Ford swings to $2.7 billion profit

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Ford swings to $2.7 billion profit

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Ford Motor earned $2.7 billion in the second quarter, reversing from an operating loss in the prior year's quarter and easily topping estimates.

The automaker earned 68 cents a share, excluding special items. That compares to a loss of $638 million, or 21 cents a share, on the same basis in the year earlier quarter.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/23/news/companies/ford_earnings/index.htm?hpt=T2

ford did not take bailout money, yet amazingly, they are still around and are, gasp, posting profits. kind of shoots a hole in the theory that bailouts were needed. as ford exhibits quite the opposite.
 
They make good cars. I'm looking to put my wife in a 2011 Lincoln MKZ hybrid that gets 41mpg and can do over 45 on electric only. They are offering the hybrid at no extra cost.
 
Yurt said:
Ford swings to $2.7 billion profit

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Ford Motor earned $2.7 billion in the second quarter, reversing from an operating loss in the prior year's quarter and easily topping estimates.

The automaker earned 68 cents a share, excluding special items. That compares to a loss of $638 million, or 21 cents a share, on the same basis in the year earlier quarter.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/23/news/companies/ford_earnings/index.htm?hpt=T2

ford did not take bailout money, yet amazingly, they are still around and are, gasp, posting profits. kind of shoots a hole in the theory that bailouts were needed. as ford exhibits quite the opposite.
Click to expand...


Ford didn't take bailout money because Ford didn't need bailout money. How does that shoot a hole in the theory that GM and Chrysler needed money?
 
Yurt said:
Ford swings to $2.7 billion profit

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Ford Motor earned $2.7 billion in the second quarter, reversing from an operating loss in the prior year's quarter and easily topping estimates.

The automaker earned 68 cents a share, excluding special items. That compares to a loss of $638 million, or 21 cents a share, on the same basis in the year earlier quarter.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/23/news/companies/ford_earnings/index.htm?hpt=T2

ford did not take bailout money, yet amazingly, they are still around and are, gasp, posting profits. kind of shoots a hole in the theory that bailouts were needed. as ford exhibits quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
God Yurt, you can be so dishonest it's staggering.

Ford didn't take bail out money cause they didn't need too. Ford was making a profit when GM and Chrsyler flopped. Ford, unlike GM and Chrysler didn't loby the Bush administration for tax cuts on gas guzzling trucks and SUV's and then put all their eggs into the truck/SUV market. Ford made systemic changes anticipating changes in the market in regards to increased fuel prices. They didn't put all their eggs into one basket. They developed fuel efficient cars and vehicles and divested from the truck and SUV market. GM and Chrysler didn't. Instead they lobbied the Bush administration for tax breaks on trucks and SUV's and got them and then when the market tanked they went running to the government.

So lets be clear. Ford never got bail out money because #1. They were making a profit in 2008/2009. #2. They didn't ask for bail out money cause they didn't need it. #3. They were never offered bail out money.

What a partisan hack.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
God Yurt, you can be so dishonest it's staggering.

Ford didn't take bail out money cause they didn't need too. Ford was making a profit when GM and Chrsyler flopped. Ford, unlike GM and Chrysler didn't loby the Bush administration for tax cuts on gas guzzling trucks and SUV's and then put all their eggs into the truck/SUV market. Ford made systemic changes anticipating changes in the market in regards to increased fuel prices. They didn't put all their eggs into one basket. They developed fuel efficient cars and vehicles and divested from the truck and SUV market. GM and Chrysler didn't. Instead they lobbied the Bush administration for tax breaks on trucks and SUV's and got them and then when the market tanked they went running to the government.

So lets be clear. Ford never got bail out money because #1. They were making a profit in 2008/2009. #2. They didn't ask for bail out money cause they didn't need it. #3. They were never offered bail out money.

What a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

That's not completely true Hoopy. They were part of the bid for bail-out money and wanted to set up a $9 billion long-term line of credit from the government and only use it if things continued to worsen. They believed they had enough money to pull them through 2009 with tightening the belt, closing plants, and making other cuts.

They were better off than GM and Chrysler because they set up $23.5 billion worth of credit back in 2006 and used this along with restructuring and new products to get them over the hump. However, they also realized that if one or both of their domestic competitors collapsed, they would be adversely affected since they are so interconnected.

They also wanted to establish themselves as leaders in fuel economy and get busy producing direct-injection turbo charged engines, gas electric hybrid vehicles, and electric vehicles.

