How Ford's dealing... without government help.
11-13-2008, 02:13 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
How Ford's dealing... without government help.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The inside story: Ford's roadmap for survival
Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News
DEARBORN -- For the last six weeks, Ford Motor Co.'s top executives met almost daily to craft a plan to keep the company solvent in the face of the worst financial crisis in decades. Surrounded by black-and-white photographs of Henry Ford and the Model T in the Thunderbird Room on the 11th floor of Ford's world headquarters, they waged a battle to decide Ford's future.
CEO Alan Mulally and his leadership team worked through lunch, taking quick bites of Caesar salad as the global credit crisis deepened and automobile sales collapsed. With gasoline prices falling, some argued that Ford should abandon its costly plan to retool North American truck factories to produce smaller, more fuel-efficient cars from Europe. Others pushed to curtail future investment in key products like the F-150 pickup that have seen sales drop off dramatically in recent years.
Global product development chief Derrick Kuzak -- backed by Mulally -- countered: If Ford has a future, it depends on delivering a new generation of class-leading cars and trucks that people actually want to buy. They fought off every challenge to one of the most ambitious product plans ever put together, albeit at the cost of thousands of jobs.
"We're only going to be in business if we create products that people really do want and value," Mulally told The Detroit News in an exclusive interview Tuesday. "This is the essence of creating a viable Ford."
Unlike rival General Motors Corp., which has curtailed its investment in some new vehicles to conserve cash, Ford is betting the business on new cars in a make-or-break bid to turn the company around before time runs out.
Ford's latest launches have done little to arrest its decade-long decline in U.S. market share, and it is far from certain that the cars and trucks in Ford's pipeline will be enough to turn the tide. Yet, Wall Street analysts such as Eric Selle of JPMorgan say this is the only way forward for an automaker that has wasted too many years producing lackluster products that barely covered its costs.
"The status quo is no longer acceptable," he said. "Abandoning the product plan would have been a bad move."
Ford has demonstrated that it can make money off its small cars in Europe, Selle said, adding that the concessions it won from the United Auto Workers union last year should allow Ford to do the same thing in this country.
Crunching the numbers
In Mulally's Thursday morning meetings, already the stuff of legend in Detroit, Ford's top executives review the company's progress on the turnaround plan. By the end of September, the full magnitude of the global credit collapse was becoming all too apparent to Ford and the company needed to take urgent action to shore up its liquidity.
The weekly meetings became daily sessions. Mulally summoned the leaders of Ford's Asian and European operations to Dearborn. Along with Ford Americas President Mark Fields, Kuzak and other key executives, they began looking for ways to conserve Ford's liquidity.
Each time, they would emerge from the Thunderbird Room with orders for their respective teams, which would then work long into the night crunching numbers and running models.
They worked Saturdays and Sundays, poring through the company's business plan looking for places to shave more costs. But the discussion always returned to the product plan.
Vehicle programs are a huge expense. Cutting one is an easy way to balance the books. GM is postponing new investment in its pickups to save money. Chrysler LLC canceled part of its product portfolio earlier this year. Some at Ford wanted to do the same thing.
"It was like, OK, which one do you want to cut out? Which one do you think we don't need? Remember, this is to stabilize our position in the marketplace and actually grow. We're not going to stabilize anything" if we keep cutting, Mulally said. "You have to allow that debate to happen, because we had to still come up with all of the hard actions."
Kuzak told The News that he saw little point in preserving cash at the expense of Ford's lineup.
"Outstanding products are the heart of any turnaround of our business and its future success," he said. "The whole intent from the beginning was to protect the product plan and the capital spending and engineering that goes with it and look for every other element of cash that isn't directly tied to the products."
Mulally's turnaround plan is based on consolidating Ford's worldwide operations to better leverage its global scale. Kuzak said many elements of that plan are ahead of schedule, and he challenged his department heads around the world to study their budgets to determine what could be eliminated in light of these newfound efficiencies. Other executives did the same.
