Comments on: Ford Posts $2.3 Billion Profit http://the-grayline.com/2009/07/23/ford-posts-2-3-billion-profit/ The fine line of automotive news and opinion. Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:21:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Christopher http://the-grayline.com/2009/07/23/ford-posts-2-3-billion-profit/comment-page-1/#comment-6147 Christopher Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:02:25 +0000 http://the-grayline.com/?p=1497#comment-6147 I'm with you Scott, I hope all 3 get turned around and start growing again. The idea of domestic manufacturers losing market share and pushing production over seas makes me a little sick inside. I’m with you Scott, I hope all 3 get turned around and start growing again. The idea of domestic manufacturers losing market share and pushing production over seas makes me a little sick inside.

]]> By: Scott http://the-grayline.com/2009/07/23/ford-posts-2-3-billion-profit/comment-page-1/#comment-6107 Scott Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:44:58 +0000 http://the-grayline.com/?p=1497#comment-6107 Great article on Ford's recent success. In addition to the points mentioned Ford had a few other things going for it including a top notch management team responsible for moving the company forward in the right direction. Ford began doing things right well before the Wall Street meltdown, which ended up burning both Chrysler and GM, forcing both to seek huge government handouts. One big difference was that Ford had already secured its long term financing before the financial meltdown As a result, Ford did not experience short term cash flow difficulties during the crisis and therefore did not require a government handout to meet it's short term capital needs. GM and Chrysler however were not as fortunate since both were impacted by the credit crunch crisis and unable to secure badly needed financing to cover their short term capital requirements. Simply put, neither had insufficient cash on hand to sustain their daily cash burn through rate. As a result, both companies needed a government hand-out to meet their short term capital requirements. In addition Ford was already well ahead of the GM and Chrysler in several other areas: One being that Ford's management team was already well down the road in refocusing and restructuring the company on their core brands and dumping product lines and product divisions that did not. For example Ford had already sold off Jaguar, Volvo and Landrover well before the Wall Street meltdown. Another difference between the big three was that Ford was ahead of both GM and Chrysler in new product development and redesign with new products already in production and hitting the market, whereas the other two were well behind the curve. GM was looking at 2011 as the entry point for many of their new product lines and Chrysler was even further behind with a product line in desperate need of new products and redesign. Last but not least was the decision of Ford's management team to focus on making significant quality improvements. This in combination with a well positioned marketing strategy has made good headway in convincing consumers that Ford vehicles are every bit as good if not superior, in quality and value, to it's competitors including the import brands. While its great to see Ford turning a nice profit, lets hope all three are solidly in the black in 2010! Great article on Ford’s recent success. In addition to the points mentioned Ford had a few other things going for it including a top notch management team responsible for moving the company forward in the right direction.

Ford began doing things right well before the Wall Street meltdown, which ended up burning both Chrysler and GM, forcing both to seek huge government handouts.

One big difference was that Ford had already secured its long term financing before the financial meltdown As a result, Ford did not experience short term cash flow difficulties during the crisis and therefore did not require a government handout to meet it’s short term capital needs.

GM and Chrysler however were not as fortunate since both were impacted by the credit crunch crisis and unable to secure badly needed financing to cover their short term capital requirements. Simply put, neither had insufficient cash on hand to sustain their daily cash burn through rate. As a result, both companies needed a government hand-out to meet their short term capital requirements.

In addition Ford was already well ahead of the GM and Chrysler in several other areas:

One being that Ford’s management team was already well down the road in refocusing and restructuring the company on their core brands and dumping product lines and product divisions that did not. For example Ford had already sold off Jaguar, Volvo and Landrover well before the Wall Street meltdown.

Another difference between the big three was that Ford was ahead of both GM and Chrysler in new product development and redesign with new products already in production and hitting the market, whereas the other two were well behind the curve. GM was looking at 2011 as the entry point for many of their new product lines and Chrysler was even further behind with a product line in desperate need of new products and redesign.

Last but not least was the decision of Ford’s management team to focus on making significant quality improvements. This in combination with a well positioned marketing strategy has made good headway in convincing consumers that Ford vehicles are every bit as good if not superior, in quality and value, to it’s competitors including the import brands.

While its great to see Ford turning a nice profit, lets hope all three are solidly in the black in 2010!

]]>