And The Award For Worst CEO Goes To...

[7Mary3]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/worst-ceo-bill-ford-ford-151500541.html

[morgan20]

Billy Boy ain't a CEO, he's chairman of the board. I don't agree with author's claim While the CEO on paper is Jim Farley, Bill Ford has run the company since 1999.

 

Jimbo is Ford's real head honcho when it comes to operations, he doesn't merely sign off on 10-K and 10-Q documents like a CEO on paper.

[rmc523]

10 hours ago, morgan20 said:

Billy Boy ain't a CEO, he's chairman of the board. I don't agree with author's claim While the CEO on paper is Jim Farley, Bill Ford has run the company since 1999.

 

Jimbo is Ford's real head honcho when it comes to operations, he doesn't merely sign off on 10-K and 10-Q documents like a CEO on paper.

 

I don't think Farley is a "paper" CEO, but I'm sure he's guided by Bill Ford.  Remember, Fields was pushed out because he wasn't investing enough in EVs for Bill's liking.

[twintornados]

On 12/18/2025 at 8:50 AM, rmc523 said:

 

I don't think Farley is a "paper" CEO, but I'm sure he's guided by Bill The Ford Family.  Remember, Fields was pushed out because he wasn't investing enough in EVs for Bill's their liking.

 

Fixed

Edited December 19, 2025 by twintornados

[Biker16]

The Ford Family's control of the company makes it imposisble for the company to be taken over, but shields the company from pressures to improve and accountability. 

[Sherminator98]

Just now, Biker16 said:

The Ford Family's control of the company makes it imposisble for the company to be taken over, but shields the company from pressures to improve and accountability. 

 

Your making like the Ford family doesn't want to company to succeed-if FMC goes out of business, they'll lose their income/fortunes because their will be no class B stock worth anything to them.  

[akirby]

42 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

Ford doesn't do what I want them to do.

Ok we got it.

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Your making like the Ford family doesn't want to company to succeed-if FMC goes out of business, they'll lose their income/fortunes because their will be no class B stock worth anything to them.  

Yes and that’s why back in 2006, Ford borrowed $23 billion to restructure the company 

rather than go chapter 11 like GM and be under government control

 

Its interesting that 19 years later, Ford takes a $19 billion charge and it’s not the end of the world.

The biggest tell is that no one will be fired, how could they when it was all top down decisions.

Those losses directly affect the Ford Family in terms of income and what all their rich friends

must be thinking…that is the accountability

Edited December 19, 2025 by jpd80

[Biker16]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

Ok we got it.

 

The results speak for themselves.

 

In 20 years, Ford has gone from the #2 US automaker to #3.

 

Globally from

https://marketrealist.com/2016/03/fords-global-market-share-fallen-last-decade/

 

Global market share falling from 11% in 2011 to 5% in 2023.

 

This is the opposite of winning.

 

4 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Your making like the Ford family doesn't want to company to succeed-if FMC goes out of business, they'll lose their income/fortunes because their will be no class B stock worth anything to them.  

 

The Ford family isn't scared enough of losing to make transformative changes to the company. 

 

They seem content to work around the edges of the problem, but not to invest any Capital in addressing the core issue of the company's lack of competitiveness and direction.

 

They are like a wealthy football team owner, as we have in Cleveland. He gets his rocks off on making decisions, but not winning a football game.

[morgan20]

1 hour ago, Biker16 said:

In 20 years, Ford has gone from the #2 US automaker to #3.

 

Globally from

https://marketrealist.com/2016/03/fords-global-market-share-fallen-last-decade/

 

Global market share falling from 11% in 2011 to 5% in 2023.

 

This is the opposite of winning.

 

May not be winning, but much of the market share Ford gave up in that period were tied to unremarkable products the head honcho called commodities. Ford cut its losses and saved its reputation by gettin' out of that kind of business. 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, morgan20 said:

 

May not be winning, but much of the market share Ford gave up in that period were tied to unremarkable products the head honcho called commodities. Ford cut its losses and saved its reputation by gettin' out of that kind of business. 

Market share without profit is stupid unless you're running a charity.  But some people don't seem to understand that not all vehicles are profitable and you can sometimes make more money by reducing sales and market share.

[GearheadGrrrl]

The problem with Ford's "kill products until your profitable" strategy is that the plants and workers that built those less profitable products are still around and wages, unemployment benefits, property taxes etc. still have to be paid. Better to figure out how to make desirable and profitable cars as German, Japanese, and Korean automakers have done instead of slowly disappearing like Ford...

