RichardJensen Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 (edited) So. If Ford should sell Jaguar because they've lost ---sooooo--- much money on them, I submit Ford should sell its NA vehicle operations which lost more money in the last two years, than Jaguar has cost Ford over its entire lifetime. Given that Ford's NA operations have been bailed out by Ford Credit for the last six years, is there any reason why Ford shouldn't pull the plug on NA ops? I mean, selling Jaguar is all about getting rid of a persistently unprofitable entity, right? So why should we stop with Jaguar? Why not look at all of Ford's NA assets? In fact, I think Ford should sell all its NA plants and tooling, and the rights to its name to some Chinese company that can move all the tooling to someplace in China and profitably build "Fords" for sale in the U.S. Why bother? Sure Ford had a good run of it in the 90s what with all those SUVs. But those days are gone, and Ford's NA ops look like they're going to be unprofitable forever (at least to hear some around here say it), so why not pull the plug? Ford should just cut its losses, declare the NA ops a total loss, and sell out while the selling's good. I, of course, do not believe that Ford should sell Jaguar, or their NA ops. For precisely the same reason in each instance: past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Edited August 7, 2006 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPITYDAFOOL VIRUSFREE Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 (edited) So. If Ford should sell Jaguar because they've lost ---sooooo--- much money on them, I submit Ford should sell its NA vehicle operations which lost more money in the last two years, than Jaguar has cost Ford over its entire lifetime. Given that Ford's NA operations have been bailed out by Ford Credit for the last six years, is there any reason why Ford shouldn't pull the plug on NA ops? I mean, selling Jaguar is all about getting rid of a persistently unprofitable entity, right? So why should we stop with Jaguar? Why not look at all of Ford's NA assets? In fact, I think Ford should sell all its NA plants and tooling, and the rights to its name to some Chinese company that can move all the tooling to someplace in China and profitably build "Fords" for sale in the U.S. Why bother? Sure Ford had a good run of it in the 90s what with all those SUVs. But those days are gone, and Ford's NA ops look like they're going to be unprofitable forever (at least to hear some around here say it), so why not pull the plug? Ford should just cut its losses, declare the NA ops a total loss, and sell out while the selling's good. I, of course, do not believe that Ford should sell Jaguar, or their NA ops. For precisely the same reason in each instance: past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Edited August 7, 2006 by IPITYDAFOOL VIRUSFREE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgey Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Has Jaguar ever been profitable? Over its lifetime with Ford, has it cost or returned money? I ask because I really don't know. It absorbs great deal of money for miniscule revenue. And Ford does not have the established infrastructure to make Jaguar more than it already is. Essentially it will cost Ford a lot of money before Jaguar is sustainably healthy and worth the trouble. There is very little return without substantial initial investment which Ford will never be in a position to do. In fact, even if a sell is unprofitable, it will at least end the hemoraging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Talk about SPECULATION! That's a typical point of view from an elitist train of thought mentality who's only concern is the value of his stock portfolio and nothing more or less! And then what will happen if some foreign outfit bought NA operations... Bust the unions? That'll lead to more shutdowns not only at the plants but the small businesses that rely on them. I've respected your point of view on numerous occasions Mr. Jensen, but this time you need to be taken to task on this one. Don't give them any ideas unless you have some good information from an inside source of what's brewing! Let's hear it... Have you heard anything being discussed about N.A. operations? You started this thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sixcav Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 (edited) Talk about SPECULATION! That's a typical point of view from an elitist train of thought mentality who's only concern is the value of his stock portfolio and nothing more or less! LOL, Making friends all over the place aren't you Richard? I guess it's finally catching on about you. Again. And no, Jaguar has never been profitable. They've been making cars with substandard reliability for years now. The same is true for Land Rover. They should be sold. Edited August 7, 2006 by Sixcav Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford4v429 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I, of course, do not believe that Ford should sell Jaguar, or their NA ops. For precisely the same reason in each instance: past performance is not a guarantee of future results. +1 painfully good point there Mr Jensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Um, Bored...He's being sarcastic. I can be sarcastic too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share Posted August 7, 2006 There is very little return without substantial initial investment which Ford will never be in a position to do. In fact, even if a sell is unprofitable, it will at least end the hemoraging. These same arguments can be made about Ford NA.... As far as when, if ever, Jaguar has been profitable, if you want to pay $35 for seventeen years worth of companies house filings in the UK, you can find out when the Jaguar corp. has been profitable--it has seldom been profitable, but the same can be said of Ford NA over the last six years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 And no, Jaguar has never been profitable. They've been making cars with substandard reliability for years now. The same is true for Land Rover. They should be sold. So why get rid of Land Rover? last time I checked they where making money... As for that substandard reliability, The JD Power ratings are all fucked up..look