slump. Even if there were simply a slump in worldwide car sales, Ford would have been given credit by a private bank. But banks weren't lending because of the recession.

quote:
Keep up the good work Ford. Because GM is a joke.
QFT


RE: Not surprising
By mmntech on 11/2/2009 11:40:05 AM , Rating: 4
Like the others said, Ford took no bailout.

I would definitely buy a Ford at this point. They've really improved the quality of their cars. My work had bought a bunch of Flexes over the summer and they were probably the nicest SUV/crossover I've ever driven.

We also have a bunch of post bailout Cobalts/G5s and they're always breaking down on us. The GMs are still total crap.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki