Ford lost $120 Mil in the 2nd Quarter
07-20-2006, 11:06 AM
#11
...while having suspension components on their flagship sports car break under typical loads, having vehicles burn down in people's garages, and refusing to significantly improve their standard V6 for the past ten years (in their bread and butter cars).
Just balancing things.
Just balancing things.
07-20-2006, 11:06 AM
#12
Registered User
Originally Posted by no_really,Jul 20 2006, 02:56 PM
It seems to me that Honda's top the most stolen car lists year after year.
if you feel that this the root of ford's problems, then you should ask yourself why that is.
07-20-2006, 11:21 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SF, California
Posts: 3,759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I 
when people have no clue about what they're talking about. Why are you posting all doom and gloom about ford? Ford is not nearly in the same boat as GM. Anyone here know how much money ford made/lost last year?I'll give you a hint....they made $946million last year. So when is a profitable company doomed due to one quartly loss. Did you even bother to look at the numbers before you post something stupid? Look they lost $123million. They also had $42Billion in sales for the second quarter. Their loss was what 0.3% of sales that quarter...big deal and I'm willing to bet there are a number of charges due to the restructuring going on.
Ford may no longer be the powerhouse that they once were, but that doesn't mean they don't run a sound business. Considering their ability to turn a profit given the increased competition and the failure of the SUV market, the ford business unit is doing a pretty good job of damage control.
Please try to do homework next time before posting something so silllie inflamitory. At best you'll look like a biased fan boy at worst you'll come across as an idiot.
07-20-2006, 12:38 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Purple sky
Posts: 2,900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, it's the Net Loss that counts, not revenue. Doesn't matter if its revenue was 100 quadrillion dollars, but its net profit results in negative, it's a net loss and bad for the company. GM has been posting net losses for the past few years. But the company was so huge, that's why it didn't collapse yet, but still hanging on.
07-20-2006, 01:21 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SF, California
Posts: 3,759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Purple_sky,Jul 20 2006, 01:38 PM
Actually, it's the Net Loss that counts, not revenue. Doesn't matter if its revenue was 100 quadrillion dollars, but its net profit results in negative, it's a net loss and bad for the company. GM has been posting net losses for the past few years. But the company was so huge, that's why it didn't collapse yet, but still hanging on.
People look at $123 million and think it's alot of money...but in reality it's chump change. Think about it from a small business point of view. If you brought in $50,000 in sales in Q2 but had to invest $50,150 to grow your business for future quarters, would you hesistate? You lost $150, do you care if the investment is sound? Now if you took in $50,000 and had to reinvest $100,000 to grow the company that's a bigger issue and a point of concern. It's often about scale, you think $123million is alot of money but considering ford's scale of business it's not.
Now GM is a whole other issue. GM's problem is it's losses, it posted an 8.6billion dollar loss on revenues of 190billion. That scale is alot bigger than ford's
Additional FYI...if you want to bring up ford's losses you should bring up the first quarter loss. Ford lost $1.2Billion first quarter with $1.7Billion in restructering costs. Hell considering that they've narrowed the loss to 1/10th the first quarter loss is a big accomplisment.
07-20-2006, 02:18 PM
#17
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
11 Posts
Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD,Jul 20 2006, 05:21 PM
Ummmm....no....not in this case. A loss across a number of years is significant. A loss in a quarter may not be, why because sometimes restructuring and investment is required to grow the business in future quarters rather than maximizing profits for the current period. Yes if you lose too much money relative to revenue it's a big deal but if it's a small loss, it's less of an issue.
People look at $123 million and think it's alot of money...but in reality it's chump change. Think about it from a small business point of view. If you brought in $50,000 in sales in Q2 but had to invest $50,150 to grow your business for future quarters, would you hesistate? You lost $150, do you care if the investment is sound? Now if you took in $50,000 and had to reinvest $100,000 to grow the company that's a bigger issue and a point of concern. It's often about scale, you think $123million is alot of money but considering ford's scale of business it's not.
Now GM is a whole other issue. GM's problem is it's losses, it posted an 8.6billion dollar loss on revenues of 190billion. That scale is alot bigger than ford's
Additional FYI...if you want to bring up ford's losses you should bring up the first quarter loss. Ford lost $1.2Billion first quarter with $1.7Billion in restructering costs. Hell considering that they've narrowed the loss to 1/10th the first quarter loss is a big accomplisment.
People look at $123 million and think it's alot of money...but in reality it's chump change. Think about it from a small business point of view. If you brought in $50,000 in sales in Q2 but had to invest $50,150 to grow your business for future quarters, would you hesistate? You lost $150, do you care if the investment is sound? Now if you took in $50,000 and had to reinvest $100,000 to grow the company that's a bigger issue and a point of concern. It's often about scale, you think $123million is alot of money but considering ford's scale of business it's not.
Now GM is a whole other issue. GM's problem is it's losses, it posted an 8.6billion dollar loss on revenues of 190billion. That scale is alot bigger than ford's
Additional FYI...if you want to bring up ford's losses you should bring up the first quarter loss. Ford lost $1.2Billion first quarter with $1.7Billion in restructering costs. Hell considering that they've narrowed the loss to 1/10th the first quarter loss is a big accomplisment.
If things had been just peachy for Ford all along, you'd have a point. But with supplier bankruptcies, a junk bond rating that keeps sinking, and a major labor dispute, this loss isn't just a hard quarter hitting a solid company, this is their head ducking under again as they've been treading furiously trying to stay afloat.
07-20-2006, 02:49 PM
#18
Originally Posted by rockville,Jul 20 2006, 06:56 AM
I hope you are smart enough to figure out why that's an irrelevant/stupid comparison.
07-20-2006, 04:29 PM
#19
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: City
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Jul 20 2006, 01:06 PM
...while having suspension components on their flagship sports car break under typical loads, having vehicles burn down in people's garages, and refusing to significantly improve their standard V6 for the past ten years (in their bread and butter cars).
Just balancing things.
Just balancing things.
Show me the link where a fire in a garage was proven to have begun in a faulty part in a Ford vehicle. Garage burning with Ford vehicle inside, then unqualified bystanders suggesting it was because of the vehicle is what we in the (any) industry call "pure speculation."
As far as the "failure to improve" claim goes, yes, let's look at one engine in a line-up that includes what, well over a dozen?
You can imply all sorts of things with no factual basis, but you haven't disputed my points directly. Nothing balanced. Nothing you mentioned even addressed the original claim about Ford lagging in technology.