Looks like they've succeeded, but because they were smarter and better businesspersons than GM and Chrysler.


http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1863637,00.html

1. On how much money they're asking for:

Ford: "A 'stand-by' line of credit, in the amount of up to $9 billion. This line of credit would be a back-stop to be used only if conditions worsen further."

2. On how they've cut back:

Ford: "We have taken painful but necessary downsizing actions to match capacity to real demand, including closing 17 plants over the past five years and downsizing by 12,000 salaried employees and 45,000 hourly employees in North America in the past three years.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1863637,00.html#ixzz0uWKJsOxG



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/10/ford-bailout-money-unnece_n_149824.html

DEARBORN, Mich. — By shunning government loans, Ford Motor Co.'s top executives say they hope to buff up the automaker's image and set it apart from its cash-starved Detroit competitors, General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
That's not completely true Hoopy. They were part of the bid for bail-out money and wanted to set up a $9 billion long-term line of credit from the government and only use it if things continued to worsen. They believed they had enough money to pull them through 2009 with tightening the belt, closing plants, and making other cuts.

They were better off than GM and Chrysler because they set up $23.5 billion worth of credit back in 2006 and used this along with restructuring and new products to get them over the hump. However, they also realized that if one or both of their domestic competitors collapsed, they would be adversely affected since they are so interconnected.

They also wanted to establish themselves as leaders in fuel economy and get busy producing direct-injection turbo charged engines, gas electric hybrid vehicles, and electric vehicles.

Looks like they've succeeded, but because they were smarter and better businesspersons than GM and Chrysler.


http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1863637,00.html

1. On how much money they're asking for:

Ford: "A 'stand-by' line of credit, in the amount of up to $9 billion. This line of credit would be a back-stop to be used only if conditions worsen further."

2. On how they've cut back:

Ford: "We have taken painful but necessary downsizing actions to match capacity to real demand, including closing 17 plants over the past five years and downsizing by 12,000 salaried employees and 45,000 hourly employees in North America in the past three years.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1863637,00.html#ixzz0uWKJsOxG



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/10/ford-bailout-money-unnece_n_149824.html

DEARBORN, Mich. — By shunning government loans, Ford Motor Co.'s top executives say they hope to buff up the automaker's image and set it apart from its cash-starved Detroit competitors, General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC.
Click to expand...
Good points but again the point is, Ford didn't need the bail out money. The implication from Yurt is that GM and Chrysler would have survived with out the bail out.
 
By what standards did the GM bailouts do anything but spend more nonexistent government money? It was the restructuring under bankruptcy that allowed GM to get back on their feet, not the bailout. The bailout was supposed to prevent the need for bankruptcy, with the fear-mongering liberal claptrap about how HORRENDOUS it would be if GM went BANKRUPT!

Wasted money? You bet. It is not the job of the government to assure U.S. businesses survive their own stupid mistakes. As long as these super-conglomerates know they have the U.S. tax payer to back stop them, they'll continue to make the kinds of decisions aimed at maximizing short term profits at the expense of long term planning. They jumped full bore on the big assed SUV bandwagon with no regard to future trends. It made them good money while the market lasted, then cost us good money when it collapsed.
 
Good Luck said:
By what standards did the GM bailouts do anything but spend more nonexistent government money? It was the restructuring under bankruptcy that allowed GM to get back on their feet, not the bailout. The bailout was supposed to prevent the need for bankruptcy, with the fear-mongering liberal claptrap about how HORRENDOUS it would be if GM went BANKRUPT!
Click to expand...


There are different types of bankruptcies and different outcomes of those different types of bankruptcies. The purpose of the bailout was to avoid a (edit:complete) liquidation, which it did.

Good Luck said:
Wasted money? You bet. It is not the job of the government to assure U.S. businesses survive their own stupid mistakes. As long as these super-conglomerates know they have the U.S. tax payer to back stop them, they'll continue to make the kinds of decisions aimed at maximizing short term profits at the expense of long term planning. They jumped full bore on the big assed SUV bandwagon with no regard to future trends. It made them good money while the market lasted, then cost us good money when it collapsed.
Click to expand...


Well, that was the argument before the bailout. Whether it was worth is depends on you view of those issues and what you think the results of a GM liquidation would look like in the midst of a severe recession.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Good points but again the point is, Ford didn't need the bail out money. The implication from Yurt is that GM and Chrysler would have survived with out the bail out.
Click to expand...


I think the point is that Ford tried going it on their own and didn't solely rely on the teet of the government, but in the same breath also knew that if GM and Chrysler tanked, the fall out would surely affect them since the franchises are so intermixed. That's why they asked for what they asked for.

