Ford posts $2.1 billion 1Q profit on strong sales

[boomerbust]

Source: ap

DEARBORN, Mich.— Ford Motor Co. said Tuesday it earned $2.1 billion in the first quarter, another sign the economy is improving as people spend more on big-ticket items like cars. The automaker expects to be solidly profitable this year, a year earlier than its previous guidance.

Ford said its net income per share was 50 cents during the quarter. That's an about-face from the same period last year when it lost $1.4 billion, or 60 cents per share, at the height of the recession. It was Ford's highest quarterly profit in six years.

The company was profitable in its key North American market, but it also made money in Asia, South America and Europe.

"The Ford team around the world achieved another very solid quarter, and we are delivering profitable growth," Ford CEO Alan Mulally said in a statement.

Revenue rose 15 percent to $28.1 billion.


Read more: http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/9000/11086700/Ford_posts_21_billion_1Q_profit_on_strong_sales

[NJmaverick]

1. I recced this good news but it didn't budge. The economic recovery haters

are out in full force:eyes:

[impik]

3. Yea. I just added my small Rec donation until someone cancel it, because Ford making profits

is bad and shows that Obama is just like Bush.

[boomerbust]

2. You could see this coming

Ford stock hit a low of $1.01 a share. Obama coming in and saying we must not let the auto industry fail. 52 week high on Ford $14.56 a share.

[customerserviceguy]

5. I did see it coming

I picked up a few shares back when it was below $2. While it was not anywhere near enough to change my life (I could just as easily have lost all of that money), it still feels good knowing that I could discern that Ford was not in exactly the same boat as Chrysler and GM.

[Doctor_J]

4. This is going to piss off Boner

Luckily for the Repukes Big Media will not let this news get any attention.

[Drops_not_Dope]

6. 2 words

crappy cars.

[JNelson6563]

8. Nonsense

Why do you hate union workers?

[SteppingRazor]

12. Agreed. The 2010 Ford Fusion is the Mo0tor Trend car of the year.

My wife and I purchased a 2010 Mercury Milan, and I freakin' love that car ... well, when I get to drive it. My wife insists that that car is hers. :)

[edwinmathews]

21. Motor Trends picks for car of the year

usually means there junk . The 1980 Chevy Citation and 1983 Renault Alliance being two of the best examples .

[Dappleganger]

22. You picked 30 yr. old cars as examples??

:rofl:

[edwinmathews]

42. Those were just

classic mistakes by Motor Trend . If those are too old for you try these other horrible picks 2002 Ford Thunderbird , 1997 Chevrolet Malibu , 1990 Lincoln Town Car and 1995 Ford Contour/Mercury Mystique .

[DesertDiamond]

14. You forgot the "sarcasm" symbol. Of course it's not union workers, and it's not hate either

It's a recognition that in the 25 years American car makers (the industry owners, not the workers) have had to redesign cars and their manufacturing processes to at least meet the foreign competition halfway, they have not. Now they are simply bashing their top foreign competitor to make themselves look better. It's not working for a lot of people.

[Zynx]

17. I think you are mired in the past. Look at current U.S. cars and get back to me on that.

[spoony]

18. Lol

You know what's really not working? Denial.

[JNelson6563]

19. Mmm-hmm. Whatever.

Yay! Go Union! We sooooo love our union workers here at DU. Of course we wouldn't drive what they make, no, let's not get carried away here. No, they make shit not worthy of us but gosh, we so love them!

No hypocrisy here.

[JCMach1]

38. dude! TOYOTA

And trust me I would own a GM or Ford over any of the European cars I have owned...

[dotymed]

27. I love union workers

I wish we would give them back the raises and benefits they gave up to help Ford, instead they gave that money to executive bonuses and shareholders. Working people deserve a living wage. I'm glad someone made a wise investment and saw a return but lets take care of the workforce first.

[JNelson6563]

46. Buying what they make provides job security

[Bluzmann57]

15. Blah blah blah

[Zynx]

16. Bullshit.

[spoony]

20. Two more

Bridge dweller.

