silvrsvt Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 In our plant "State of the Company" meetings, a recording of Joel Hindricks(sp?) giving an address at Wayne Assembly stated that in 2011 Ford will have a debt load of $35 Billion dollars because of outstanding loans, and the first $7 Billion in profit each year will have to go to paying off debt. In comparison, GM will only have $17 Billion in debt due to filing bankruptcy. Worse case scenario of course Plus if GM isn't making any money by then...does it really even matter? They still have a long way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Will Ford declare bankruptcy and wipe out it's debt load like GM and Chrysler did? If the answer to that question is "yes", I will vote yes for the same concessions. So what you're saying is that if Ford needed less money to stay afloat, you'd be willing to make more concessions? I think you've got things backwards... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) In our plant "State of the Company" meetings, a recording of Joel Hindricks(sp?) giving an address at Wayne Assembly stated that in 2011 Ford will have a debt load of $35 Billion dollars because of outstanding loans, and the first $7 Billion in profit each year will have to go to paying off debt. In comparison, GM will only have $17 Billion in debt due to filing bankruptcy. GM is also owned by the U.S. government to the tune of $50 billion, and must some day buy out that ownership or remain a ward of the state. Why would that be preferable to Ford's ability to pay off its debts (presuming it can)? Edited October 20, 2009 by Harley Lover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 1. If this is true, then good for Ford. 2. It is just the opinion of one analysis. All other analysis disagree with it. 3. Ford has a lot of new European products coming soon. They will require and lot of retooling in the US and this will eat a lot of profit. 4. The new European products will be more costly. Ford may have to sell them at a loss until they prove their quality and get volume of their production up. 5. I am sure Ford is making huge profit form the new Taurus. This is temporary. Demand will drop for such an expensive vehicle will drop once all the rich people have one. 6. Ford better make a huge profit. They have a lot of debt to pay back. A problem that GM does not have. 7. GM has cut a lot of cost, has no debt and has a lot of new products coming out. Any advantage that Ford has now, may only be temporary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 One of the results of the GM and Chrysler restructurings was to cut production to match demand which also resulted in significant reductions in force. Perhaps Sodbuster would rather not have any job at all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoss96racing Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 How many hourly workers does Ford have left ? like 40K? and there is roughly 5 million americans out of work right now (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) I think Ford could live without the UAW.... Henry Ford did it with $5 a day, i'm sure we could find the modern equivlent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 5. I am sure Ford is making huge profit form the new Taurus. This is temporary. Demand will drop for such an expensive vehicle will drop once all the rich people have one. The Taurus pricing starts BELOW what the average new vehicle costs. Plenty of people besides the "rich" will be looking at them. I plan to. I'm definitely not "rich". 6. Ford better make a huge profit. They have a lot of debt to pay back. A problem that GM does not have. 7. GM has cut a lot of cost, has no debt and has a lot of new products coming out. Any advantage that Ford has now, may only be temporary. GM still has $17B in debt, which they will need to service with revenue levels that are predicted to drop below those of Ford. GM is hardly "out of the woods" as far as their debt is concerned just because they declared bankruptcy. And what new products do they have coming out that will make a huge revenue impact? Camaro? Nope. SRX? Nope. Terrain? Nope. Regal? Nope. The biggest new product they have launching is the Equinox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weiweishen Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 LINK The analysts, on average, expect a loss of 16 cents per share, according to a surveyed by Thomson Reuters. But Barclays Capital analyst expects that Ford third-quarter results will beat Wall Street predictions. so they upgraded Ford Motor Co. to "Equal Weight" from "Underweight," citing http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/ar...87&Symbol=F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 In our plant "State of the Company" meetings, a recording of Joel Hindricks(sp?) giving an address at Wayne Assembly stated that in 2011 Ford will have a debt load of $35 Billion dollars because of outstanding loans, and the first $7 Billion in profit each year will have to go to paying off debt. In comparison, GM will only have $17 Billion in debt due to filing bankruptcy. Im hearing that ford plans on another debt swap after Q3 is reported...so say $30b at most providing no more debt swaps happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 3. Ford has a lot of new European products coming soon. They will require and lot of retooling in the US and this will eat a lot of profit. The section I highlighted is a misunderstanding of how accounting works. The investment in retooling will be amortized over several years, and will not have a huge immediate impact on profits. The investment will affect cash flow, which is part of the reason that Mullaly went out and got the loans when he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 The Taurus pricing starts BELOW what the average new vehicle costs. Plenty of people besides the "rich" will be looking at them. I plan to. I'm definitely not "rich". GM still has $17B in debt, which they will need to service with revenue levels that are predicted to drop below those of Ford. GM is hardly "out of the woods" as far as their debt is concerned just because they declared bankruptcy. And what new products do they have coming out that will make a huge revenue impact? Camaro? Nope. SRX? Nope. Terrain? Nope. Regal? Nope. The biggest new product they have launching is the Equinox. come on Nick...we all know the new Messiah is coming, and his name is "Volt"..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
move4ward Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) Even if they do make a tiny profit, it's mostly because of inflated sales from Cash for Clunkers for July and August. Sales are already slipping back to pre-Cash For Clunkers level. Cash for Clunkers also allowed them to reduce incentives on their vehicles, so they could make more profit. Edited October 21, 2009 by move4ward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 come on Nick...we all know the new Messiah is coming, and his name is "Volt"..... Ha the 40K compact car! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The Taurus pricing starts BELOW what the average new vehicle costs. Plenty of people besides the "rich" will be looking at them. I plan to. I'm definitely not "rich". ... That must be because Fords profit is not from selling Tauri at the starting price. The profit is from selling fully loaded SHO's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 That must be because Fords profit is not from selling Tauri at the starting price. The profit is from selling fully loaded SHO's. Any kind of proof whatsoever? Anything to prove that the Taurus is only profitable at the SHO level? Anything? Thought so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
