Ford Reports Nearly $9B Loss

Second Quarter Earnings Fall Short Of Expectations; Says U.S. Recovery Won't Occur Until 2010

(AP)  Ford Motor Co. said Thursday it lost $8.67 billion in the second quarter largely because of a reduction in the value of assets.

The company also announced that it will bring six European small car models to North America by the end of 2012 as it deals with a market shift from trucks to cars brought on by high gasoline prices. The company also will retool two more North American truck and sport utility vehicle plants to build small, fuel-efficient vehicles.

The second-quarter loss was $3.88 per share, compared with net profit of $750 million, or 31 cents per share, in the same quarter a year ago.

The loss includes $8.03 billion worth of write-offs because of a decline in value of North American assets and Ford Motor Credit Co.'s lease portfolio. Even excluding those special items, Ford lost 62 cents per share, worse than Wall Street expected. Twelve analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial, on average, expected a 27 cent loss per share.

Ford's second-quarter revenue was $38.6 billion, down $5.6 billion from the year-ago period. Analysts expected $34.6 billion.

Ford said it will retool the Michigan Truck plant in suburban Detroit, shifting its products from large SUVs to make global vehicles off the European Focus platform by 2010.

The SUVs made at Michigan Truck - the Lincoln Navigator and Ford Expedition - will be shifted to the Kentucky Truck plant in Louisville.

The company also will retool the Louisville Assembly Plant, which now builds the Ford Explorer midsize SUV, to produce vehicles on the European Focus frame, starting in 2011.

Ford also said its Twin Cities Assembly Plant in St. Paul, Minn., will continue producing the Ranger small pickup through 2011. The plant was scheduled to close next year.

Ford also said in a statement that it does not expect a U.S. economic recovery to start until early 2010.

The company said its write-offs included $5.3 billion in North America and $2.1 billion in write-downs for Ford Credit's truck-heavy lease portfolio. Chief Financial Officer Don Leclair said most of the write-down was triggered by the drop in value of the company's truck and SUV inventory and lease residuals.

Ford reported a pretax loss of $1.3 billion in North America because of the deteriorating U.S. market and the shift away from trucks. U.S. sales overall were down 10 percent in the first half of the year, with Ford's sales down 14 percent.

The company, though, continued to be profitable overseas, posting a $582 million profit in Europe and $388 million in South America. The company also made $50 million at its Asia-Pacific-Africa division.

"The second half will continue to be challenging, but we have absolutely the right plan to respond to the changing business environment and begin to grow again for the long term," President and CEO Alan Mulally said in a statement.

[Gary Kempf]

Ford''s economic lessons are no where near over yet.

[incog-nito]

The American taxpayer better get ready to open their wallet and once again bail out the corporate giants. The "free market" sounds great, until big business gets into trouble, then suddenly they turn socialist real fast.

[wardoglrs]

Alan we have been down this road before. So dont blame anyone but yourself

[photogeezer]

OK, let "the market" decide. This company can''t compete, can''t build a decent car, can''t make an automatic transmission and power windows that work. I am a former Ford owner. Let ''em slide. Let the workers pay for the incompetence of the corporate MBA''s minding the shop. Or we can do what Reagan did and bail out the most unproductive of the Big 3 with the worst quality control record, Chrysler. We are still stuck with them. I owned a Dodge; it was junk.

Ford can save themselves by being productive. Insist on better mechanicals, even if you have to buy the engines from Toyota and the transmissions from Japan Automatic Transmission (JATCO. JAPCO?). Tear down a Prius and a Civic and see what the Japanese did right. Do likewise. Build me a small station wagon that gets 40 on the highway. Do good engineering and quality control. I don''t have time to hang out in repair shops; I have to work.

[midvale3]

The Unions are only a part of the problem that could have been dealt with, but the management did not want to upset Wall Street so excessive benefits like job banking was given. The quality, design, MPG, supplier''s etc are all management decisions, so the blame is on the upper management and board of directors for not doing their jobs, not the person installing bumpers on the line.

