robertlane Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 click here for the article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Ooooo. Is this going to be a David Kiley article full of errors? YAY!!! It is. Later today, I'll post all his goofs to the blog. Don't worry, they're in there. They always are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Well, among other things, the 2K8 Escape/Focus re-fresh, the 2K8 500 re-fresh, the 2K7 Edge and MK X, the MK Z re-fresh are not mentioned. The sky is falling! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 I'm still failing to see how Ford Lincoln and Vovlo would make Ford any better off if they did go this route. Maybe Ford/Mercury/Mazda/Lincoln/Vovlo..... Plus I bet that Ford wouldnt get jack for Jag/Land Rover/Aston Martain anyways...plus why get rid of AM and LR, since they are profitible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topgun Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 click here for the article Bottom line is Bill Ford is not the man to be running Ford Motor Company period! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Later today, I'll post all his goofs to the blog. Don't worry, they're in there. They always are. Sure enough: "July sales figures released August 1 show that the company saw a more than 44% decline from June in light truck and SUV sales." June truck/SUV sales: 161,796 July truck/SUV sales: 151,944 "Given that Jaguar loses about $2 million per year and has cost Ford more than $10 billion in investment and losses over the years" $2 million is a typo. Kiley probably means $200 million, and the $10 billion number is guess-work that I have never seen substantiated. The only numbers that have ever been substantiated are the numbers in Jaguar's annual filings with the UK government. They show that Ford has spent about £3.7 billion on Jaguar (between $6-7 billion), which, less the value of Jaguar assets in place from 1989 to 2005 and any profits Ford has taken from Jaguar as dividends, constitutes what Ford has 'lost' on Jaguar. The other two botches, described on the blog, are related to Kiley's apparent belief that shuttering Mercury would be cheap, and would not impact Lincoln, and a persistent underestimation of Ford's 2007 product plans. http://blueovalblogs.com/blogs/?p=53 This is about the fourth or fifth time Kiley's articles on Ford have caught my eye for glaring inaccuracies. Trust me, he ALWAYS screws up something about Ford. His judgment is severly impaired. I'm guessing Jim Padilla stepped on his feet at a car show once and didn't apologize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPManx Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Hah. Thanks for pointing out the half-baked, poorly researched analysis. The other thing that struck me is that he never even answers his own question. I'd be curious to see a detailed breakdown of what the components of Ford are really worth, vs. the company's actual market cap. That's an interesting way to see how much Ford's image problems reduce the perceived value of the company. Of course, you won't find that here. This is just shoddy journalism, pure and simple. 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.