GM and Chrysler screwed up so bad they had no option but to lunge at the bail out. Ford in the very least did some stellar forecasting and determined it would be good to have a hefty line of credit available in the event of an emergency.

I am delighted to see they could go it on their own and rise out of the ashes. This is after all what defines the American Dream to some degree.

GM and Chrysler should be taking notes.
 
I just want to say "FUCK YOU!!" to GM and Chrysler. You inept bastards have never done shit for me, and yet get to make off with my tax dollars. I hope you all get hit by foreign-made cars and die.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Ford didn't take bailout money because Ford didn't need bailout money. How does that shoot a hole in the theory that GM and Chrysler needed money?
Click to expand...

simple....they were doing poorly as well....instead of sucking off the government teat, they buckled down and saved their own company

to say they didn't "need" the bailout money is naive...they could have easily taken the money just like gm and chrysler
 
Mott the Hoople said:
God Yurt, you can be so dishonest it's staggering.

Ford didn't take bail out money cause they didn't need too. Ford was making a profit when GM and Chrsyler flopped. Ford, unlike GM and Chrysler didn't loby the Bush administration for tax cuts on gas guzzling trucks and SUV's and then put all their eggs into the truck/SUV market. Ford made systemic changes anticipating changes in the market in regards to increased fuel prices. They didn't put all their eggs into one basket. They developed fuel efficient cars and vehicles and divested from the truck and SUV market. GM and Chrysler didn't. Instead they lobbied the Bush administration for tax breaks on trucks and SUV's and got them and then when the market tanked they went running to the government.

So lets be clear. Ford never got bail out money because #1. They were making a profit in 2008/2009. #2. They didn't ask for bail out money cause they didn't need it. #3. They were never offered bail out money.

What a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

mott...you're one the strongest partisan hacks on this board, trust me on that

what is truly hilarious is that you don't even realize you argued against yourself....why didn't gm or chrysler to those things? they did not make a profit in 2008/2009...you have the gumption to call me dishonest....??

the op says the same time last year they took over a half a BILLION dollar loss...in the 1st quarter of 2009 they took a loss of over a BILLION dollars

so much for honesty and being a hack....eh mott....:pke:

link to loss in 1st quarter

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=30194
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Good points but again the point is, Ford didn't need the bail out money. The implication from Yurt is that GM and Chrysler would have survived with out the bail out.
Click to expand...

looking back over my op, it does seem to indicate that....i should have added, that if they didn't survive, they should not be allowed to survive

i think gm and chrysler might have survived had they followed the ford route, i did not mean to imply they would, without a doubt, have survived without the bailout
 
NigelTufnel said:
There are different types of bankruptcies and different outcomes of those different types of bankruptcies. The purpose of the bailout was to avoid a (edit:complete) liquidation, which it did.




Well, that was the argument before the bailout. Whether it was worth is depends on you view of those issues and what you think the results of a GM liquidation would look like in the midst of a severe recession.
Click to expand...

fair point....however the reality is as nebulous as mott's intellect

we will never know
 
Yurt said:
simple....they were doing poorly as well....instead of sucking off the government teat, they buckled down and saved their own company

to say they didn't "need" the bailout money is naive...they could have easily taken the money just like gm and chrysler
Click to expand...
They didn't take it because they didn't need it. And they didn't need it because they did their critical restructuring back in 03-05.
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
They didn't take it because they didn't need it. And they didn't need it because they did their critical restructuring back in 03-05.
Click to expand...

who the hell doesn't need a few billion dollars? they did....that is why they borrowed it from private parties, not the government....they didn't want government socialism taking over their company

kudos to them
 
usaloyal2theend said:
I think the point is that Ford tried going it on their own and didn't solely rely on the teet of the government, but in the same breath also knew that if GM and Chrysler tanked, the fall out would surely affect them since the franchises are so intermixed. That's why they asked for what they asked for.

GM and Chrysler screwed up so bad they had no option but to lunge at the bail out. Ford in the very least did some stellar forecasting and determined it would be good to have a hefty line of credit available in the event of an emergency.

I am delighted to see they could go it on their own and rise out of the ashes. This is after all what defines the American Dream to some degree.

GM and Chrysler should be taking notes.
Click to expand...

What has killed GM is that they have been competing with themselves.

Ford had to compete with other auto makers. GM had to compete with other auto makers, but also with their own brand. A chevy truck and a GM truck were in direct competition. And, as someone else pointed out, they failed to change with the times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top