[darnedsocks]

WELL, SURPRISE, SURPRISE....THIS IS THE WHAT THE 2ND OR 3RD YEAR IN A ROW THEY HAD TO REPORT A HUGE-A$$ LOSS? WELL, MAYBE THEY SHOULD FIGURE OUT THAT THEIR CARS ARE BORING! EXCEPT FOR THE MUSTANG!

[darnedsocks]

THE ONLY GREEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAT THING ABOUT A FORD, IS THAT THEY ARE THE CAR YOU WANT TO BE IN IF YOU GET REAR-ENDED BY ANOTHER VEHICLE! THEIR BUMBER SYSTEMS WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE & LIMBS EVERY TIME!

[erniepf]

Gee, I hope those lucky heads of Ford get massive bonuses.

[Gary Kempf]

they share some of the blame but most of it goes to the management iditos who chose over and over again to not keep up on quality or technology. At this point they''''ve proven that they can never learn from their mistakes. Take the garbage out!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by diatreme at 11:38 AM : Jul 24, 2008

Excellent point, management and chiefs are also the biggest drain on expenditures with salaries and compensation packages.

[aeasus]

Ford reacted to the fuel crunch during the Carter administration. There is no denying they know better. So if they want to keep business as usual,limit thier loyal customers to costly choices,belittle the importance of thier employees,and continue to overpay executives that lack competency, then Ford is getting what they deserve.
Offering real "responsible" choices to help the world with enviromental and fossil fuel concerns is what I would expect from an American Icon.
After 35+ years buying American cars I find myself having to choose between buying American and buying responsibly.

[incog-nito]

THE ONLY GREEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAT THING ABOUT A FORD, IS THAT THEY ARE THE CAR YOU WANT TO BE IN IF YOU GET REAR-ENDED BY ANOTHER VEHICLE! THEIR BUMBER SYSTEMS WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE & LIMBS EVERY TIME!

Posted by darnedsocks at 11:49 AM : Jul 24, 2008

You mean like the exploding fuel tanks of the Ford Pinto and Crown Vic?

[mandalay-bay]

Finally these gas prices will drag you greedy b*astards out of your gas guzzling, road hogging SUV''s and trucks. Oh man, it''s the one silver lining about these high gas prices...

[txgrouch2006]

First GM, now Ford. You can''t compete with foreign makers.

Why? Because our country CARES ABOUT THE WORKERS and CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, and we have LAWS to protect both. OUR FOREIGN COMPETITORS DON''T.

The result - a mass exodus of manufacturing jobs to other countries that DON''T CARE. All in pursuit of the almighty buck - IT''S CHEAPER.

And in the end, who is applying the pressure to favor cheaper prices over better protections? THE CONSUMER! And goodness forbid any politician should say the P-word - PROTECTIONISM! We would need trade barriers to protect our protections. But that would raise prices...

There''s no such thing as a viable service economy unless you can develop a trade surplus on services to foreign economies. Stop fantasizing about the service economy. Without manufacturing, we''re doomed.

[darnedsocks]

WHAT HAPPENED TO CORPORATE AMERICA? DON''T THEY PLAN AHEAD BY FIVE YEARS? I REMEMBER FIVE YEARS AGO, THE OIL INDUSTRY WAS STARTING THEIR MARKETING & SOCIAL ENGINEERING CAMPAIGN VIA NPR TO RAISE THE PRICE OF GAS AT THE PUMP TO $5 GALLON. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THE CEOS OF THESE CORPORATIONS REALLY ARE SO USED TO "PLAYING A ROLE" INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY "THINKING AHEAD" AND STAYING ON TOP OF TRENDS AND PLANNING 5,10, 20, 30 YEARS INTO THE FUTURE. PASSEL OF IDIOTS.

[aeasus]

The Model U uses a 2.3-liter, I-4 engine, the same as the Ford Ranger of that year, only modified to run on hydrogen gas. The engine is supercharged and super-cooled and rated at 151 hp. The Ford Model U is able to achieve gas mileage of 45 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) and has a range of 300 miles.

This was 5 years ago,*** happened?

