MF is a Genius

[sparks will fly]

It's better to lose half of a pittance of a dividend now -- but with hope of a much larger dividend in the future -- than to lose your entire investment a few years down the road.

 

I'm not totally against cutting the dividend again, just kinda sucks when I started buying this stock the dividend was 50 cents a share which helped accumalate more quickly. But then again the company was alot different then in more ways than one.

[Noah Harbinger]

I'm not totally against cutting the dividend again, just kinda sucks when I started buying this stock the dividend was 50 cents a share which helped accumalate more quickly. But then again the company was alot different then in more ways than one.

 

That company is the one that created Ford's current balance sheet; their activities today will create the balance sheet of 2010.

 

But (sigh) I can imagine how depressing it must be to look at the equity and dividend losses if you've plowed a lot of money into the company. I've only invested a fairly small amount, fairly recently, so I haven't seen that kind of loss. But I really do think we'll see the stock and dividend return to what it once was.

Edited July 20, 2006 by Noah Harbinger

[g48150]

Just keeping this post fresh, and yes, I AM a post whore

[Hugh]

Just keeping this post fresh, and yes, I AM a post whore

: hysterical:

 

The things we do for attention. Just kidding.

 

:beerchug:

[g48150]

Might as well dust off this one. MF STILL is a genius!!!

 

Giving a HOT seller to an entirely different company, AND still putting a Ford name on it, AMAZING!!!

 

Ford Shelby GT, does this get any better???

 

Someone slap me so I wake up??? :slap:

 

Ahh thank you, I thought I was going crazy

 

What?!?!?!?! The Ford Shelby GT is 3 months from production, :happy feet:

 

This is the part where :fan: for PD at large

[RichardJensen]

Uhh. Derrick Kuzak okayed the Shelby GT, not Fields.

[sparks will fly]

Might as well dust off this one. MF STILL is a genius!!!

 

Giving a HOT seller to an entirely different company, AND still putting a Ford name on it, AMAZING!!!

 

Ford Shelby GT, does this get any better???

 

Someone slap me so I wake up??? :slap:

 

Ahh thank you, I thought I was going crazy

 

What?!?!?!?! The Ford Shelby GT is 3 months from production, :happy feet:

 

This is the part where :fan: for PD at large

 

Considering that Caroll Shelby had been teamed up with Ford longer than I have been alive I think I miss what your saying. Besides the new Shelby was in the pipe almost as long as the current mustang.

MF is not a genius.

Edited August 14, 2006 by sparks will fly

[kpc655]

Its good to see Ford finally making some progress on its turnaround.

 

1Get capacity in line with demand? Check

2Get manufacturing costs in line with your competition? Check

 

Slowly but surely, and not without reluctance, ford is moving in the right direction. However i'm surprised theres not more talk of cutting some brands. Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, AM, Jaguar, Mazda, Volvo, Land Rover...did i miss any? There is little justification for supporting so many brands in this hypercompetitive market. Each brand requires marketing, HR, engineering, supply base support etc. etc. Theres allot of redundancy there. 50 years ago brand loyalty was a given. People would buy a mustang in college, graduate to a fairlane, marry into a Galaxy and then die in a continental. But today there really is no point in maintaining so many brands or redundant models. Simply, the market doesnt demand it. Do consumers care that Ford is "Bold" or Mercury is Metro Cool? No, they want a car that meets their needs (comfortable, fast, cheap..whatever those needs may be).

 

If you benchmark the competition, the successful competition, they're maintaining 2 or 3 brands. So the point?? I think number three on the above list should be sell/shutter some brands. That will help with the first two points and allow the company to FOCUS on producing some winners instead of an endless stream of half ass attempts. GM has the same problem...far to many brands! Ford can die a slow painful death in which case everyone loses...or they can make the hard decisions now so that the company can soldier on. If you disagree...ask yourself this question. If you were to start from scratch today and make an auto company...would you fragment the company into multiple brands with similar overlapping models? or would you create one strong brand whose label models could proudly wear?

