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

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:08:09 GMT, "Whitelightning"
> wrote:

>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 asses off at people like this
every day, and take advantage of them in all their scab plants now in
the US every day.

Grover C. McCoury III" > wrote in message ...
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.

Jeff wrote:
> "ZombyWoof" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 25 Oct 2006 09:00:18 -0700, "Nemisis" > wrote
> > something wonderfully witty:
> >
> >>
> >>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
> >>
>
> > 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

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

Price stickers are startingpoint for negotiations

A used car may have a lot of extras installed

Nemisis wrote:

> 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

DeserTBoB wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:02:25 GMT, "Whitelightning"
> > wrote:
>
> >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

--
Regards,

Ed White
http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/
"Whitelightning" > wrote in message
news:5zV%g.3592$GJ.1102@trnddc07...

> 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

"Nemisis" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> 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

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

"ZombyWoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:20:24 GMT, "Jeff" > wrote
> something wonderfully witty:
>
>>
>>"ZombyWoof" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On 25 Oct 2006 09:00:18 -0700, "Nemisis" > wrote
>>> something wonderfully witty:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>SnoMan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>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
>>
> 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.

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

"Nemisis" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Jeff wrote:
>> "ZombyWoof" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 25 Oct 2006 09:00:18 -0700, "Nemisis" > wrote
>> > something wonderfully witty:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>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
>> >>
>>
>> > 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
>
> 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.

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
>

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:45411305@kcnews01...
>
> 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, 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