The Ford Ranger EV (Electric Vehicle) is a battery electric vehicle produced by Ford Motor Company. It was produced starting in the 1998 model year through 2002 and is no longer in production. It is built upon a light truck chassis used in the Ford Ranger.

6 years ago...***?

[aeasus]

The Model U uses a 2.3-liter, I-4 engine, the same as the Ford Ranger of that year, only modified to run on hydrogen gas. The engine is supercharged and super-cooled and rated at 151 hp. The Ford Model U is able to achieve gas mileage of 45 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) and has a range of 300 miles.

This was 5 years ago,*** happened?

The Ford Ranger EV (Electric Vehicle) is a battery electric vehicle produced by Ford Motor Company. It was produced starting in the 1998 model year through 2002 and is no longer in production. It is built upon a light truck chassis used in the Ford Ranger.

6 years ago...***?

[aeasus]

The Model U uses a 2.3-liter, I-4 engine, the same as the Ford Ranger of that year, only modified to run on hydrogen gas. The engine is supercharged and super-cooled and rated at 151 hp. The Ford Model U is able to achieve gas mileage of 45 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) and has a range of 300 miles.

This was 5 years ago,*** happened?

The Ford Ranger EV (Electric Vehicle) is a battery electric vehicle produced by Ford Motor Company. It was produced starting in the 1998 model year through 2002 and is no longer in production. It is built upon a light truck chassis used in the Ford Ranger.

6 years ago...***?

[aeasus]

The Model U uses a 2.3-liter, I-4 engine, the same as the Ford Ranger of that year, only modified to run on hydrogen gas. The engine is supercharged and super-cooled and rated at 151 hp. The Ford Model U is able to achieve gas mileage of 45 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) and has a range of 300 miles.

This was 5 years ago,*** happened?

The Ford Ranger EV (Electric Vehicle) is a battery electric vehicle produced by Ford Motor Company. It was produced starting in the 1998 model year through 2002 and is no longer in production. It is built upon a light truck chassis used in the Ford Ranger.

6 years ago...***?

[aeasus]

The Model U uses a 2.3-liter, I-4 engine, the same as the Ford Ranger of that year, only modified to run on hydrogen gas. The engine is supercharged and super-cooled and rated at 151 hp. The Ford Model U is able to achieve gas mileage of 45 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) and has a range of 300 miles.

This was 5 years ago,*** happened?

The Ford Ranger EV (Electric Vehicle) is a battery electric vehicle produced by Ford Motor Company. It was produced starting in the 1998 model year through 2002 and is no longer in production. It is built upon a light truck chassis used in the Ford Ranger.

6 years ago...***?

[aeasus]

The Model U uses a 2.3-liter, I-4 engine, the same as the Ford Ranger of that year, only modified to run on hydrogen gas. The engine is supercharged and super-cooled and rated at 151 hp. The Ford Model U is able to achieve gas mileage of 45 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) and has a range of 300 miles.

This was 5 years ago,*** happened?

The Ford Ranger EV (Electric Vehicle) is a battery electric vehicle produced by Ford Motor Company. It was produced starting in the 1998 model year through 2002 and is no longer in production. It is built upon a light truck chassis used in the Ford Ranger.

6 years ago...***?

[aeasus]

The Model U uses a 2.3-liter, I-4 engine, the same as the Ford Ranger of that year, only modified to run on hydrogen gas. The engine is supercharged and super-cooled and rated at 151 hp. The Ford Model U is able to achieve gas mileage of 45 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) and has a range of 300 miles.

This was 5 years ago,*** happened?

The Ford Ranger EV (Electric Vehicle) is a battery electric vehicle produced by Ford Motor Company. It was produced starting in the 1998 model year through 2002 and is no longer in production. It is built upon a light truck chassis used in the Ford Ranger.

6 years ago...***?

[aeasus]

The Model U uses a 2.3-liter, I-4 engine, the same as the Ford Ranger of that year, only modified to run on hydrogen gas. The engine is supercharged and super-cooled and rated at 151 hp. The Ford Model U is able to achieve gas mileage of 45 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) and has a range of 300 miles.

This was 5 years ago,*** happened?