[g48150]

Uhh. Derrick Kuzak okayed the Shelby GT, not Fields.

 

Uhh. He wouldn't have done it unless he knew that MF wasn't standing over his shoulder, figuratively speaking. This is a political shot across the bow of PD, MF is flexing his muscles on this one.

 

Considering that Caroll Shelby had been teamed up with Ford longer than I have been alive I think I miss what your saying. Besides the new Shelby was in the pipe almost as long as the current mustang.

MF is not a genius.

 

You're wrong, THIS is MF flexing his muscles, he's taking the bull by the horns on this. That's the reason someone else is doing the new Shelby, because its been in the pipe and not the street for so long. PD couldn't do it, so he found someone else who will

Edited August 14, 2006 by g48150

[igor]

Simply said, it is impossible to quickly fix near term (less than 2 years) pipeline .... so Fields cancelled the crap in it, and let the rest sit, while focusing on the mid-long term pipeline (3 or more years).

 

Also it fixed the organization:

After september announcement there will be company wide buyouts, new work rules, accelerated plant closures, reduced dealer corps, possibleweeded out produce development.

 

This is on top of getting GPDS up and running, and establishing the longer warranty.

 

I think Fields already has plenty to show for his 10 months in office.

 

Igor

[g48150]

Simply said, it is impossible to quickly fix near term (less than 2 years) pipeline .... so Fields cancelled the crap in it, and let the rest sit, while focusing on the mid-long term pipeline (3 or more years).

 

Also it fixed the organization:

After september announcement there will be company wide buyouts, new work rules, accelerated plant closures, reduced dealer corps, possibleweeded out produce development.

 

This is on top of getting GPDS up and running, and establishing the longer warranty.

 

I think Fields already has plenty to show for his 10 months in office.

 

Igor

 

You're the man, Igor, you're the man :happy feet:

[RichardJensen]

Uhh. He wouldn't have done it unless he knew that MF wasn't standing over his shoulder, figuratively speaking. This is a political shot across the bow of PD, MF is flexing his muscles on this one.

Yeah. Because Fields rules with an iron fist, and through a policy of terrorizing his underlings. That's what you hear about his tenure at Mazda and PAG. He was always 'standing over shoulders', firing shots across bows and what-not.

 

Kuzak is a smart guy who knows how to get past politics and fences. C1 was his baby, and getting Mazda, Ford of Europe, and Volvo to work together shows that he's a solid executive in his own right, and not Fields' pawn, Fields' cats paw, or a terrified yes-man looking to save his job.

[g48150]

Yeah. Because Fields rules with an iron fist, and through a policy of terrorizing his underlings. That's what you hear about his tenure at Mazda and PAG. He was always 'standing over shoulders', firing shots across bows and what-not.

 

Kuzak is a smart guy who knows how to get past politics and fences. C1 was his baby, and getting Mazda, Ford of Europe, and Volvo to work together shows that he's a solid executive in his own right, and not Fields' pawn, Fields' cats paw, or a terrified yes-man looking to save his job.

 

 

Of course he's not like that, but you have to speak the language of the land, Ford Speak!!!

 

Everything I've said in Ford Speak means look out, your days are numbered.

 

You DO speak Fordish, don't you? I must admit, it took me 9 months or so, but I got the swing of it

[RichardJensen]

Of course he's not like that, but you have to speak the language of the land, Ford Speak!!!

 

Everything I've said in Ford Speak means look out, your days are numbered.

 

You DO speak Fordish, don't you? I must admit, it took me 9 months or so, but I got the swing of it

No, I don't speak Fordish.

 

However, I do know that cult of personality and the decades of Machiavellian power plays that this cult of personality fostered are among the chief reasons why Ford's product development unit until recently resembled nothing so much as the Circumlocution Office of Dickens' Little Dorrit, the place where good intentions go to die.