[Dappleganger]

23. Hundreds of thousands of consumers disagree with you.

As do I. Every single Ford we've ever purchased has been rock-solid. We'd buy one again in a heartbeat.

[JCMach1]

39. +1

[Thothmes]

61. Have to agree. Have owned only Fords since 1963

every one of them gave me years of trouble free service.

[closeupready]

28. I disagree.

n/t

[V_Byl]

41. What planet are you on?

Ford makes some great cars. I just bought a 2010 Ford Taurus SHO.

Wow, what a sweet ride, I've never actually loved a car like I do this one, and there's lots of room for the kids. AWD, Eco-boost engine (turbo charged)...

Seriously, check one out ;)

[Dappleganger]

43. Glad you like it...

is it still manual? DH's brother bought the original SHO as his first car out of college. He LOVED that car and drove it everywhere. That sweet ride was SMOKIN'!

[V_Byl]

74. It's an automatic...

6 speed transmission (I think it's standard on all the taurus' now).

Great ride...

[la_chupa]

44. I flipping love my Escape

It's the only non-Jeep I've ever had. I would have gotten a Cherokee but they quit making them so I went with the Escape, no looking back now that thing is sweet.

[Xithras]

52. As many others on DU will tell you....

...I'm no cheerleader for US auto quality, but I've been impressed with the current generation of Fords. They're quiet, roomy, and from what I hear from owners...reliable. My sister drove the new Fiesta in Europe last year and was wowed by it. She's apparently on a waiting list for one when they go on sale here next month.

Now, if thay hadn't saddled the Fusion with that hideous chrome front end....

[Kingofalldems]

7. But but Obama is a Communist, Nazi and a Socialist

who will destroy America.

[theophilus]

9. I know Ford didn't get any bailout, but if GM and the rest had totally

collapsed, in the worst sense, I don't believe Ford would have survived, either. Too many part suppliers would have shut, and other factors. Those who hate Obama will never believe it and you can't prove it...because it didn't happen. It is sad that so many live in realities that aren't "real" at all. That's my opinion on this issue.

[Dave From Canada]

10. Ford didn't take one penny of a bailout. This has nothing to do with Obama. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

11. Exactly. It was an example of how Good Management CAN work. We're strictly a Ford family now. n/t

[apnu]

25. We've been buying Fords since 1999, and have been very happy with them.

The trick to a Ford, the sales guy told me in 1999 (which was my first new car purchase) as I was driving off the lot in a 5 speed Escourt: to stick to the maintenance schedule in the book. He said, "change your fluids on time and this car will run forever." It did until we out grew it and upgraded to an Escape Hybrid, that car never failed to start, never made a funny noise, never any other problem. We rotated the tires, kept the pressure right, changed the oil and whatnot when the book said so, and that thing drove as good in 1999 as it did in 2006 when we upgraded. Had 45K miles on it driving between Chicago and NY twice a year plus other trips around the country.

The same has held true for the 2006 Escape Hybrid we have.

Fords work, if you do the basic maintenance. I'm happy and proud to own their vehicles.

[Kolesar]

35. You did not buy a 99 Windstar

My 2000 Windstar had four expensive problems. Cash for clunkers was very well received in this household. Got a Cobalt

[Autonomy]

24. Actually it does

Obama took ownership of the economy, which is going better, thus providing buyers for Ford cars.

[SnakeEyes]

29. If that is true

What economic indicators can you point to? And just pointing as the DOW doesn't count. That only means people on Wall Street are doing fine, not necessarily main street.