who is at the bottom of the list with Land Rover..Mini and Hummer. I heard from Mini owners the reason their car is so low on the list is that JD Power counts things people dont like on the car as a fault, and the problem with the Mini was owners thought that cup holders where way too small and dinged them on that. People who had Hummers hated the MPG they got with the truck (DUH!) thus the low ratings on them.. Don't blame the product when the testing methodolgy is fucked up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one2gamble Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 So why get rid of Land Rover? last time I checked they where making money... As for that substandard reliability, The JD Power ratings are all fucked up..look who is at the bottom of the list with Land Rover..Mini and Hummer. I heard from Mini owners the reason their car is so low on the list is that JD Power counts things people dont like on the car as a fault, and the problem with the Mini was owners thought that cup holders where way too small and dinged them on that. People who had Hummers hated the MPG they got with the truck (DUH!) thus the low ratings on them.. Don't blame the product when the testing methodolgy is fucked up yes jd powers is a reference of expectations more than anything else Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triton-boy Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 ford has spent billions upon billions on buying and supporting jag on the back of n.a america ford....now ford n.a america is in trouble and we in n.a are suppose to take the brunt.....from there dream. mis- mangement f-up.....screw you sell jag get anything quit the bleeding.......or wait advertise to the gay folks they will save ford....yea right they dont even buy jags and ford is nothing to them,but keep pissing off the normal n.a american who has values and have left you for you abnormal agenda-s...........yea not politically right but crap wake up your on your last leg get back to your core group if you can..... :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 huh??? Hint. Capitals and periods are your friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman100 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Typically most companies do not sell their core operations to support peripheral businesses. Perhaps that is part of the problem - management now considers themselves a European car maker, and North America is a peripheral operation - at least it would seem plausable based upon where they are making their investments. I understand the sarcasm, but if your core business is doing very poorly, normally the company is in deep trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I understand the sarcasm, but if your core business is doing very poorly, normally the company is in deep trouble. Well also consider the fact that Ford was much in the same position over 25 years ago in the Early 1980's and if FOE wasn't there to bail out FoNA, we wouldnt even be having this conversation. FOE was in deep doo-doo in the 1990's...its a cycle and its one that Ford needs to fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc-o Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Rich I have to give it to you, that is some really creative sarcasm. You got bored of pist all confused Obviously Jaguar is considered by many as expendable. I think it was a good purchase, but it's definitely fitting into a crowded portfolio of brands between Volvo, Land Rover, Lincoln and even Mercury, in all cases there are products competing one way or another. Although your argument that past performance is not indicative of future performance is, of course, correct, we all know that it usually is - the notable exceptions could be instances like winning the lottery, or getting struck by lightning I think Ford has done a good job with Jaguar overall, although not great, and we are definitely getting to a point where there is some product staleness that would require some significant investment to dissipate. I don't see Jaguar as profitable unless it's a spectacular success, anything less than that would be somewhat of a drag. That's not the most appealing division considering Ford's current fiscal position. I don't see Ford selling Jaguar because it lost patience, I think Ford would be looking at selling Jaguar because when they consider the money it's lost them, the money they need now, and the money it's going to cost them for an (let's be accurate) uncertain payoff - it's a big risk. This is about managing cash flow, not about giving up on Jaguar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemiman Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Not sure why Jag does poorly. One reason could be lack of dealers. This is being discussed over on another thread, but why not a PAG dealership. I live in a medium sized city, and we have only two Jag dealers. At one the Jags are sold along side Buicks, & the other along side Pontiacs. Go figure? Volvo and Jag could complement each other nicely. Affluent families who buy thier family truckster Volvo, may return for the sports sedan or roadster. Add Range Rover and your bases would be coverd. Just can't see why Ford isn't pushing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 (edited) Well also consider the fact that Ford was much in the same position over 25 years ago in the Early 1980's and if FOE wasn't there to bail out FoNA, we wouldnt even be having this conversation. FOE was in deep doo-doo in the 1990's...its a cycle and its one that Ford needs to fix. Ford was on the brink of going bankrupt 25 years ago and actually in much worse shape then it is now. The thing that caught up with them this time was the EXACT thing that happened that time. Ford put everything into large cars in the 1970's and when the oil crisis came they could not re-adjust fast enough. GM beat them to the punch with much more fuel efficient downsized models like the 1977 Impala/Caprice, 1978 Monte Carlo, and the 1980 FWD X-bodies (yes they were complete lemons, but set sales records), 1982 A-bodies, etc. GM was on fire in the late 1970's early 80's, they were literally KILLING everyone. Chrysler was broke and getting bailed out by the government and AMC was slowing selling out to Renault to keep going. The Asian brands still had not made a big impact. Imagine trying to market a gas guzzling full sized 1977 LTD against a downsized 1977 Caprice that got much better economy and was a much more modern package??? How about a 1978 Thunderbird against the downsized Monte Carlo??? Or a 1980 front wheel drive Citation against a Fox body Fairmont? (Although the Fairmont proved to be much more reliable) By 1982 new Ford models were starting to come on line starting with the 1979 downsized LTD and more Fox bodies were replacing their full-sized counterparts, a ligher weight F-series showed up, the Escort finally replaced the embarrassment called Pinto. Still...things were not good enough...just like today...things product wise was better, but not quite enough to take back the market. 