mackinaw Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 Latest, from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1525908520070715 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 Do you really think Ford will tell people how much JLR loses per quarter? They already do with PAG, it's just made look better by including Volvo's result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 (edited) Latest, from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1525908520070715 It's the same damn report Good old Reuters, still copying everyone else's reports. This is like the same BS that revolved around chat rooms a month ago. People are jumping on every snippet of news thinking it's true, there's red herrings all over the place. Edited July 15, 2007 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 It's the same damn reportGood old Reuters, still copying everyone else's reports. This is like the same BS that revolved around chat rooms a month ago. People are jumping on every snippet of news thinking it's true, there's red herrings all over the place. It says nothing beyond what we know anyway....ford is considering selling things...they are also considering many other things...its just news agencies making a story out of nothing....of course its nothing new for a certain person to run with something like this as if its the holy grail of truth and certainty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 People are jumping on every snippet of news thinking it's true, there's red herrings all over the place. slow news day.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 It's the same damn report. Good old Reuters, still copying everyone else's reports. This is like the same BS that revolved around chat rooms a month ago. The man difference here, as stated in the Financial Times report, is that Ford apparently decided to "sell" Volvo sometime in the past two weeks. The earlier BMW-will-buy-Volvo rumors date back to late May. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 LINK-Detroit News Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 MSNBC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TStag Posted July 15, 2007 Author Share Posted July 15, 2007 Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/15/ap3915092.html I hope Ford breakout the PAG results separatley too. I think it would be beneficial to both Land Rover and Ford if they did. Land Rover are dropping big hint's in the UK press that they are now making big profits but they aren't allowed to say what they are. If they did then it would be interesting to see how they compare to Volvo who saw an 11% sales drop last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 All these rumors don't help sell cars! Who wants to buy a brand whose future is in question? But anyway, this will be a test to see how dumb Ford REALLY is! If they do sell Volvo, I'm all done with them. I've always wanted to them to flourish, but Ford is just becoming an emasculated and emaciated SHELL of a company. I'm beginning to lose any respect I had for them. Sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 (edited) Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/15/ap3915092.html I hope Ford breakout the PAG results separatley too. I think it would be beneficial to both Land Rover and Ford if they did. Land Rover are dropping big hint's in the UK press that they are now making big profits but they aren't allowed to say what they are. If they did then it would be interesting to see how they compare to Volvo who saw an 11% sales drop last year. That Forbes story is a repeat of the others. If Land Rover was the darling you make out, it would have been valued much higher. Most of the profit from Q1 2007 was attributed to Volvo, not Land Rover http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...368/1148/AUTO01DEARBORN -- Ford Motor Co. would not confirm a British newspaper report today that the U.S. automaker had decided to sell its Swedish carmaker Volvo, but said it was not currently in talks with a potential buyer. "We're not in discussions with any company in relation to selling Volvo Car Corp.," said John Gardiner, a London-based spokesman for Ford. The Sunday Times, citing unnamed sources in London, said Ford arrived at a decision two weeks ago to sell Volvo. The New York Times, in a story posted today on its Web site, said Ford's decision to talk to interested bidders comes after the company's board met last week. The newspaper cited people whom it didn't name who it said had knowledge of the situation. Ford spokesman Tom Hoyt said today the company wasn't commenting on speculation about Volvo's future. He confirmed that Ford's board met last week, but said he knew of no decision. All the sources for the sell rumor are unnamed, it's basically unsubstantiated rumors. If Ford were going to sell Volvo, they would say so. They were specific in saying Jaguar and Land Rover are up for sale but not Volvo. Edited July 15, 2007 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_the_limey Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Not a f***ing chance! I do not know where these so called analysts get their numbers from, most likely plucked out of their arse. There is no way Volvo made a profit of $500 million in 2006. It may make that number this year, but in 2006 they had stagnant sales from the year before, slowing sales of their cash cow the XC90, and had the runout and then changeover of the S80 and latterly the V70 models. Land Rover's boss (Phil Popham) has been on record earlier this month saying "Land Rover is firmly in the black". Now read into that what you will but as far as the rumours I've heard this has actually been since the release of the Range Rover Sport in 2005, which together with the Range Rover is rumoured to be making Porsche levels of markup. This really shouldn't be surprising because it's about when the Range Rover ditched the horrifically expensive BMW V8 gas engines (but were still being bent-over the table for the I6 diesel until the TDV8 came out). Also the T5 platform that spawns both the Disco/LR3 and the Range Rover Sport, it's not to hard to see the price difference between the two variants. Also at that end of the market how many go for the bargain-basement model? F-all, they always get loaded up with the Sat-Nav, rear seat TV's, active-roll control feature and e-diff, extra large alloy wheels, and more latterly perhaps even the TDV8 engine (which they can't make enough of) or the supercharged Jag V8. Thing is no one can actually say what either companies are making because Ford doesn't say so. And that goes as much for Volvo as it does for Land Rover. And if it was that easy to get the profit and loss numbers out of Companies House, wouldn't people have done so by now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Not a f***ing chance! I do not know where these so called analysts get their numbers from, most likely plucked out of their arse. There is no way Volvo made a profit of $500 million in 2006. It may make that number this year, but in 2006 they had stagnant sales from the year before, slowing sales of their cash cow the XC90, and had the runout and then changeover of the S80 and latterly the V70 models. Well I do know Volvo sold 400,000 cars last year, if they had a nett profit on each of $1250 then there's your $500 million. I do know Jaguar and Land Rover had some savage warranty claims last year, maybe that ate into profits. It would be lovely to blame Jaguar for the lot but the other culprit has been exposed by Merrill Lynch. Combined value of Jaguar and Land Rover starts at $1.5 Billion while Volvo's perceved value is much greater at $6 to 8 Billion. Also, Land Rover skites about sales and then go very quiet about massive product development costs Ford are expected to rubber stamp Above all of this, will PAG post another profit for Q2 2007? