Ford or BMW? Side by side comparison

Gentlemen,

That shiny plastic **** is not "chrome". It is some goofy shiny flaky **** that is applied to cheap plastic in a manner that makes it guaranteed to start peeling off in 2 years. It used to be found only on American cars, but I notice now that Toyota is making liberal use of the same stuff.

Granted we can't make 30mpg with a lot of nickel and chromium dipped steel anymore, but if a car is built to last 7 to 10 years it should be painted so that you can touch it up at least.

Dave.

Originally Posted by westwest888

I have lots of insider info. It's called reading the newspaper and the google.

People have no idea why they lost 46% of their money last year. They have no idea what they bought (equity shares) and they have no idea what they bought it in (a company with decades of NEGATIVE earnings that stays afloat by issuing more debt against collateral secured earlier in the century).

Here's a good insider table from Hoovers.com. It's so insider that it's required by Federal law to be disclosed to the public. The numbers are in millions. As in, "Ford posted a $14,467,000,000 or $14.4 billion loss last year."

There has not been an official recognition of bankruptcy at Ford. But for the owners of the company, they would have been better off if they Chapter 7 liquidated it at the height of the credit and real estate bubble in 2005. If Chrysler and GM come out their bankruptcies even slightly less unprofitable, Ford's hand will be forced and they will have to go through the same Obamanation in order to free themselves from supplier contracts, labor contracts, etc. It will happen inside of 12 months.

For our advanced readers you can look at the statement of cash flows and deduce that Ford actually does lose $2000 every time a car leaves the showroom. The years where Ford posts "profits" they are accounting profits, not cash profits. That means some future cash stream is discounted to the present and booked even though it may never materialize.

Do you have said chart for a decade plus as you are claiming?

Accounting done according to account laws is how profits are determined. Everyone can spin these numbers one way or another to make them show different things. I stand by my comment that I highly doubt that Ford has posted $10+ billion losses for the past 10+ years.

I'll be glad to be proven wrong but would be somewhat disturbed as to why Ford is not in bankruptcy if that is the case. Since you seem to be exceedingly proud of the words that stream out of your fingers, feel free to educate us.

Originally Posted by cwinter

Do you have said chart for a decade plus as you are claiming?

Accounting done according to account laws is how profits are determined. Everyone can spin these numbers one way or another to make them show different things. I stand by my comment that I highly doubt that Ford has posted $10+ billion losses for the past 10+ years.

I'll be glad to be proven wrong but would be somewhat disturbed as to why Ford is not in bankruptcy if that is the case. Since you seem to be exceedingly proud of the words that stream out of your fingers, feel free to educate us.

I am really glad you asked. The definition of bankrupt is when your liabilities exceed your assets. As it just so happens, that happened to Ford last year. In America your company can stay in this functionally bankrupt state until you are insolvent - literally unable to pay your creditors because you have run out of cash. At this point you either get a bailout, or go to bankruptcy court. Please see the balance sheet attached. Assets < Liabilities. The result is the common stock is worth less than zero. That's why it trades for only a few bucks - it's no more than infinite dated call option on the company's future stream of profits, should they ever materialize.

Here is the Net Income data you asked for ten years back:

2008: (14,681.0)
2007: (2,764.0)
2006: (12,615.0)
2005: 1,644.0
2004: 3,634.0
2003: 921.0
2002: 284.0
2001: (5,453.0)
2000: 5,410.0
1999: 7,237.0

Add those up and you get - drumroll please - a loss of $16.4 billion over a decade. That's what investors got for sticking around. Hint: 2009 is looking AWFUL.

You don't need to be a Harvard MBA to figure these things out. It's math that any college freshman can do.

Originally Posted by westwest888

I am really glad you asked. The definition of bankrupt is when your liabilities exceed your assets. As it just so happens, that happened to Ford last year. In America your company can stay in this functionally bankrupt state until you are insolvent - literally unable to pay your creditors because you have run out of cash. At this point you either get a bailout, or go to bankruptcy court. Please see the balance sheet attached. Assets < Liabilities. The result is the common stock is worth less than zero. That's why it trades for only a few bucks - it's no more than infinite dated call option on the company's future stream of profits, should they ever materialize.