[Autonomy]

31. Ford earnings is the indicator that Ford is doing better

I'm not sure what your question means. Here are some bullet points from the quarterly report:

*Strong response to new vehicles drove the largest quarterly U.S. market share gain since 1977

*Based on Ford’s improving performance, the gradually strengthening economy, and its present assumptions, Ford now expects to deliver solid profits this year with positive Automotive operating-related cash flow

Edit - Here are the units sold figures from the same url:

Wholesale 1st quarter:

2009 986

2010 1,253

+/- 267

http://www.ford.com/about-ford/news-announcements/press-releases/press-releases-detail/pr-ford-posts-first-quarter-2010-net-32473

[Dave From Canada]

32. No, it's an indication that Ford is doing the right things. Giving praise to Obama because of Fords

improvement is ridiculous. I guess Apple's improvement is somehow Obama's doing as well? And I guess we'd have to give Bush credit too. Because he was the first one who initiated the bailouts of GM and Chrysler.

And if the economy is doing so much better, why hasn't GM or Chrysler actually turned a profit?

[Autonomy]

34. So your contention is that the economy is not doing better?

Or that Obama has nothing to do with it? It has to be one or the other. I will reply 'as if' to the latter:

It's difficult to separate complex economic interactions, but had it gone poorly, Obama would certainly get the blame. But he took responsibility for the situation from Day 1. The bailout of GM allowed for the manufacturing infrastructure to remain intact. Were it not so, Ford would not be able to continue building cars.

Obama's harsh rebuke of the American auto industry seems to have had an effect. Were they actually responsive to changing technology and the economic environment, they would have made changes to be more profitable DECADES ago. But republican policies were largely aimed at creating a hostile environment to union workplaces.

Let's not forget Cash for Clunkers. I've no doubt that car companies are still seeing an uptick in revenue from that very successful program.

GM has recently paid off its bailout loans, which is why it has not had the profit margin of Ford. Look for it to improve later in the year.

Also, your rule "you can't count Wall Street" is meaningless. You can't NOT count Wall Street. You cannot discount the effect of an improved economy on buyer behavior. To suggest that it all change is merely on the manufacturer's end is ridiculous.

Edit: oh, in regard to Apple, that's a huge topic in itself, but not out of the question... the tech sector in the late 90's was testament to Clinton's (and other Dems') economic policies

[Dave From Canada]

49. No, that's not correct. GM paid off it's loans with other government bailout money. And if GM and

Chrysler hadn't have been bailed out, Ford's market share would be larger than it is now. I'm not suggesting that the auto bailout wasn't necessary. I'm also not suggesting that the economy isn't better. It definitely is a little better. But not by very much. And Cash for clunkers ended last november. Nobody is receiving any money for older cars now. So no, there isn't still an uptick at all. In fact, after cash for clunkers ended, auto sales dropped significantly.

Apple is a testament to itself, not government. Higher taxes didn't lead to Apples success. Apple's innovation and research and development did. As well as good marketing.

[Autonomy]

59. Yes, what I said is correct

The republican talking point that GM used TARP money to pay back its loans is a distinction without a difference. The company reduced its debt, increased its manufacturing capability, updated its technology, and increased hiring simultaneously. The loans were paid back EARLY, thus temporarily reducing profit. "He pointed to General Motors Co.'s early payback of $6.7 billion in government loans -- five years ahead of schedule -- and Chrysler Group's operating profit for the first quarter. And the auto industry has seen its strongest employment growth in a decade, he said."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/24/Obama-Auto-industry-bailout-paid-off/UPI-18291272115595/

Auto industry employment growth. Not "Ford employment growth". Of course Ford would have a greater market share this quarter if GM and Chrysler did not exist; there would be fewer competitors to choose from! But Ford would not have a greater market share in a few years, as the auto industry infrastructure collapsed, leaving fewer to buy American cars, and less opportunity to make and repair them.

Auto sales did drop off since Cash for Clunkers ended, but it's still up from 1st quarter last year, which is what we're comparing. C4C definitely increased the revenue stream. Yeah it ended in November, but government monies are only now hitting the balance sheets. Actually, new car sales are not the mainstay of auto companies anyway:

"For example, Ford relied heavily on a $528 million profit from its finance division this quarter, but Ford Credit's revenues are expected to dip later this year because fewer cars were sold during the recession so there will be fewer payments to collect. Ford Credit's annual profit will likely be flat at $2 billion, the company said. "
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_14966454?source=rss

It's 2008's sales that are going to hurt the 2010 profits after the 1st quarter.