[morgan20]

24 minutes ago, akirby said:

Market share without profit is stupid unless you're running a charity.

Yea, other than charity another case where market share without profit is expected, but not stupid, is the early lifecycle of a startup business.

 

Ford Model e & skunkworks is like a startup 3 years in, which makes the launch of CE1 products on time, on budget, and with high quality in 2026 or 2027 so important. If Ford succeeds, it will be in a position to gain market share and be very profitable in the future. If the big shots screw it up there’s no tellin’ how far Ford could be set back.

[akirby]

44 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Better to figure out how to make desirable and profitable cars

That's exactly what they did.  They didn't idle any factories.  They replaced Fusion and mkz with Maverick and Bronco sport.  They replaced focus with Bronco and Ranger.  Much more desirable and profitable vehicles.

[akirby]

28 minutes ago, morgan20 said:

Yea, other than charity another case where market share without profit is expected, but not stupid, is the early lifecycle of a startup business.

 

Ford Model e & skunkworks is like a startup 3 years in, which makes the launch of CE1 products on time, on budget, and with high quality in 2026 or 2027 so important. If Ford succeeds, it will be in a position to gain market share and be very profitable in the future. If the big shots screw it up there’s no tellin’ how far Ford could be set back.

True and I do expect ce1 to be Ford's lowest cost platform and able to turn a nice net profit even on affordable pricing.  It's basically Ford's reset button on high platform costs.  And I do think a lot of it will transfer to ICE vehicles contrary to what others think.

[GearheadGrrrl]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

That's exactly what they did.  They didn't idle any factories.  They replaced Fusion and mkz with Maverick and Bronco sport.  They replaced focus with Bronco and Ranger.  Much more desirable and profitable vehicles.

How was a $20K Maverick Hybrid more profitable than a $29K Fusion or MKZ Hybrid?

[akirby]

45 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

How was a $20K Maverick Hybrid more profitable than a $29K Fusion or MKZ Hybrid?

EASY - no rebates.  Fusion required $4k rebates to sell.  Maverick and Bronco Sport were selling for full msrp and above.

[Sherminator98]

10 hours ago, akirby said:

EASY - no rebates.  Fusion required $4k rebates to sell.  Maverick and Bronco Sport were selling for full msrp and above.

 

And the vast majority of the Fusions sold where cheaper models with an incentive to move them. It wasn't like they where selling 50K Fusion Sports a year...

[morgan20]

13 hours ago, akirby said:

True and I do expect ce1 to be Ford's lowest cost platform and able to turn a nice net profit even on affordable pricing.  It's basically Ford's reset button on high platform costs.  And I do think a lot of it will transfer to ICE vehicles contrary to what others think.

 

Yea, that's where Ford desperately needs better cost control. Product development and manufacturing at FoMoCo was not well run when I worked for the company in the 1990s and 2000s, and while there have been incremental changes since then, a reset button is definitely in order now.

 

Hopefully the lessons from skunkworks and CE1 products in terms of more cost effective vehicle development and manufacturing will be applied companywide by the end of this decade as you suggested.

 

Also as a F-150 Lightning owner, I hope that the success of the CE1 pickup trucks (again, assuming the big shots don't screw it up) leads Ford to add a pure BEV F-150 Lightning to join EREV version for the next generation. This statement from the article at the top makes me sad:

 

The Lightning’s current version, the symbol of the company’s future, was killed.

Edited December 20, 2025 by morgan20

[Biker16]

18 hours ago, morgan20 said:

 

May not be winning, but much of the market share Ford gave up in that period were tied to unremarkable products the head honcho called commodities. Ford cut its losses and saved its reputation by gettin' out of that kind of business. 

 

Ford shrank to make more profitable vehicles, while the competition took market, share and generated more profit overall. By building vehicles, designing vehicles and selling vehicles more efficiently 

 

 

15 hours ago, akirby said:

Market share without profit is stupid unless you're running a charity.  But some people don't seem to understand that not all vehicles are profitable and you can sometimes make more money by reducing sales and market share.

 

Again, no one has seen the P&L for any vehicle Ford has ever made. It's stupid to extrapolate the profitability of a vehicle without taking into account the context of the system it was produced, designed, and sold in. 

 

Ford doesn't seem very efficient at building, designing, or selling vehicles.