Edited August 14, 2006 by RichardJensen

[ghstwolf]

Do consumers care that Ford is "Bold" or Mercury is Metro Cool? No, they want a car that meets their needs (comfortable, fast, cheap..whatever those needs may be).

 

If you benchmark the competition, the successful competition, they're maintaining 2 or 3 brands. So the point?? I think number three on the above list should be sell/shutter some brands. That will help with the first two points and allow the company to FOCUS on producing some winners instead of an endless stream of half ass attempts. GM has the same problem...far to many brands! Ford can die a slow painful death in which case everyone loses...or they can make the hard decisions now so that the company can soldier on. If you disagree...ask yourself this question. If you were to start from scratch today and make an auto company...would you fragment the company into multiple brands with similar overlapping models? or would you create one strong brand whose label models could proudly wear?

 

I think you miss the point that "image" falls under that "needs" catagory too. Maybe someone has a more universal analogy, but: it's the difference between Dunkin' Donuts vs Starbucks. They both have coffee (the principle need), but with Starbucks you pay a bit more (for some unexplainable prestige).

 

Now I said that, to lay the foundation of why Ford shouldn't shutter brands, especially if they intend to be consumer driven. If they are serious about really pushing their brands to different types of people, more brands= better. A well targeted brand strengthens it's appeal to "its" group. Being able to have 4-8 groups "locked down" would be as good as it gets in todays market. And it doesn't have to be expensive at all to do this, nor would it be half-assed.

 

You've said it's expensive to maintain brands, and it is. However, styling/tuning a developed platform isn't nearly as expensive when you give up the rediculous notion you can/should be everything to everyone. I'm not going to pretend Ford has completely figured out how to use it's brands correctly. We haven't really seen a truely single group focused car, but the triplets are a real good step in that direction. Beyond that though is more trickle down tech and parts, like the LR diesel eventually being in the F-150. AM, LR, Jag, Volvo, and even to an extent Mazda all offer a good place to roll out new gear. They offer lower volume "venues" for new stuff (drivetrain and certain processes), most with the benefit of a premium price tag. AM, LR, and Jag allows you to make full production runs with techniques and materials that you could never try in a Ford. In a better world that experience (and hopefully volume) leads to lowered costs that make it practical to move it to higher unit volume lines.

[g48150]

I think you miss the point that "image" falls under that "needs" catagory too. Maybe someone has a more universal analogy, but: it's the difference between Dunkin' Donuts vs Starbucks. They both have coffee (the principle need), but with Starbucks you pay a bit more (for some unexplainable prestige).

 

Now I said that, to lay the foundation of why Ford shouldn't shutter brands, especially if they intend to be consumer driven. If they are serious about really pushing their brands to different types of people, more brands= better. A well targeted brand strengthens it's appeal to "its" group. Being able to have 4-8 groups "locked down" would be as good as it gets in todays market. And it doesn't have to be expensive at all to do this, nor would it be half-assed.

 

You've said it's expensive to maintain brands, and it is. However, styling/tuning a developed platform isn't nearly as expensive when you give up the rediculous notion you can/should be everything to everyone. I'm not going to pretend Ford has completely figured out how to use it's brands correctly. We haven't really seen a truely single group focused car, but the triplets are a real good step in that direction. Beyond that though is more trickle down tech and parts, like the LR diesel eventually being in the F-150. AM, LR, Jag, Volvo, and even to an extent Mazda all offer a good place to roll out new gear. They offer lower volume "venues" for new stuff (drivetrain and certain processes), most with the benefit of a premium price tag. AM, LR, and Jag allows you to make full production runs with techniques and materials that you could never try in a Ford. In a better world that experience (and hopefully volume) leads to lowered costs that make it practical to move it to higher unit volume lines.

 

Great point, I'll summarize if you don't mind.

 

One Target Customer = One Brand

 

Keeping three brands = Keeping three target customers

 

Making three people happy > making everyone happy

 

Good enough?