[Psephos]

65. The "loan repayment" was a craven PR stunt, nothing more.

GM "paid" the government back using the government's own money, money that was given to GM as working capital in case the economy went even further south than anticipated. The money ended up as not being needed to stop hemorrhaging in current operating expenses (in other words, GM's losses haven't been as catastrophic this year as they might have been). It has literally been sitting in accounts. GM did not "earn" it. In fact, GM is currently losing billions per year.

Now we get to the actual reason for the PR event. GM wants to borrow $10 billion more, and soon, from the government. Specifically, from the Dept. of Energy, under its program to subsidize tooling and new plant for the production of energy-efficient cars. GM knew that borrowing $10 billion more, on top of the $47 billion it's already received, wasn't going to fly politically. So they created this "repayment" event to create political cover. They have figured that most people will hear "GM pays loans early" on the news and that will be the take-away.

The new DOE money will be "loaned" at 5% interest, not the 7% rate of the TARP loan. 5% interest on what will be, in accounting reality, an unsecured signature loan. (Good luck getting such a deal yourself.) So GM is going to be paying less interest to the government even as it reaps additional billions from the US Treasury. If it smells a bit like some of the re-fi nonsense that blew up our economy, that's because it comes from the same mindset.

[Autonomy]

66. GM paid back 8.1B early

for the purpose of borrowing 10B? Link, please, or you you made it up.

The discussion was whether GM's revenue would have been better in the 1st 2010 were it not for it paying its loans back early.

http://www.3news.co.nz/General-Motors-repays-81B-in-govt-loans-/tabid/421/articleID/152464/Default.aspx?ArticleID=152464

Note there are no figures for 2010 from GM yet, but here is a report on Chrysler:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2010-04-21-chrysler-earnings_N.htm?csp=34

"Equally significant, Chrysler generated nearly $1.5 billion in cash during the first three months of this year. Total cash reserves, from which the company pays down debt and finances future products, was $7.4 billion as of March 31.

That positive cash flow enabled Chrysler to reduce debt to $3.8 billion as of March 31.

"There has already been an uptick in customer traffic in our dealerships in the first quarter, and we are confident that sales will continue to increase as we launch new products in the second quarter," Marchionne said."

Ultimately, the argument against Obama having anything to do with the turnaround at Ford rests on the assumptions that:

1. Execs working at GM are a lot dumber than at Ford.
2. Ford execs were dumb, but suddenly got smart, after several decades of ineptitude, within a few months of Obama's intervention into the American car manufacturing market, and that those two facts are mere coincidences.

Yeah, sorry, not buying it.

[Psephos]

67. GM lost over $3 billion last quarter alone and you don't smell the warm fish yet?

Hmm.

GM lost $3.4 billion in the last 90-day accounting period, has not earned a single net dollar since bankruptcy, yet suddenly they're flush with cash and paying loans early. Very impressive. ;)

The reported loss is before any loan payment, by the way.

What was paid was taken from one pocket and put into another; both pockets are in the same pair of trousers and those trousers are worn by the taxpayers. GM is "repaying" its loan by drawing on a so-far untapped line of credit established under TARP provisions for cash-flow contingencies. GM still owes $50 billion to the US Government (which means you, me, and some increasingly wary Chinese). Heh heh...those clever GM guys probably don't even realize that new loan money coming back in will be free of TARP restrictions so the "executive talent" at GM can earn bonuses again free of government meddling. wink wink

US Treasury owns about 70% of GM's stock, which is worthless, because GM's liabilities exceed its assets. GM's pension plan is underfunded by more than $27 billion. Who will pay for GM's pension plan if the unicorns fail to frolic forth from the woods? Take a moment to consider the options before submitting your final answer.