The Ford Ranger EV (Electric Vehicle) is a battery electric vehicle produced by Ford Motor Company. It was produced starting in the 1998 model year through 2002 and is no longer in production. It is built upon a light truck chassis used in the Ford Ranger.

6 years ago...***?

[aeasus]

Holy multi-post batman!!.... server lag and completely unintentional...sorry

[six-six-seis]

The Board of directors should hang their heads low as they fire themselves, This is lack of leadership and
thinking of the immediate gains with total disreguard for the worker.
In other countries, the whole board of directors
would have resigned in shame,

[txgrouch2006]

Thanks to certain individuals spamming the board with repeated posts, I''ll re-post mine so it isn''t buried under all the spam. On the Ford payroll, spammers?

First GM, now Ford. You can''''t compete with foreign makers.

Why? Because our country CARES ABOUT THE WORKERS and CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, and we have LAWS to protect both. OUR FOREIGN COMPETITORS DON''''T.

The result - a mass exodus of manufacturing jobs to other countries that DON''''T CARE. All in pursuit of the almighty buck - IT''''S CHEAPER.

And in the end, who is applying the pressure to favor cheaper prices over better protections? THE CONSUMER! And goodness forbid any politician should say the P-word - PROTECTIONISM! We would need trade barriers to protect our protections. But that would raise prices...

There''''s no such thing as a viable service economy unless you can develop a trade surplus on services to foreign economies. Stop fantasizing about the service economy. Without manufacturing, we''''re doomed.

[txgrouch2006]

aeasus wrote
Holy multi-post batman!!.... server lag and completely unintentional...sorry
-----------------
Apology accepted. And good information in you post, too.

Now let''s get back to the story...

[txgrouch2006]

darnedsocks wrote
SOCIAL ENGINEERING CAMPAIGN VIA NPR TO RAISE THE PRICE OF GAS AT THE PUMP TO $5 GALLON...
---------------
LOL! In spite of your multiple posts, it''s probably true.

[six-six-seis]

First GM, now Ford. You can''''''''t compete with foreign makers.

Why? Because our country CARES ABOUT THE WORKERS and CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, and we have LAWS to protect both. OUR FOREIGN COMPETITORS DON''''''''T...

thats totally Irrational, unless of Course the Japanese auto manufacturers are using Chinese labor.

you just raised an interesting point though,
how much of my Murano actually came from Japan......

[txgrouch2006]

zoe2006 wrote
if you buy foreign goods (made in China) or shop at Walmart you are part of the problem.
----------------
That''s it, start turning on each other. Just like they want us to.

How do YOU feel about protectionism? If you''re against it, YOU''RE THE PROBLEM.

[txgrouch2006]

six-six-seis wrote
unless of Course the Japanese auto manufacturers are using Chinese labor.
---------------
I was talking about Japan, not China. Although BOTH countries lack workplace safety standards and environmental protections.

China is just walking the trail that was blazed by the Japanese. But not many of us are driving Chinese-made cars - yet...

[six-six-seis]

I think though the real problem with Ford and American Brands in General, is their lack of Quality and Lack of Design Vision.

[aeasus]

The Bush Administration and their greedy oil friends killed the electric car, as did the previous ones designed by Chrysler, see "Who Killed the Electric Car."

Posted by zoe2006 at 12:56 PM : Jul 24, 2008
-----------
I''ve seen it. Very informative. White house sues Cali over car manufacturer state laws. Thank you (,,|,)Bush and Cheney

Still no excuse for automakers. They have all built prototypes. They have the engineering/blueprints. And now they spew excuses. When did sitting on your butt become a valid excuse?

[txgrouch2006]

zoe2006 wrote
The Bush Administration and their greedy oil friends killed the electric car, as did the previous ones designed by Chrysler, see "Who Killed the Electric Car."
-------------------
While you''re busy with Bush-bashing, ask yourself these questions:

How many civilians were driving Hummers during the Clinton years?
How many "monster SUV''s" were on the road during the Clinton years?
How many alternative energy sources were developed during the Clinton years?
How much did our oil imports increase during the Clinton years?

What did Clinton do to prevent sliding back into foreign oil dependency and the inevitable results WE ARE SEEING TODAY???