 

15 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

The problem with Ford's "kill products until your profitable" strategy is that the plants and workers that built those less profitable products are still around and wages, unemployment benefits, property taxes etc. still have to be paid. Better to figure out how to make desirable and profitable cars as German, Japanese, and Korean automakers have done instead of slowly disappearing like Ford...

 

Exactly, when you kill volume products on platforms used by other products, you reduce the profitability of that platform, increasing costs and decreasing the profit margins of all the products on that platform. 

 

14 hours ago, akirby said:

That's exactly what they did.  They didn't idle any factories.  They replaced Fusion and mkz with Maverick and Bronco sport.  They replaced focus with Bronco and Ranger.  Much more desirable and profitable vehicles.

 

There is one C2 factory in North America; there were 4 C1/CD4 factories in 2014.

 

It's not a coincidence that these vehicles sold very well in their first 4 years of production than in the last 3 years of their production. 

 

They were desirable and until they became old and stale products that required incentives to sell. 

 

 

11 hours ago, akirby said:

EASY - no rebates.  Fusion required $4k rebates to sell.  Maverick and Bronco Sport were selling for full msrp and above.

 

Ford abandoned cars long before they were discontinued by failing to invest in their replacements. These vehicles were affordable when they first were sold and became cheap after they had been in the market unchanged for 7 or 8 years. 

 

[morgan20]

13 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

Ford doesn't seem very efficient at building, designing, or selling vehicles.

 

Yea, Ford ain't efficient at all when it comes to those things, and hasn't been for a long time. 

 

What are your thoughts @Biker16 on the efforts at Ford skunkworks and with the CE1 platform, and the likelihood that what Ford is learning there will be applied throughout the company?

 

I'm cautiously optimistic. As akirby said, skunkworks & CE1 is Ford's opportunity to finally hit the reset button on its horribly inefficient product development and manufacturing processes. Maybe sales and marketing will benefit too

Edited December 20, 2025 by morgan20

[tbone]

59 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

 

Ford shrank to make more profitable vehicles, while the competition took market, share and generated more profit overall. By building vehicles, designing vehicles and selling vehicles more efficiently 

 

 

 

Again, no one has seen the P&L for any vehicle Ford has ever made. It's stupid to extrapolate the profitability of a vehicle without taking into account the context of the system it was produced, designed, and sold in. 

 

Ford doesn't seem very efficient at building, designing, or selling vehicles.

 

 

Exactly, when you kill volume products on platforms used by other products, you reduce the profitability of that platform, increasing costs and decreasing the profit margins of all the products on that platform. 

 

 

There is one C2 factory in North America; there were 4 C1/CD4 factories in 2014.

 

It's not a coincidence that these vehicles sold very well in their first 4 years of production than in the last 3 years of their production. 

 

They were desirable and until they became old and stale products that required incentives to sell. 

 

 

 

Ford abandoned cars long before they were discontinued by failing to invest in their replacements. These vehicles were affordable when they first were sold and became cheap after they had been in the market unchanged for 7 or 8 years. 

 

I think this post lays the situation out very nicely.  We have a lot of Ford apologists on this site and I used to be more sympathetic to their issues, but trying to justify the current state of affairs is simply ridiculous.  And to be clear, I want Ford to succeed. 
 

There is a lot of talk about profitability, what is enough, does it justify maintaining a product, etc., but profit is profit whether it is 3% or 10%.  A three percenter can make more money if it substantially outsells a 10 percenter, so to me this isn’t a sufficient justification to dump products. It is well documented on this site why Ford’s sales number decline on various models.  It is self inflicted. 
 

Then theres talk of lack of sufficient development resources to maintain a full line of vehicles.  Let’s face it, the F series does not change so substantially from generation to generation that they consume all of the resources.  As an owner and enthusiast, I know they don’t.  You can call something all new but it doesn’t mean every part number is new.  Each product category should have been able to support itself and if you need more people you hire them because your product should be able to sustain itself.  
 

The bottom line for me is it is a management issue.  Perhaps the Ford family is partly responsible for the situation due to their overall control of the company, but it isn’t clear to me they won’t listen to the CEO.  Mulally appears to me to be the last CEO that knew what the hell he was doing, and it did appear the Ford family listened to him at the time. I highly doubt Farley has no influence, because the direction of the company seems to be consistent with his beliefs. 
 

If Toyota can be a full line global manufacturer and be profitable, there is no excuse why Ford could not do the same, especially when they were one.  In my observations over the years, when companies shrink, they tend to eventually disappear or get bought out. 