The DOE application is hardly news; GM applied for it last summer. The loan decision was suspended; release of funding was made contingent upon GM meeting some (pretty weak) financial criteria. This "repayment" is a manipulation of that process.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124870556762783897.html

Here are a couple of stories on the this latest PR repayment scam. These took me less than 60 seconds to find...I'm guessing you didn't put Herculean effort into it yourself. There are plenty more where these came from.

GM repays federal loan with government money - San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/26/BUS91D55HR.DTL

GM misleading with debt claim - Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14957343


on edit: ooh, lookie what I found

GM is paying back Uncle Sam to shake him down for more money - Forbes (Uncommon Sense column)
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/23/general-motors-economy-bailout-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html

[Autonomy]

68. This discussion has become speech-making

I am trying to counter your (plural) arguments, and you (pl) are ignoring mine. And with smarmy wisecracks to top it off.

I didn't doubt GM applied for the loan, but claims above and beyond that are being made, and we need to check those claims against the articles. It's good form to post links demonstrating claims. I've been doing so in this discussion.

You (pl) obviously have a bad taste in your mouths about the auto industry bailout, but my point WAS limited to whether paying back the loans hurt GM's bottom line for the quarter. GM paid back 8.1B, and had a net loss of 4.3B for the all of last year. Unless it lost in the last quarter what it had in all of last year, paying back the loans made the difference between profitable or not. GM would have turned a profit had they not had to pay back the loans. In the meantime, the company has paid down debt, explored new technologies, developed new product lines, begun hiring, etc. (links above) Within a few years, GM should be more than competitive.

So, why were they not competitive sooner? You would also have to ask: why was Ford not more competitive sooner? I partially addressed that in my previous posts. Another reason was their dealership structure. Sad to say, but everyone wanted a bigger piece of the 'world's largest company', more and more, until they just about killed the host. It had nothing to do with GM execs being dumber; they were just playing the bad hand dealt them. The bankruptcy allowed for radical restructuring that will allow the company to become profitable from the R&D level onward.

Now, direct replies:

GM lost $3.4 billion in the last 90-day accounting period, has not earned a single net dollar since bankruptcy, yet suddenly they're flush with cash and paying loans early. Very impressive.

Actually, they've "earned" plenty of dollars since bankruptcy. They've not had an after-liability 'profit' since bankruptcy (mostly due to a couple lawsuits.) But no one reasonable expected them to, yet. They've not even released a new product line yet. "Cash" is used as an accounting term here, and not in regard to earning a profit. As a link I posted stated, such cash is used to pay down debt, develop business, etc. It IS impressive, in that it will allow the company to make a comeback.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=am8Tjj5bU50Q&pid=20601087

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/story/7B87D2031D3292D0862576FF00048CFF?OpenDocument

The reported loss is before any loan payment, by the way.

The reported losses for the company have so far all been last year. Much of the loan repayment has been this year.

"GM had already repaid $2 billion in loans. Last week, it announced it had repaid the remaining $4.7 billion."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/26/BUS91D55HR.DTL#ixzz0mPB2QDPM

US Treasury owns about 70% of GM's stock, which is worthless, because GM's liabilities exceed its assets. GM's pension plan is underfunded by more than $27 billion. Who will pay for GM's pension plan if the unicorns fail to frolic forth from the woods? Take a moment to consider the options before submitting your final answer.

GM's stock is currently not being traded (on the Dow) because it is in bankruptcy, and not because "liabilities exceed its assets."

"After the Chapter 11 filing, effective Monday, June 8, 2009, GM was removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average and replaced by Cisco Systems. From Tuesday 2 June, old GM stock has traded Over the Counter (Pink Sheets/OTCBB), initially under the symbol GMGMQ<10> and currently under the symbol MTLQQ."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization

The following article gives an overview of the company at this point:

"In March, GM reported that combined sales of its core brands -- Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac -- increased 43 percent, the sixth consecutive month of year-over-year gains. At the same time, GM has been sharply cutting incentives; GM said they're $2,000 lower per car than in March 2009 and $1,000 lower than four months ago."