move4ward Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The Taurus SHO wasn't even in most dealerships in the 3rd quarter. A fully loaded SHO would have been even more rare. The dealerships that did get fully loaded SHO would have gotten only 1 or 2 allocated to them, because of limited supplies. It would be the rare dealer to have several fully loaded SHO's for sale in the 3rd quarter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atvman Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 That must be because Fords profit is not from selling Tauri at the starting price. The profit is from selling fully loaded SHO's. While a single SHO will generate the most profit when compared to a single car from any other trim, the bread and butter of the Taurus line-up is the SEL. SEL models will outsell every other trim combined and will generate the bulk of profit from the Taurus line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Why do UAW wages and benefits have anything to do with the company's profitability? Should a McDonalds restaurant that's making a $200K profit pay their cashiers and french fry cooks more than another McDonalds store that's only making $20K? Wages should be market based. If wages are cut below market levels because the company is losing money then it's fair that they return to market levels when the company starts making money again. But there is no reason that workers should get higher than market level wages just because a company is making money. That's what profit sharing bonuses are for. I'm sick and tired of employees who think the company owes them part of the company profits. Employees are paid to do a job. If you don't like the pay go somewhere else. If you want profits then start your own business or invest in existing businesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAC_Sparky Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Wages should be market based. Funny, the Toyota worker across the street from me makes the same money a production worker at Ford does. I guess that's what the market rate is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Funny, the Toyota worker across the street from me makes the same money a production worker at Ford does. I guess that's what the market rate is. Except he got his in the free market and not by extortion. I didn't say current wages or benefits were or were not at the market rate. I said the market rate had nothing to do with the company's profitability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David The Bruce Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Except he got his in the free market and not by extortion. I didn't say current wages or benefits were or were not at the market rate. I said the market rate had nothing to do with the company's profitability. I think we all realize the transplants only pay what they do to keep the UAW out. If the D3 went to market rates for labor I am sure you would see a pay adjustment on the transplant side to match it. The problem with the uaw is they are driving the d3 jobs right out of this country. If the d3 could open a non union shop here in the US/Canada they could probably cut payroll by a third and still provide a decent living to their assembly workers, but of course they can't do that. Does it really surprise anybody that they are increasing investments in Mexican plants? What other options do they have? Just look at the list of the "concessions" they are haggling over now, most of those shouldn't have been in place to begin with. Crying about losing Xmas bonuses and day after Easter holidays, do the d3 really need to provide those things to fill $27 an hour assembly jobs? And please don't tell me these are negotiated benefits, when one side can shut down the other side’s ability to make money you are not in negotiations. Now if you add in the ability to source that work elsewhere we might now be entering a period where real negotiations will occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAC_Sparky Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) Except he got his in the free market and not by extortion. I didn't say current wages or benefits were or were not at the market rate. I said the market rate had nothing to do with the company's profitability. No, he didn't "negotiate" his pay, that was what the plant paid. Ford hasn't seen a strike in Canada in 20 years, exactly what extortion am I guilty of to obtain my wages? Going rate for an electrician with my experience pays about what I get. In some cases, more. If you doubt it, hire one. Edited October 21, 2009 by OAC_Sparky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAC_Sparky Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Crying about losing Xmas bonuses and day after Easter holidays, do the d3 really need to provide those things to fill $27 an hour assembly jobs? There are plenty of jobs that provide these things. Don't see how working as a bank teller or delivering mail or picking up garbage is any harder on your body than an assembly worker. Maybe we should just eliminate it for everyone so the "have nots" can find something new to bitch about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 There are plenty of jobs that provide these things. Don't see how working as a bank teller or delivering mail or picking up garbage is any harder on your body than an assembly worker. Maybe we should just eliminate it for everyone so the "have nots" can find something new to bitch about. I think the point he (and others) are making is that the UAW workers are pretty well paid for their work. If you don't like the pay or bennies, then find one you like better. I'm sure there are more than enough people to fill the vacancy you would leave. The flip side is, if Ford doesn't like to pay the workers what they ask, they'll take the work elsewhere. Then you'll be FORCED to find a different job. The UAW is it's own worst enemy in many ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David The Bruce Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 There are plenty of jobs that provide these things. Don't see how working as a bank teller or delivering mail or picking up garbage is any harder on your body than an assembly worker. Maybe we should just eliminate it for everyone so the "have nots" can find something new to bitch about. Benefits are not a given, they are meant as an enticement to attract people to the job. the d3 do not need to offer any enticements to attract people to $28 an hour assembly jobs. If you are an electrician (and not just a "ford electrician") then you should have no issue with the d3 moving to a competitive wage structure. I say "ford electrician" not as a put down but I have known many "engineers" in my life time who were only engineers when they were inside the building where they were currently employed. 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.