Ford discontinuing many models in the future

[scode]

Ford Credit returned $26 BILLION to Ford Motor Company over the past 20 years

 

[KMCBOSS]

I think that's a weird assessment. The Asian cars in the segments aren't selling very well either.

I have many opinions on the totality of the plans overall, but the fact they would stop selling some of these cars that don't make a lot of money or do a lot of volume in one market is not really a big deal to me.

A weird assessment perhaps, but I've been a lifelong Ford guy and just hate to see them give-up/lose market share. I understand that money is king, but if young folks never see a Ford, except in the truck or Mustang platform, what is going to temp them to be customers in the future? IMHO Ford GM and Chrysler need to be slugging it out in every market niche - its the only way to ensure long term survival. I suspect the asian car companies are not planning any market retreat even if the small cars are not especially profitable. Ford can't just become a car company that makes trucks plus the Mustang. Also, I hope Ford is not going to use their retreat philosophy on the Lincoln platform. It will take decades to get back any market share after they shut down that program 10 years ago.

 

[Xcentric]

Ford Credit returned $26 BILLION to Ford Motor Company over the past 20 years

Ford Credit is why Ford did not become another Government Motors.

 

[AJB]

Also, please note that all the Escapes, Edges, Explorers, and other current and 'new to be introduced' SUV 'S and trucks are still to be produced.... Not just Mustangs and trucks.
Andy (ajb)

 

[2112]

A weird assessment perhaps, but I've been a lifelong Ford guy and just hate to see them give-up/lose market share. I understand that money is king, but if young folks never see a Ford, except in the truck or Mustang platform, what is going to temp them to be customers in the future? IMHO Ford GM and Chrysler need to be slugging it out in every market niche - its the only way to ensure long term survival. I suspect the asian car companies are not planning any market retreat even if the small cars are not especially profitable. Ford can't just become a car company that makes trucks plus the Mustang. Also, I hope Ford is not going to use their retreat philosophy on the Lincoln platform. It will take decades to get back any market share after they shut down that program 10 years ago.

I think that Ford is seeing the future. Much like they did before the 2008 meltdown. This time it is going to be government regulation and the demand for driverless drone cars owned by rideshare fleets (maybe owned by the manufacturers themselves?). Private ownership of family sedans is most likely going to go away. We are migrating away from a car centric culture.

There is a big change on the Horizon. I think they see it, quite clearly in fact.

My feeling is that for much the same reason they don't build a Corvette fighter (FGT is a tier above), they see expensive to engineer, insanely fuel efficient sedans as a zero profit endeavor. Japan and Korea own those markets right now. Ford owns (leads) light trucks and co-owns pony cars and SUVs. They can survive on those alone and shed billions of operating costs.

As mentioned above, I think they would import their European mini-cars if push came to shove.

I see the logic and because I would never buy a 4-door car, ever, so I don't really care much either way other than Ford surviving and hopefully thriving in our new paradigm.

 

[Cobrar]

I think that Ford is seeing the future. Much like they did before the 2008 meltdown. This time it is going to be government regulation and the demand for driverless drone cars owned by rideshare fleets (maybe owned by the manufacturers themselves?). Private ownership of family sedans is most likely going to go away. We are migrating away from a car centric culture.

There is a big change on the Horizon. I think they see it, quite clearly in fact........

I see the logic and because I would never buy a 4-door car, ever, so I don't really care much either way other than Ford surviving and hopefully thriving in our new paradigm.

I have to confess that I am enjoying this thread, notwithstanding the consternation associated with the abrupt apparent change in vision/direction. I respect that change and flexibility in a companies business model is hallmark to long term success. But having worked alongside a half dozen extremely successful CEO's, the one thing that consistently sets apart failure from success is a bulletproof AND clearly articulated Plan to 'build a bridge' to get there (the vision), whether that long term vision ultimately proves right or wrong.

What I do not see (and am not party to) is an effective Plan that respects consumer desire/demand, time-to-plan, parallel options/alternatives, geographical (city vs. all other) differences required to support the vision, and of course a viable exit strategy. Adam Jonas (Morgan Stanley) with whom I often disagree, do align on one point, the need for transparency and definition of the Plan. I presume, but do not know that this test has been met.