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/04/27/2147258_p2/the-new-gm-is-shedding-its-old.html#ixzz0mPCSFuf0


Let me ask you this: who will pay the pension plan if GM is not successful in overhauling its business? What other reasonable choice is there but GM's success?

The DOE application is hardly news; GM applied for it last summer. The loan decision was suspended; release of funding was made contingent upon GM meeting some (pretty weak) financial criteria. This "repayment" is a manipulation of that process.

None of the DOE criteria is to pay back TARP loans, so the scenario of 'blood-sucking GM execs' falls a little flat.

[Autonomy]

70. Some interesting facts about the DOE loans:

http://cleantech.com/news/4635/ford-nissan-and-tesla-come-first-8b

Guess who else is getting them: Yup, Ford. And Nissan. And Tesla Motors. Can that be right? Ford, the shining beacon on the hill, the exemplar of all that is right and good in management (for the last year, at least), is ACCEPTING GOVERNMENT LOANS??? And a couple foreign companies are getting them, too????

Don't get me wrong; I like Ford. But the anti-GM screeds are republican talking points, nothing more. GM was in a somewhat worse spot than Ford, and had to go the bankruptcy route, as many companies do. The federal govt rightly determined that letting GM fail was ultimately self-defeating, and instead took a VERY LARGE STAKE (70%) in the company that will pay off in just a few years. If you're sticking to the righteous indignation of the morally outraged, you're really not interested in the objective points of the issue.

[ProSense]

36. It means cash for clunkers was a tremendous success.

Ford launches Cash-for-Clunkers eligibility calculator

Top 10 Cash for Clunkers cars

The program was definitely the spark that led to the recovery of the auto industry.

[Dave From Canada]

48. Actually no, it wasn't a great success. Cash for clunkers hasn't been active since November. Fords

doing well because of Ford. They make good cars, and the market them well.

[ProSense]

54. "Cash for clunkers hasn't been active since November" What does that have to do with anything?

The industry was in crisis early last year.

General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) reported that its sales plunged 49% from a year ago. Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) said sales fell 39% at its Ford, Lincoln and Mercury brands, and 40% overall when including sales at Volvo, which Ford is trying to sell. Chrysler LLC reported a 55% drop in sales.

By September, that changed:

Ford posted a 17 percent gain in sales in August, partly because its Focus compact car was one of the top-sellers in the clunker program.

[Dave From Canada]

57. All cash for clunkers did was inflate a temporary bubble in the auto market. Sales dropped

significantly once the plan ceased operations.

September Auto Sales Plunge in Aftermath of Cash for Clunkers; SAAR at 9.2M units, LDV Sales Down 41% from August, Hybrid Sales Down 48%

In the aftermath of the summer sales boom fueled by the US Cash for Clunkers program, September 2009 light duty vehicles sales dropped back to pre-incentive lows. With 745,997 cars and light duty trucks sold in September, according to Autodata, sales were down 22.7% year-on-year, and off 41% from August. The Seasonally Adjusted Sales Rate (SAAR) in September dropped back down to 9.22 million units, from 14.09 million units in August.

http://www.ecofriendlymag.com/sustainable-transporation-and-alternative-fuel/september-auto-sales-plunge-in-aftermath-of-cash-for-clunkers-saar-at-92m-units-ldv-sales-down-41-from-august-hybrid-sales-down-48/

To say that the effects of the program are still being felt is no true. The economy has picked up a little bit, although employment is still lagging. But Ford has done a great job, building good cars, and marketing them very well.

[ProSense]

58. The program was extended. Don't kid yourself, it was a factor:

Ford's European unit was helped by filling the last of its new-vehicle order backlog caused by the incentives offered in various countries during "cash for clunkers" programs.