Here is the Net Income data you asked for ten years back:

2008: (14,681.0)
2007: (2,764.0)
2006: (12,615.0)
2005: 1,644.0
2004: 3,634.0
2003: 921.0
2002: 284.0
2001: (5,453.0)
2000: 5,410.0
1999: 7,237.0

Add those up and you get - drumroll please - a loss of $16.4 billion over a decade. That's what investors got for sticking around. Hint: 2009 is looking AWFUL.

You don't need to be a Harvard MBA to figure these things out. It's math that any college freshman can do.

I would be careful making that statement when you recently said:

Otherwise they lose $10 billion a year in a bull market, and $15+ billion a year in a bear market.

Clearly indicating year to year rather than summed over 10 years. As such, I am glad you found date to shoot down your own point, something most college freshmen are able to avoid.

Ford is certainly not laying on a bed of roses but as you showed us, they have also posted profits during several of the years you posted, as I expected to be the case. It doesn't take an MBA to figure that out either.

If you remove the last three years they posted a $13.3 Mil profit...isn't accounting for statistical purposes wonderful?

Originally Posted by cwinter

I would be careful making that statement when you recently said:



Clearly indicating year to year rather than summed over 10 years. As such, I am glad you found date to shoot down your own point, something most college freshmen are able to avoid.

Ford is certainly not laying on a bed of roses but as you showed us, they have also posted profits during several of the years you posted, as I expected to be the case. It doesn't take an MBA to figure that out either.

If you remove the last three years they posted a $13.3 Mil profit...isn't accounting for statistical purposes wonderful?

If you haven't read a newspaper in the last 24 months, enforcement of accounting standards has been nonexistent for a long time. Companies have valued assets at whatever prices they feel like. They can opt to ignore market prices. The government has been complicit in this arrangement to keep the party going. The game only ends when the corporation literally cannot make payroll. Washington Mutual and IndyMac are good examples. It is difficult or impossible to do balance sheet analysis on the bulk of Fortune 500 companies. There have been no arrests for fraud in financial statements. There is simply no enforcement of the laws on the books.

I've been watching Ford post $2 billion losses quarter-in quarter-out for three years now, with exceptions for one time gains or losses. The reality is they had a major cash problem, and now they have a major volume problem also. If they're admitting it's that bad, it's really, really, really bad.

Originally Posted by cwinter

I would be careful making that statement when you recently said:



Clearly indicating year to year rather than summed over 10 years. As such, I am glad you found date to shoot down your own point, something most college freshmen are able to avoid.

Ford is certainly not laying on a bed of roses but as you showed us, they have also posted profits during several of the years you posted, as I expected to be the case. It doesn't take an MBA to figure that out either.

If you remove the last three years they posted a $13.3 Mil profit...isn't accounting for statistical purposes wonderful?

pwned.

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

Whatever. You're obviously a hater. First of all a rental Fusion and a decently equipped 2009 model are worlds apart. A rental has been thrashed and is poorly optioned. They bear little resemblance to what you and I would buy. Second the 2009 model has been extensively redone and has received high praise in every review. It's also not marketing as a sport sedan like a 3 series. It's a top quality family car that now competes head to head with the Accord.

Last, Ford is not bankrupt. They are by far the healthiest US car company and probably in better shape than many foreign owned car manufacturers.

Thanks, Mike.

i gotta agree with hack. let's call things for what they are. as much as i'd like to buy american first, they're junk cars meant to be disposable and to line the coffers of big three execs, uaw extorsion, shareholders and lobbyists ensuring washington (we) keep them afloat no matter how bad a product or business model they have. the only reason we're stuck with 55-70 mph speed limits is because detroit can't make cars capable of consistently higher speeds driven elsewhere in the world. if it were truly about saving fuel, the last administration would have eliminated speed limits in much of the open country.

Originally Posted by napoletani99

the only reason we're stuck with 55-70 mph speed limits is because detroit can't make cars capable of consistently higher speeds driven elsewhere in the world. if it were truly about saving fuel, the last administration would have eliminated speed limits in much of the open country.

No, I think it's more because most of our interstates are basically [exaggeration] 6 inches of asphalt over dirt [/exaggeration]. After driving german autobahns recently, I am even more embarrassed at what we call American highways, many of which don't seem to have gotten a truly good resurfacing since the 60s. I'm not sure even 70 is safe for some of the interstates I've driven on recently.

It's amazing how good a well done road can be, though. Illinois, at least around Chicago, seems to have finally figured this out (maybe the concrete lobbyists won out over the asphalt lobbyists) -- there's a finished section of 294 close to the Wisconsin border that is basically American autobahn.