Bonuses, advertising cut
They also began a careful analysis of Ford's most efficient operations, like its new joint-venture factory in Nanjing, China. Chinese partner Changan had introduced some cost-saving tooling practices there that Ford rushed to implement at other facilities around the world.
As part of this effort, executives decided to cut another 10 percent of the company's salaried payroll in North America. Benefits, including the bonuses paid to Mulally and other senior executives, are being cut. So is advertising.
Ford was already on track to cut at least $5 billion in annual operating expenses because of its earlier restructuring actions. These new cuts, announced Friday, are expected to save another $8 billion to $9 billion.
At the same time, Ford is transferring money from its lending arm, Ford Credit, to the parent company and will continue debt-equity swaps to raise additional capital. These actions, combined the possible sale of assets like its stake in Japan's Mazda Motor Corp., are expected to raise another $6 billion to $8 billion through 2010, when the full benefits of the new UAW contract kick in.
The product plan remains largely intact. In the end, Ford only delayed one new product program -- a European crossover that had not even been announced. It is also postponing plans to offer a diesel version of the F-150, as well as the freshening of a few of its poorer sellers in the United States.
Because Ford's plan assumes no help at all from the federal government, some of these actions could be reversed by a federal bailout. And Mulally said Ford's approach should help make the case for government assistance.
"Whoever is going to invest or loan us money wants to know we're taking the actions to create a viable company going forward," he said. "We are absolutely taking the appropriate actions. We've demonstrated that we're making progress."
The inside story: Ford's roadmap for survival
Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News
DEARBORN -- For the last six weeks, Ford Motor Co.'s top executives met almost daily to craft a plan to keep the company solvent in the face of the worst financial crisis in decades. Surrounded by black-and-white photographs of Henry Ford and the Model T in the Thunderbird Room on the 11th floor of Ford's world headquarters, they waged a battle to decide Ford's future.
CEO Alan Mulally and his leadership team worked through lunch, taking quick bites of Caesar salad as the global credit crisis deepened and automobile sales collapsed. With gasoline prices falling, some argued that Ford should abandon its costly plan to retool North American truck factories to produce smaller, more fuel-efficient cars from Europe. Others pushed to curtail future investment in key products like the F-150 pickup that have seen sales drop off dramatically in recent years.
Global product development chief Derrick Kuzak -- backed by Mulally -- countered: If Ford has a future, it depends on delivering a new generation of class-leading cars and trucks that people actually want to buy. They fought off every challenge to one of the most ambitious product plans ever put together, albeit at the cost of thousands of jobs.
"We're only going to be in business if we create products that people really do want and value," Mulally told The Detroit News in an exclusive interview Tuesday. "This is the essence of creating a viable Ford."
Unlike rival General Motors Corp., which has curtailed its investment in some new vehicles to conserve cash, Ford is betting the business on new cars in a make-or-break bid to turn the company around before time runs out.
Ford's latest launches have done little to arrest its decade-long decline in U.S. market share, and it is far from certain that the cars and trucks in Ford's pipeline will be enough to turn the tide. Yet, Wall Street analysts such as Eric Selle of JPMorgan say this is the only way forward for an automaker that has wasted too many years producing lackluster products that barely covered its costs.
"The status quo is no longer acceptable," he said. "Abandoning the product plan would have been a bad move."
Ford has demonstrated that it can make money off its small cars in Europe, Selle said, adding that the concessions it won from the United Auto Workers union last year should allow Ford to do the same thing in this country.
Crunching the numbers
In Mulally's Thursday morning meetings, already the stuff of legend in Detroit, Ford's top executives review the company's progress on the turnaround plan. By the end of September, the full magnitude of the global credit collapse was becoming all too apparent to Ford and the company needed to take urgent action to shore up its liquidity.