DBK and I both have backgrounds in Economics and have had some spirited discussions on the topic. I personally, do not buy into a view that driverless/full electrics will prevail due to forced regulation. They may become a significant portion of the vehicle landscape in metropolitan areas, but I question what that ultimate percentage of total vehicle population it will become, as well as respective market share; and perhaps most importantly, can Ford make money on it, without forms of regulation or subsidy?

Obviously lots of questions and concerns. I trust that the 11/12th floor is having open dialogue with respective members of their Team to ensure that the Micro as well as Macro elements of the strategy, and plan of execution, are being addressed.

 

[Specracer]

Let me just put this here, if anyone wants a GREAT read about this topic....


https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307886069/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

Ford Credit is why Ford did not become another Government Motors.

 

[Kingman]

The volume of GT is not being reduced.

Race program is committed through the end of the 2019 IMSA season. I would not expect it to continue beyond that.

Any conjectures on who/what/where will be in a position to service the NFGT going forward? From the above news.....I'm guessing even less emphasis will be applied to training/education of mechanics, especially with such a complex and focused platform.

 

[KMCBOSS]

I hope you guys are right - maybe Ford knows what they are doing here.........just have a bad feeling that folks in a future MBA class on marketing mistakes will be studying this decision.

 

[Kingman]

I have to confess that I am enjoying this thread, notwithstanding the consternation associated with the abrupt apparent change in vision/direction. I respect that change and flexibility in a companies business model is hallmark to long term success. But having worked alongside a half dozen extremely successful CEO's, the one thing that consistently sets apart failure from success is a bulletproof AND clearly articulated Plan to 'build a bridge' to get there (the vision), whether that long term vision ultimately proves right or wrong.

What I do not see (and am not party to) is an effective Plan that respects consumer desire/demand, time-to-plan, parallel options/alternatives, geographical (city vs. all other) differences required to support the vision, and of course a viable exit strategy. Adam Jonas (Morgan Stanley) with whom I often disagree, do align on one point, the need for transparency and definition of the Plan. I presume, but do not know that this test has been met.

DBK and I both have backgrounds in Economics and have had some spirited discussions on the topic. I personally, do not buy into a view that driverless/full electrics will prevail due to forced regulation. They may become a significant portion of the vehicle landscape in metropolitan areas, but I question what that ultimate percentage of total vehicle population it will become, as well as respective market share; and perhaps most importantly, can Ford make money on it, without forms of regulation or subsidy?

Obviously lots of questions and concerns. I trust that the 11/12th floor is having open dialogue with respective members of their Team to ensure that the Micro as well as Macro elements of the strategy, and plan of execution, are being addressed.

My conjecture is that the lawyers will have the last word (or a million words) on how fast, and to what extent the 'driver-less' vehicle becomes ubiquitous. That is, unless the gov't steps in and conveys a special protection because of....national security!?!?

 

[2112]

I personally, do not buy into a view that driverless/full electrics will prevail due to forced regulation. They may become a significant portion of the vehicle landscape in metropolitan areas, but I question what that ultimate percentage of total vehicle population it will become, as well as respective market share; and perhaps most importantly, can Ford make money on it, without forms of regulation or subsidy?

I am not as optimistic, but I also live in a very "progressive" metro area where cars are seen as "the" problem.

One suggestion I see as a possible solution for manufacturers to stay viable is to produce fleets of rideshare vehicles where they maintain ownership and provide the ride service. An Uber that builds and maintains it'w own cars.

Let me just put this here, if anyone wants a GREAT read about this topic....


https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307886069/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

Loved that book

 

[2112]

I am not as optimistic, but I also live in a very "progressive" metro area where cars are seen as "the" problem.

I thought I would add to this comment. I live in a state of roughly 8 million people. The politics of that population is probably 55/45 in one direction in the entire state except for the single major metro area where it is probably 60/40 the other direction.

Due to the population of that metro area (about 3.5M), it's voters decide the direction the state moves 99% of the time. Isn't it condered a fluke when the major metro areas do not decide national elections?

Point being; don't rule out what the metropolitan areas decide. If they want legislation that makes ICE's prohibitively expensive to engineer and produce, it will more likely than not become the law of the land.

 

[Sinovac]

My conjecture is that the lawyers will have the last word (or a million words) on how fast, and to what extent the 'driver-less' vehicle becomes ubiquitous. That is, unless the gov't steps in and conveys a special protection because of....national security!?!?