Ford finished the first quarter with $25.3 billion in automotive gross cash, an increase of $400 million since the end of 2009. Ford's automotive debt was $34.3 billion, up $700 million from the end of 2009. The results didn't include the $3 billion debt payment the auto maker made in April. That will be reflected in the second-quarter results.

link

[wilt the stilt]

33. Wall street is usually ahead of the curve.

whether it is going up or down. What wall street shows is mood and mood is essential to a slowdown or a rebound.

[Democat]

40. Check this post about Cash for Clunkers and Ford

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4358172&mesg_id=4358459

[dmallind]

72. Well let's see

Mfg orders for durable goods way up

Consumer confidence way up

ISM industrial purchasing surveys way up

Hours worked and number of temp employees way up

Productivity way up


All leading indicators. All way up.

[SocialistLez]

13. I wish they'd move more production to the U.S.

They are still in the top 3 as far as carmakers I plan to buy from when my car gives out. =]

[MadBadger]

26. I noticed on the highway the other day, that i rarely see Fords anymore

The occasional focus or fusion and old Explorer. Other than that, I dont usually see Fords

[paparush]

30. Not trolling here, but, does Ford pay taxes?

Are they a company known to pay taxes or are they on the list of companies that, despite billions in profits, pay no tax.

[la_chupa]

45. Ford paid $69M in taxes last year

according to their SEC filings

you can see it on yahoo finance too
just put in the ticker and go to income statement

That's on $3.026B in pre-tax income so their rate is about 2.3% but I think they had some carryover losses from 2008.

[paparush]

64. Thanks for sharing that!

[Dulcinea]

37. Good for them!

Ford quietly restructured for years before the economy really went down, & they didn't need bailout money.

I had a Mustang when I was a young single woman. I loved that car! I drove it into the ground! I would consider a Ford for my next car.

[HughMoran]

47. This Ford guy likes this news

As for the people who post just to start fights over car loyalty - fuck you and the trailer you rode in on.

[Blue_Tires]

50. product is king

[grahamhgreen]

51. Why can I not get the 60 mpg Ford KA in this country???? link

http://hubpages.com/hub/35-Euro-Cars-That-Can-Save-America--9---Ford-Ka

[Xithras]

53. Because the U.S. doesn't recognize the concept of a City Car.

Europe has different crash standards for different vehicle types. City cars don't need the extensive crumple zones and can be built smaller and lighter, because they are designed to be used predominantly in low speed urban environments. European sedans are held to higher standards, because they are used for higher speed travel over longer distances.

The U.S. has a single set of crash standards that are applied to every vehicle, and we expect every car sold here to pass crash tests that are oriented towards collisions at freeway velocities. Vehicles like the Ka are deathtraps in 70MPH freeway collisions, so we don't permit them to be sold here.

The American people share much of the blame here. Most Europeans understand that these cars aren't designed to travel long distances over expressways, and few British people would even consider doing something like a cross-Europe high speed auto trip in something like a Ka or a Panda. Americans don't think that way, however, and assume that any car should be able to drive any road. When Americans take these cars on the freeways and start getting slaughtered in high speed wrecks, the media, and their families lawyers, would scream bloody murder.

Many groups have stated for decades that what we really need is a second automobile class in America that has lower crash test requirements, but is outright banned from freeway driving. Because American cities are so freeway oriented, the car companies themselves question whether a car like that could sell here.

[Stella_Artois]

55. Are you sure ?

I've never seen any mention that certain size cars are held to different standards in around 25 years of reading about and buying cars in Europe.

Reading the test reports for the Ka on the Euro Ncap site i can't see any reference to it either

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_ka_2008/341.aspx

Also in the "CAR SPECIFICATION, SPONSORSHIP, TESTING AND RETESTING PROTOCOL" document i cannot find any reference to any different methodology or scoring based on kerbside weight, or size or indeed any other factor that may allow you to differentiate between different classes of vehicle.

http://www.euroncap.com/files/Euro-NCAP-CSSTR-Protocol---v2.3---0-d16c8e6d-b4ce-4d49-9feb-337467694b84.pdf

I think you may be mistaken.