The weekly meetings became daily sessions. Mulally summoned the leaders of Ford's Asian and European operations to Dearborn. Along with Ford Americas President Mark Fields, Kuzak and other key executives, they began looking for ways to conserve Ford's liquidity.
Each time, they would emerge from the Thunderbird Room with orders for their respective teams, which would then work long into the night crunching numbers and running models.
They worked Saturdays and Sundays, poring through the company's business plan looking for places to shave more costs. But the discussion always returned to the product plan.
Vehicle programs are a huge expense. Cutting one is an easy way to balance the books. GM is postponing new investment in its pickups to save money. Chrysler LLC canceled part of its product portfolio earlier this year. Some at Ford wanted to do the same thing.
"It was like, OK, which one do you want to cut out? Which one do you think we don't need? Remember, this is to stabilize our position in the marketplace and actually grow. We're not going to stabilize anything" if we keep cutting, Mulally said. "You have to allow that debate to happen, because we had to still come up with all of the hard actions."
Kuzak told The News that he saw little point in preserving cash at the expense of Ford's lineup.
"Outstanding products are the heart of any turnaround of our business and its future success," he said. "The whole intent from the beginning was to protect the product plan and the capital spending and engineering that goes with it and look for every other element of cash that isn't directly tied to the products."
Mulally's turnaround plan is based on consolidating Ford's worldwide operations to better leverage its global scale. Kuzak said many elements of that plan are ahead of schedule, and he challenged his department heads around the world to study their budgets to determine what could be eliminated in light of these newfound efficiencies. Other executives did the same.
Bonuses, advertising cut
They also began a careful analysis of Ford's most efficient operations, like its new joint-venture factory in Nanjing, China. Chinese partner Changan had introduced some cost-saving tooling practices there that Ford rushed to implement at other facilities around the world.
As part of this effort, executives decided to cut another 10 percent of the company's salaried payroll in North America. Benefits, including the bonuses paid to Mulally and other senior executives, are being cut. So is advertising.
Ford was already on track to cut at least $5 billion in annual operating expenses because of its earlier restructuring actions. These new cuts, announced Friday, are expected to save another $8 billion to $9 billion.
At the same time, Ford is transferring money from its lending arm, Ford Credit, to the parent company and will continue debt-equity swaps to raise additional capital. These actions, combined the possible sale of assets like its stake in Japan's Mazda Motor Corp., are expected to raise another $6 billion to $8 billion through 2010, when the full benefits of the new UAW contract kick in.
The product plan remains largely intact. In the end, Ford only delayed one new product program -- a European crossover that had not even been announced. It is also postponing plans to offer a diesel version of the F-150, as well as the freshening of a few of its poorer sellers in the United States.
Because Ford's plan assumes no help at all from the federal government, some of these actions could be reversed by a federal bailout. And Mulally said Ford's approach should help make the case for government assistance.
"Whoever is going to invest or loan us money wants to know we're taking the actions to create a viable company going forward," he said. "We are absolutely taking the appropriate actions. We've demonstrated that we're making progress."
11-13-2008, 04:41 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 2,402
I suspect GM is in a much different situation to be able to do the same.
11-13-2008, 05:14 PM
#4
Prominent Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
So Ford spends money on a new F150 and GM spends money on the Volt....who's making the right decision again?
Other than actually having cash to spend, there's nothing I see in this article that GM isn't doing itself.....or has already done.
Other than a new very small car, GM's lineup isn't that bad in today's world.
Someone find the billions it'll take to kill divisions and I'm sure GM would be willing to continue to retract.
Other than actually having cash to spend, there's nothing I see in this article that GM isn't doing itself.....or has already done.
Other than a new very small car, GM's lineup isn't that bad in today's world.
Someone find the billions it'll take to kill divisions and I'm sure GM would be willing to continue to retract.
11-13-2008, 05:54 PM
#5
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
So Ford spends money on a new F150 and GM spends money on the Volt....who's making the right decision again?