The lawyers may not strangle driverless cars in the crib, but they are are going to kneecap the toddler. Right now, 99.9% of automobile litigation concerns driver error and fault is placed accordingly. While autonomous cars will certainly reduce the number of crashes, they will not be eliminated. Without some type of government protection, what manufacturer would voluntarily assume liability for those crashes? It’s going to take a drastic change in the legal landscape to make autonomous cars ubiquitous.

 

[DanQ]

How will ford meet corporate fuel economy numbers without small cars?

When the price of gas goes up, watch the share price of ford go down. Dealers won't have anything to sell.

Seems like a gigantic gamble that is 100% tied to the cost of gas. A very dangerous gamble with no diversification.

 

[Kingman]

The lawyers may not strangle driverless cars in the crib, but they are are going to kneecap the toddler. Right now, 99.9% of automobile litigation concerns driver error and fault is placed accordingly. While autonomous cars will certainly reduce the number of crashes, they will not be eliminated. Without some type of government protection, what manufacturer would voluntarily assume liability for those crashes? It’s going to take a drastic change in the legal landscape to make autonomous cars ubiquitous.

We're on the same page. Driverless cars will allow the lawyers to target the REALLY deep pockets with Class Action lawsuits.

 

[Kingman]

How will ford meet corporate fuel economy numbers without small cars?

When the price of gas goes up, watch the share price of ford go down. Dealers won't have anything to sell.

Seems like a gigantic gamble that is 100% tied to the cost of gas. A very dangerous gamble with no diversification.

My guess is that the Big Guy, sitting at the Big Table, has evaluated current and future technology, and he may believe that winning big now will fill the coffers, affording them the luxury to invest in said technology....and said technology will allow them to react to market conditions as if they were in a cabin cruiser, instead of the largest aircraft carrier in the fleet.

 

[2112]

Interesting related story;

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/aut...that-few-americans-want/ar-AAwq476?li=BBnb7Kz

 

[dbk]

How will ford meet corporate fuel economy numbers without small cars?

When the price of gas goes up, watch the share price of ford go down. Dealers won't have anything to sell.

Seems like a gigantic gamble that is 100% tied to the cost of gas. A very dangerous gamble with no diversification.

I think you can argue that the plan, whatever it is, could be wrong for many reasons but this just isn't one. It's not 2004; SUVs aren't gas guzzlers anymore. An Escape gets 21/29. An Ecosport 27/29. An Edge 21/29. That's not a whole lot different to a Fusion at 21/32.

Their future product plan is extremely reliant on hybrids and BEVs. They are dumping $11 billion dollars on 24 hybrid and 16 fully electric vehicles to sell by 2022. With that plan, the risk is definitely not that gas goes up...

 

[twobjshelbys]

I told my daughter to take care of her Focus. Some day it will be a collector car

 

[ChipBeck]

Very, very wrong. There is plenty of money in financing small cars.

The investment banker view has always been "you know guys, we can help you sell the credit business and get you billions of dollars" because they view it as nothing but a...well, an easy way to make a bunch of money during a divestiture. This has been going on forever, and there's always some clever suit popping in to explain how they can get X billion dollars in the sale of the financing arm. That is until GM and FCA both lost theirs and then it became "oh these guys are at a disadvantage because they don't have a captive finance arm like Ford does." No shit, funny how that works.

FMCC is not a bank. It's a marketing and service arm that supports the parent company in a symbiotic way that a bank never would. A bank views any loan purely as an income stream, and they don't have any rooting interest in where the money goes. The captive finance arm views the loan as a conduit to keep a consumer returning to the parent company year after year, sometimes for decades. Even if FMCC didn't typically return in the ballpark of $2 billion in pretax profit basically every single year, they still exist as a support structure for the sale of *Ford* vehicles, and they take a very different view of the borrower than a bank does.

Gentlemen,

The captive finance arm serves one other very important purpose. When the shit hits the fan like the big recessions of the 1980’s and banks pulled out of financing dealers and flooring their inventories GMAC and FMC were the only source of financing available. Without GMAC my Pontiac-GMC dealership would have been history. In 2008 all banks stopped flooring inventories for boat dealers. Over 90% of the boat dealerships in Arizona were forced out of business. Captive finance companies are essential especially during downturns.

Chip