 

In one of the other threads, somebody mentioned Henry Ford would be rolling over in his grave, and I agree. I don’t think Henry Ford wanted his company to be a boutique manufacturer, limited in scope. It seemed he wanted to bring vehicles to everyone.  

[akirby]

4 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

And the vast majority of the Fusions sold where cheaper models with an incentive to move them. It wasn't like they where selling 50K Fusion Sports a year...

Yes.  I had a 2013 Titanium and it was great but all I ever saw on the road were cheap SEs.  They thought they could sell premium models with AWD and plug in hybrids and 350 hp but buyers said no we want cheap cars.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, tbone said:

profit is profit whether it is 3% or 10%.  A three percenter can make more money if it substantially outsells a 10 percenter, so to me this isn’t a sufficient justification to dump products. It is well documented on this site why Ford’s sales number decline on various models.  It is self inflicted. 
 

.

Ford's proclivity to make minimal investments in cars is because they aren't very profitable to begin with.  Some were absolutely losing money.  We've already discussed ad nauseum the reasons why - too many redundant platforms and too many changes.  Ford created 9 different ecoboost engines plus multiple versions of some while Toyota soldiered on with NA2.5s and 3.5s and a turbo 2.0.  And their car platforms haven't change much in decades.  That's how you keep costs down.  So of course that is self inflicted.  We keep saying that over and over but you guys don't hear it.  But that's water under the bridge at this point - the question is how should Ford respond?

 

Do they spend tons of money fixing fusion and focus and escape to realize a 3% return or do they spend far less money and replace them with products that have higher margins?  Ford has that option.  Others don't have those types of vehicles or good options to make them.

 

And there is a huge difference between 3% and 10% margins.  Let's talk $30k vehicles at 3% and $40k vehicles at 10%.  It takes 550,000 units to make half a billion dollars on the cheaper one.  And that requires 2 huge factories with 3 shifts each.  And with only a $900 margin per vehicle if you get in a price war and have to put an extra $1k rebate on the hood you're losing money.  No margin for error.  
 

Meanwhile the $40k vehicle makes $4k profit per unit so it only takes 125K units to make half a billion profit.  That's one factory and 1 or 2 shifts - less than half the fixed overhead.  And you can survive price wars or recessions and still turn a profit.

 

It's also a zero sum game unless you have tons of extra cash (Ford doesn't) or you're willing to go into more debt to expand vehicle capacity by hiring tons more designers, engineers, testers, marketers and building expensive new factories.  Especially if all you're getting is a 3% ROI.  Therefore you have to kill existing projects to fund new stuff.

 

What you thought when Ford was selling hundreds of thousands of small cars was that they must be raking in the cash.  But when Mulally took over Ford admitted they were losing $3K on each focus they sold.  So why were they (and GM) selling them of they lost money?  Because of the CAFE offset that allowed them to sell larger more profitable ones.  And back then if you closed a factory you still had to pay the workers.  Now the rules are different so the incentives to make small cars at a loss or small profit just isn't there. 
 

To put it another way - corporations are investments.  Why would they invest billions to make cars for a 3% return when Ford could put that money in bonds and get a guaranteed 5% or higher return?

 

And I beg to differ on F series resources.  They do visual refreshes every 3 years and major changes every 6 years.  Also consider there are 2 cabs and chassis, 12 cab/bed combinations and 6 different engine/transmissions plus dozens of options and packages.  That's a full time job for a huge team of people and part time for others.  And at an average price of $60k at 15% net profit (which are both probably on the low side) that's a net profit of $9k per vehicle or close to $9B.  From one line of vehicles in 3 plants.   That's why it gets all the resources.

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, tbone said:

If Toyota can be a full line global manufacturer and be profitable, there is no excuse why Ford could not do the same, especially when they were one.  In my observations over the years, when companies shrink, they tend to eventually disappear or get bought out. 

 

In one of the other threads, somebody mentioned Henry Ford would be rolling over in his grave, and I agree. I don’t think Henry Ford wanted his company to be a boutique manufacturer, limited in scope. It seemed he wanted to bring vehicles to everyone.  

 

Yes the excuse is that Ford is hindered by being based in the USA vs Japan, due to USD being the currency that everything else is pegged against. 

 

As for Ford's shrinkage in market share-it also boils down to having much more selection on the market with new makes, like Chinese auto brands or Hyundai/Kia coming into new markets.