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Almost sounds to me like Ford wants to sell everything that makes a profit so it can declare bankruptcies and then break contract with the UAW. :reading: It's a mix of Enron and Delphi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Well straight from The Horses mouth Ford denies it's in talks to sell volvo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 (edited) Almost sounds to me like Ford wants to sell everything that makes a profit so it can declare bankruptcies and then break contract with the UAW. :reading: It's a mix of Enron and Delphi. being that this is only a rumor...the rest of what we've heard makes me think that ford is trying to drop the dead weight while enusuring that the core of the company survives....that being Ford and above all Ford of NA Edited July 16, 2007 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Well straight from The Horses mouth Ford denies it's in talks to sell volvo All that says is that "To my knowledge, we are not in negotiations with anyone about the future of Volvo,". No where did they say "we are not going to sell Volvo" Of course they are not going to be in negotiations until they officialy announce that it is for sale. These exact same things were said by Ford spokes persons befor the official announcement of the AM sale. So there is nothing confirming it or denying it. If Ford was flat against the sale of Volvo it they would have said as much. Most likely What that means is they are considering the sale of Volvo and looking at the pros and cons and are still exploring all options. Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Ford would be foolish to sell off PAG at bargain basement prices. If it's seriously shopping PAG, it should wait for better times when selling price would go up significantly. Selling PAG now at such low prices makes Ford look desperate IMO. Ford should be trying to assure investors and customers, not scaring them with bargain basement sales of valued assets. If the new XF is success next year, then maybe Ford could sell Jaguar at nice price if it needs the money. To do it now is foolish and just sends the wrong message. I would think that every day that goes by without sale means less chance that Ford will sell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Three weeks ago, Mark Fields said Volvo is too integrated into Ford for it to be sold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Three weeks ago, Mark Fields said Volvo is too integrated into Ford for it to be sold. Yes...I think Ford would have to get a really good price to sell Volvo....and if they did....well thats god...if not...thats good too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 (edited) I don't understand Ford pledging Volvo only to sell it 7 months later. Maybe Volvo is used as a sweetener to sell Jaguar and Land Rover Until Ford say something, it's all paper talk. Until Ford get someone interested, it's less than news worthy. Edited July 16, 2007 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Ford said it was all a rumour started by T-Stag http://www.autoblog.com/2007/07/16/london-...ays-we-never-s/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 (edited) All that says is that "To my knowledge, we are not in negotiations with anyone about the future of Volvo,". No where did they say "we are not going to sell Volvo" Of course they are not going to be in negotiations until they officialy announce that it is for sale. These exact same things were said by Ford spokes persons befor the official announcement of the AM sale. So there is nothing confirming it or denying it. If Ford was flat against the sale of Volvo it they would have said as much. Most likely What that means is they are considering the sale of Volvo and looking at the pros and cons and are still exploring all options. Matthew Agreed... "To my knowledge, we are not in negotiations with anyone about the future of Volvo," Translation: I'm playing really dumb. Ford spokesman Tom Hoyt said in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday that the company wasn't commenting on speculation about Volvo's future. But later in the day, he issued a denial that the automaker was in talks to sell the unit. Translation: We are "talking" with a buyer yet...but we have a business plan all ready for it. The lack of a clear defined "No" says alot. Edited July 16, 2007 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Uh ya ok. It was after the purchase of Volvo that Mercury was chopped from Canada. Right after a record setting sales year. Up until the purchase of Volvo Mercury had consistently been seeing increasing sales numbers. Mercury has always had a higher percentage of Ford total sales here then in the U.S. Mercury at the time of the purchase of Volvo was priced right bang in same dollar range. And Nasser quickly cut it from Canada. Since the Purchase of Volvo Mercury has been completely ignored until just recently. Mercury has been re-badged Fords in one form or anouther since it's inception and some of it's best sales years (in the late 70's for example) is when the cars were literally nothing more than re-badges, so that excuse does not fly. Mercury can fill the void left by Volvo in NA as the purchasers of both are not that far removed from each other. Mercury has almost always had higher initial quality anyway. Mercury does need to differentiate it's product more no question. But with the sale of Volvo it may encourage Ford to put some effort in to it, to better secure that segment. Matthew Mercury's neglect was due in part to the mismanagement of the brand, something that had absolutely nothing to do with the purchase of Volvo. It's rather obvious that Ford had money to throw around, especially when you consider the fact that LR was acquired in 2000. The conspiracy theory that Volvo reason behind the downfall of Mercury is ludacrious at best. Pushing rebadged Ford's is not an excuse, it is a fact. Whatever happened in the 70s was just that, in the 70s. The automotive marketplace was an entirely different arena. The Japanese didn't have a foothold nor was their such a thing as the emerging Korean brands. I don't quite understand why people look back to the past and liken it to today automotive market. And sure Mercury could fill the void of Volvo, after establishing itself over a long period of time that the safety, comfort and quality is there. Regardless as to how good a product is, it takes time to establish some sort of brand perception in the eyes of your everday consumer. This does not happen over night. As far as inital quality is concerned, well I've always found that sort of amusing because for the most part Mercurys are nothing more than Fords with a waterfall grille, aluminum trim and two-tone seats. The Milan roles down the same assembly line as does the Fusion...........so I fail to see how a Mercury is much better off than a Ford counterpart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 so I fail to see how a Mercury is much better off than a Ford counterpart. Better warranty and dealer service? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.