[txgrouch2006]

zoe2006 retorted
You have a problem with US goods and products produced in the US?
------------
So, then some PROTECTIONSIM wouldn''t hurt you if you''re buying USA anyway.

Answer my question. How do you feel about protectionism?

[aeasus]

txgrouch2006,

Our foriegn oil thirst grew during the Reagan years. Every president since has been an accessory to that.

[txgrouch2006]

aeasus wrote
Our foriegn oil thirst grew during the Reagan years
--------------------------
BWAHAHAHA! You''re still blaming things on REAGAN???

Do you realize that was TWENTY EIGHT YEARS AGO??? That would be like Carter blaming his problems on EISENHOWER...!!! LOL!

[txgrouch2006]

ZOE2006, ANSWER MY QUESTIONS OR THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION

How many civilians were driving Hummers during the Clinton years?
How many "monster SUV''''''''s" were on the road during the Clinton years?
How many alternative energy sources were developed during the Clinton years?
How much did our oil imports increase during the Clinton years?

[aeasus]

BWAHA
HAHA! You''''re still blaming things on REAGAN???
-------------
The blame for a present problem has to go to those presently in charge when nothing is being done!

Simple

[fstop100]

the unions also helped destroy America''s economy.

[txgrouch2006]

aesus wrote
The blame for a present problem has to go to those presently in charge when nothing is being done!
-----------------
Reagan hasn''t been in charge for TWENTY YEARS.

Do you KNOW who the President is? Have you had a cognitive check recently? Are you senile?

[incog-nito]

"The company also announced that it will bring six European small car models to North America by the end of 2012..."

Boy, these guys sure react fast to the market, don''t they? And GM''s much ballyhooed Chevy Volt? Cost: $30 to $40K. Yeah, it will save you a lot of money, but only if you keep it for 15 years.

No wonder Detroit is in big trouble.

[aeasus]

txgrouch2006,

You are the one blaming previous presidents. I just pointed out it was a shared blame.

Why are you twisting comments?

[dinkydog1]

Does anyone rember the last republican congress and Bush weakining fleet milage standards saying new designs would cost jobs? ........

[incog-nito]

To follow up: In contrast, Toyota and Honda have announced they will make available low cost, fuel-efficient models including hybrids as early as NEXT YEAR. Checkmate for Detroit.

[aeasus]

The "Tata" is coming late next year also.

[sociald63]

this is why i drive an audi, honda, toyota & vw since my days in college...

[aggiekat2004]

"Reduction in assets?"

Great MBA-speak for "WE MAKE CRUMMY CARS THAT ARE GAS GUZZLERS AND WE DESERVE TO TAKE A HIT FOR IT!"

[aggiekat2004]

I had a Ford F150 and it was a decent car, and I also had a Taurus. Aside from a recurring recall problem with the Taurus on liguid-filled motor mounts breaking, I guess they were decent cars.

I was the only person in the family to buy an American-branded car. Otherwise, we ONLY buy Toyota, Mazda, Honda, or I now have a Nissan. We''ve had minimal problems with these Japanese-branded cars.

Ford has been IRRESPONSIBLE in offering large gas- and diesel-guzzling trucks for so long. Sure, they''re needed in construction and other labor-intensive fields, but I can tell you that several construction companies I know have been transitioning to Toyota Tacomas, and appreciate the reliability.

I''m sure that Ford is tied in with the oil companies...they probably play golf together, take hunting and fishing trips, and laugh at how they''re able to sell products that benefit each other.

The party''s over, guys!

[kmitc999]

One of the issues from my point of view is that the American car companies do not try hard enough to sell their cars. Case in point: This year we bought 2 cars, spent a combined 98k. Both times we went to the car dealers check in hand ready to buy a car. Now both of us being 30, we are in what should be the target demo for the american car companies. They should be wanting to sell us a car to make sure that we grow with the brand.

[aeasus]

The party''''s over, guys!

Posted by aggiekat2004 at 01:55 PM : Jul 24, 2008
--------------
I doubt "big oil" will go quietly into the night. They have played this game before,and won.