[igor]

One thing people do not realize, is that while we do not like the condition of Mercury - perseive them as dressed up Fords, a brand without idntity etc, making these Mercurys costs Ford almost nothing, yet allows them to sell Fusion for extra $1000 to people who would never consider Ford and never deal with Ford dealers... having an option to buy a Ford from a Lincoln dealer is genius and a lot of people like it ...

 

 

This idea costs ford almost nothing, and brings in $1000 in extra profit per vehicle ... Ford odes not have any intention of departing too far from this. They just want to make it official that Mercury is a "hidden-gem" in FLM a brand for a small niche of customers. Besides cniche brands are almost always able to charge more than full-lineup brands, even further increasing the profitability of Mercury brand.

 

Igor

[DCK]

"Bold Moves" Is down right, without question the absolute the most stupid tagline ever for an auto company. Really it means 100% absolutely nothing. I am sure the ford fanatics would disagree but if toyota was using it you'd say the same thing.

[NickF1011]

"Bold Moves" Is down right, without question the absolute the most stupid tagline ever for an auto company. Really it means 100% absolutely nothing. I am sure the ford fanatics would disagree but if toyota was using it you'd say the same thing.

 

Here's your pro-Ford response: How is it any different or worse than "Moving forward"?

[silvrsvt]

"Bold Moves" Is down right, without question the absolute the most stupid tagline ever for an auto company. Really it means 100% absolutely nothing. I am sure the ford fanatics would disagree but if toyota was using it you'd say the same thing.

 

Its just marketing to draw attention to the company, nothing more, nothing less.

[RichardJensen]

"Bold Moves" Is down right, without question the absolute the most stupid tagline ever for an auto company. Really it means 100% absolutely nothing. I am sure the ford fanatics would disagree but if toyota was using it you'd say the same thing.

Really? 'Cause it's a Mark Fields approved tagline.

[tnsnick12345]

MF is brilliant

just wanted to show support :bandance: :happy feet:

[DCK]

Really? 'Cause it's a Mark Fields approved tagline.

I suppose you have some basis to your comment? Just because i think Mark Fieds will shape up the mess that is Ford, doesn't mean i approve of everything he does. It is a different philosophy than yours, which is "always, no matter what, defend Ford and 100% of their descisions." You won't disagree on descisions that were clearly bad for the company, but i will disagree with bad descisions from Mark Fields.

[g48150]

I suppose you have some basis to your comment? Just because i think Mark Fieds will shape up the mess that is Ford, doesn't mean i approve of everything he does. It is a different philosophy than yours, which is "always, no matter what, defend Ford and 100% of their descisions." You won't disagree on descisions that were clearly bad for the company, but i will disagree with bad descisions from Mark Fields.

 

Okay, I call your bluff, what decision, exactly, was bad from Mark Fields?

 

If anything, we weren't going to see most of the big things until 08 or later, so what's your exact problem?

[RichardJensen]

I suppose you have some basis to your comment? Just because i think Mark Fieds will shape up the mess that is Ford, doesn't mean i approve of everything he does. It is a different philosophy than yours, which is "always, no matter what, defend Ford and 100% of their descisions." You won't disagree on descisions that were clearly bad for the company, but i will disagree with bad descisions from Mark Fields.

Well, let's see Bold Moves came out in what? April? May? Mark Fields was named Pres. Americas, last October, and an advertising campaign is not like a car. It doesn't have a three year lead.

 

"Bold Moves" is a direct descendent of the "Red White and Bold" talk that we heard from Fields and Stevens as early as December of last year.

 

Also, I don't make it a habit of defending everything Ford does.

 

I merely demand rational arguments, supported by provable facts. Not arguments that rely on unquestioning acceptance of their underlying assertion (e.g.: "Ford didn't change enough sheetmetal on the Explorer, that's why it's losing sales", which contains two assumptions demonstrably false).