[Xithras]

62. Nope.

Just know what was explained to me the last time I asked in Britain. I ended up in a Fiat 500 that I adored. The Fiat 500 will be going on sale in the U.S. next spring, but we will have a different version than the one built on Europe (built on a modified Panda platform). The U.S. version will be more rigid and offer better crash protection than the European version, as is required by U.S. law.

My understanding is that the biggest difference is in side impact protection. The U.S. has stricter side impact requirements than Europe, going as far as requiring specific types of equipment, and specific metal thicknesses, that aren't mandated under EU regulations.

On top of that, you have states like California that implement emissions regulations that override even the federal limits. European cars generally meet U.S. federal emissions requirements, but many (including most diesels) don't meet the even tougher California regulations that do everything from specify the exact fuel mixture that must be run, to implementing NOx limits and particulate bans that far exceed federal regulations (and in some cases, ban or limit pollutants that are legal in the rest of the country). Because California is the largest car market in the country, it's rare for car companies to sell cars in the U.S. that aren't California legal.

[Selatius]

56. It's just a question of ignorance. In days past, cities in the US were built around people.

The big change occurred when companies like GM and other automobile companies set up umbrella corporations to purchase electric trolley companies and purposely drove them into the ground in order to push people onto cars, and they created a marketing blitz over the following 20 years to equate having a car with living the American dream.

[Romulox]

60. Because the webpage you quote made a conversion error: a british gallon is almost 20% larger

The U.S. liquid gallon is legally defined as 231 cubic inches,<2> and is equal to exactly 3.785411784 litres or about 0.133680555 cubic feet. This is the most common definition of a gallon in the United States. The U.S. fluid ounce is defined as 1⁄128 of a U.S. gallon.
The U.S. dry gallon is one-eighth of a U.S. Winchester bushel of 2150.42 cubic inches, thus it is equal to exactly 268.8025 cubic inches or 4.40488377086 litres. The U.S. dry gallon is less commonly used, and is not listed in the relevant statute, which jumps from the dry quart to the peck.<2>
The imperial (UK) gallon was legally defined as 4.54609 litres. This definition is used in some Commonwealth countries and Ireland, and is based on the volume of 10 pounds of water at 62 °F. (A U.S. liquid gallon of water weighs about 8.33 pounds at the same temperature.) The imperial fluid ounce is defined as 1⁄160 of an imperial gallon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon

Also, the author failed to convert pounds to dollars when quoting the price. The Ka starts at 14 361.048 (9300 pounds, not dollars!) so the $9700 price quoted at your link is bogus, too,. :hi:

[grahamhgreen]

69. Here is a link quoting 76.4mpg Imperial (63.6 US MPG)

http://www.carsuk.net/ford-ka-2009-price-specifications-data-and-model-range/

http://www.convertworld.com/en/fuel-consumption/Miles+per+gallon.html

And there is a promotional price on the Ka - £7,995 or $12,000!

http://www.ford.co.uk/CurrentPromo/CarPromotions

[Romulox]

71. Ford doesn't claim those numbers. They claim 44.8/64.2 for a combined total of 55.4 IMPERIAL

Why would you quote a website other than Ford, when Ford is legally bound to present accurate numbers on its website?

Handy chart on page 47 of this pdf, top right:

http://view.atdmt.com/action/moefor_eBrochurerequestKA_10

[grahamhgreen]

75. I'll take the 55 - I'd buy one tomorrow, if it was available here!

We need fuel efficient cars here, and we need to do whatever it takes to get these vehicles available in America to save our environment, as well as our companies, IMHO.

[dmallind]

73. FMVSS. NT

[Canuckistanian]

63. Good. Ford always seemed to me to be the most sensible car company

Glad to see they've made it.

My first car was a Ford. My dad always bought Fords. And while they haven't been the most creative or radical in car design, they've always managed to stay competitive.