Other than actually having cash to spend, there's nothing I see in this article that GM isn't doing itself.....or has already done.
Other than a new very small car, GM's lineup isn't that bad in today's world.
Someone find the billions it'll take to kill divisions and I'm sure GM would be willing to continue to retract.
Other than actually having cash to spend, there's nothing I see in this article that GM isn't doing itself.....or has already done.
Other than a new very small car, GM's lineup isn't that bad in today's world.
Someone find the billions it'll take to kill divisions and I'm sure GM would be willing to continue to retract.
Volt won't.
I do agree that GM needs to consolidate if not kill off divisions.
Ship the G8 with ME Chevrolet front ends to Chevrolet as well as either the Sky or Solstice. I'd choose either Buick or Saturn's Lambada SUV to replace the Traverse, and sell Hummers through the Cadillac dealer network while GMC would be an upmarket Chevrolet (like Denalis were to GMC).
11-13-2008, 06:24 PM
#6
Prominent Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
11-13-2008, 06:29 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern Indiana
Posts: 940
Ford has the right idea in that they aren't cutting products, but instead striving to make things people are willing to sacrifice a bit to buy. This combined with them able to control the financing (to a point) IMO puts them in better position to make it through assuming an eventual upturn, or at least leveling out of the economy and credit markets.
11-13-2008, 06:40 PM
#8
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Ford will have a vehicle that helps plug it's financial hole.
Volt will make that hole bigger.
Ford will have money to help fund additional models.
The Volt will take money from other potential projects.
If I was working in the auto industry, I think I'd feel a little more secure with the future of my job with Ford's new F150 coming out (and still selling over 800,000 per year) than I would the Chevrolet Volt (which will likely sell 30-50K... at a loss on each one...every year).
Besides, the long term industry's future lies in the new, barely-more-expensive-than-conventionally-powered, 38 mpg in-the-city, Ford Fusion Hybrid instead of the government tax-break-needed-and-still-sells-at-a-loss Chevrolet Volt.
Last edited by guionM; 11-13-2008 at 06:43 PM.
11-13-2008, 07:43 PM
#9
Prominent Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
Ford will have money to help fund additional models.
The Volt will take money from other potential projects.
The Volt will take money from other potential projects.
If I was working in the auto industry, I think I'd feel a little more secure with the future of my job with Ford's new F150 coming out (and still selling over 800,000 per year) than I would the Chevrolet Volt (which will likely sell 30-50K... at a loss on each one...every year).
Besides, the long term industry's future lies in the new, barely-more-expensive-than-conventionally-powered, 38 mpg in-the-city, Ford Fusion Hybrid instead of the government tax-break-needed-and-still-sells-at-a-loss Chevrolet Volt.
My son got layed off 3 months ago from the factory that makes CV joints for the F150 and nearly every other car / truck made in the USA after Ford, GM and Chrysler cancelled ALL orders for the rest of the year.....tell me again how someone working for Ford is feeling more "secure" with a new truck as their saviour?
11-13-2008, 09:30 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
Because Ford's plan assumes no help at all from the federal government, some of these actions could be reversed by a federal bailout. And Mulally said Ford's approach should help make the case for government assistance.
"Whoever is going to invest or loan us money wants to know we're taking the actions to create a viable company going forward," he said. "We are absolutely taking the appropriate actions. We've demonstrated that we're making progress."
"Whoever is going to invest or loan us money wants to know we're taking the actions to create a viable company going forward," he said. "We are absolutely taking the appropriate actions. We've demonstrated that we're making progress."
The public needs confidence that there's some light at the end of the tunnel here. Ford hasn't quite shown that yet, but at least they have a clearly articulated strategy and a respected man at the helm.What impresses me most about Ford lately is that they are sticking to a strict new model introduction timeline. For example the 500/Taurus has been a slow seller, but Ford is still getting a new Taurus on the market in a timely manner. The old Detriot way of thinking would be to leave the car in production for a few more years to squeeze some profit out of it, and then kill the car.