1983 the Ranger came and helped....1984 Tempo which was a much more successful product then the Fairmont...and last the 1986 Taurus finally put Ford back into a solid place. The big difference this time is the Asians did not have the market like they do now. Ford had one major competitor to deal with and that was GM. GM was A LOT easier to deal with then the Asians are...because although their products were outselling Ford...it was not hard to beat them. Not hard to make a better vehicle then they did and GM did not have a great reputation after products like the Citation. Just remember...it took Ford about 4 years to really come out of it last time (actually longer if you consider things began to go sour for them in the late 1970's). I don't know if they have 4 years this time...but products like the Fusion and Edge are steps in the right direction. Time will tell. The moral of the story here is don't repeat your mistakes...which they have exactly repeated them just 25-30 years later and trucks and SUV's are the problem this time...not full sized boats. Edited August 7, 2006 by 2005Explorer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danglin Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Has Jaguar ever been profitable? Over its lifetime with Ford, has it cost or returned money? I ask because I really don't know. It absorbs great deal of money for miniscule revenue. And Ford does not have the established infrastructure to make Jaguar more than it already is. Essentially it will cost Ford a lot of money before Jaguar is sustainably healthy and worth the trouble. There is very little return without substantial initial investment which Ford will never be in a position to do. In fact, even if a sell is unprofitable, it will at least end the hemoraging. :titanic: I agree!!! They need to invest in their North American operations. Enough spending on this Cash Cow!!! Take the loss and move on. I see no need to sell Land Rover if it is profitable. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Mr. Jensen beat me to the punch! Ford should be making billions with all the cars and trucks they sell here. They don't for one reason: 95 percent pay to laid-off workers, increasing medical costs to current workers (the new deal notwithstanding), and medical & pension costs for longer living retirees. They can't make money here! They just can't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Mr. Jensen beat me to the punch! Ford should be making billions with all the cars and trucks they sell here. They don't for one reason: 95 percent pay to laid-off workers, increasing medical costs to current workers (the new deal notwithstanding), and medical & pension costs for longer living retirees. They can't make money here! They just can't! Time to salt the UAW leech... :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68Cougar Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Yeah, sell off Jaguar, now they have invested in a new platform for them. Now some other company can get this state of the art platform for pennies on the dollar. Makes good financial sense. Joe had it right…charge a lot of money for Jags and never make a “cheap†one again. Land Rover is becoming more integrated with the other PAG’s and with Ford itself. There’s not real reason to sell it. If times get hard enough, have them share the T-1 platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one2gamble Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 If Ford truly wanted to limit investment in Jaguar they could simply make them the 4 door AM compliment. 100K + price tags sitting on AM chassis/AM engines but Jaguar bodies. The investment capital needed to do this would be minimal and would allow Jaguar to cut costs BIG TIME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 The 'SUV Gravy Train of 1990's' covered up all the huge losses elsewhere. in 1992, there were huge losses, only to be temporarily plugged when the Exp's and Navi took off. Now it's payback time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 "By 1982 new Ford models were starting to come on line starting with the 1979 downsized LTD and more Fox bodies were replacing their full-sized counterparts, a ligher weight F-series showed up, the Escort finally replaced the embarrassment called Pinto. Still...things were not good enough...just like today...things product wise was better, but not quite enough to take back the market. 1983 the Ranger came and helped....1984 Tempo which was a much more successful product then the Fairmont...and last the 1986 Taurus finally put Ford back into a solid place." While the above is true, what really helped alot in the 1980's was brisk sales of the Panther cars. The WW2 Generation was still driving en masse back then and they 'got used' to the smaller bodies. GM's FWD full sized cars bombed at 1st, and drove buyers to L-M. Still, doesn't mean history will repeat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 (edited) I submit Ford should sell its NA vehicle operations which lost more money in the last two years, than Jaguar has cost Ford over its entire lifetime. LOL.. great post. Point nicely stated for the flag wavers. Get rid of Jag AND Lincoln AND everything in NA (cough...UAW) that's making them lose money, or keep 'em despite what the cowboys say. All of them are taking away resources, and one can't even sell their vehicles for shit outside the US. "Bu bu bu no fair, only my wishes matter regardless of logic" Edited August 7, 2006 by pcsario 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.