11-13-2008, 10:35 PM
#11
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Detroit, MI USA
Posts: 2,301
Guy -- I read that article and it describes EXACTLY what GM's been doing albeit with GMAC......(which is a huge problem...)
We have not killed any product plans other than next gen SUVs.........a couple of programs have delays of 3 to 9 months....that's about it.
We just haven't trumpeted what our product plans are at this point.
You talk about killing off Divisions -- do you have any idea of the costs involved? (we're talking Billions and Billions in liabilities...)
We have not killed any product plans other than next gen SUVs.........a couple of programs have delays of 3 to 9 months....that's about it.
We just haven't trumpeted what our product plans are at this point.
You talk about killing off Divisions -- do you have any idea of the costs involved? (we're talking Billions and Billions in liabilities...)
11-13-2008, 11:54 PM
#12
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
Guy -- I read that article and it describes EXACTLY what GM's been doing albeit with GMAC......(which is a huge problem...)
We have not killed any product plans other than next gen SUVs.........a couple of programs have delays of 3 to 9 months....that's about it.
We just haven't trumpeted what our product plans are at this point.
You talk about killing off Divisions -- do you have any idea of the costs involved? (we're talking Billions and Billions in liabilities...)
We have not killed any product plans other than next gen SUVs.........a couple of programs have delays of 3 to 9 months....that's about it.
We just haven't trumpeted what our product plans are at this point.
You talk about killing off Divisions -- do you have any idea of the costs involved? (we're talking Billions and Billions in liabilities...)
11-14-2008, 12:10 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Shelton, WA
Posts: 954
Of course that's all speculation since no one would ever tell little ol' us.
11-14-2008, 12:43 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,463
IMO When or if GM ever gets to Ford's size then they can tackle this type of model. Until then there is a lot more product lines and expense at GM that prevents them from just focusing on bread and butter models. Ford can get away with one small car, one sedan, one coupe and a truck and SUV.
As for the debate of GM brands there are two approaches to a bailout or restructuring. Either GM makes the brand/dealer cuts and eats the cost and in turn needs a larger bailout or they restructure a bit and take the very least needed in an attempt to bridge until a better economy and then access their brand overlap and product plan on their own money.
As for the debate of GM brands there are two approaches to a bailout or restructuring. Either GM makes the brand/dealer cuts and eats the cost and in turn needs a larger bailout or they restructure a bit and take the very least needed in an attempt to bridge until a better economy and then access their brand overlap and product plan on their own money.
11-14-2008, 02:44 AM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Guy -- I read that article and it describes EXACTLY what GM's been doing albeit with GMAC......(which is a huge problem...)
We have not killed any product plans other than next gen SUVs.........a couple of programs have delays of 3 to 9 months....that's about it.
We just haven't trumpeted what our product plans are at this point.
You talk about killing off Divisions -- do you have any idea of the costs involved? (we're talking Billions and Billions in liabilities...)
We have not killed any product plans other than next gen SUVs.........a couple of programs have delays of 3 to 9 months....that's about it.
We just haven't trumpeted what our product plans are at this point.
You talk about killing off Divisions -- do you have any idea of the costs involved? (we're talking Billions and Billions in liabilities...)
This is a very unfortunate time. Ford has money from the sale of Jaguar and Land Rover (and more importantly, they no longer have the liability). So Ford at this moment is in a better position than GM. I think that's down to luck as much as anything else. If this were happening a year or two ago, the shoe might be on Ford's foot.
Given that the auto companies are asking for loans from politicians, that makes this a battle fought in the court of public opinion. While banks and financing are fairly esoteric topics that your average Joe doesn't have a clue about, everyone has an opinion about the auto industry.
It's hard to imagine a more difficult time for GM insiders [I'm talking about rank and file -- both white and blue collar -- the people who don't have millions to fall back on]....
You and your fellow workers have my best wishes, Scott.