MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums - View Single Post

Mr 5 0 · 01-13-2002, 04:32 PM

I'm not a corporate expert (although I've worked for a few but nothing as huge as Ford) but I know that Ford is sagging. It faces dramatic industry overcapacity and near-flat worldwide demand. As a result, its stock is now trading at less than 10 times its earnings -- just one-third the multiple accorded the Standard & Poor's 500 as a whole. Not good, folks.

I assume the layoffs were financially justified (no one is guaranteed a lifetime job, as I've learned over the years) and the gutting of the Mercury line was an obvious move, although I agree that the Cougar could have been saved, but the rest of the models they decided to cut weren't performing and simply stating that more advertising or better merchandising could have turned it around for these models is probably wishful thinking.

Chrysler-Daimler dropped the Prowler and the Plymouth line entirely for much the same reasons; much competition, low sales and dim prospects.

GM dropped the Oldsmobile line. A company that has been around for over 100 years and has a rich history, including being a stock-car favorite in the beginning days of NASCAR with the famous 'Rocket 88' (303 Cubic Inches - 160 HP bone stock in 1951). That move will cost GM close to a billion to buy out the Oldsmobile dealers and settle accounts. They didn't do this on a whim.

Bottom line: When a huge auto maker decides to drop a model line, partially or entirely, it's a thought-out decision based on economics and profitability, which is why a car company - or any business - exists: Profit. Ford is owned by stockholders and they want the stock to increase in value and if a model has to go, it goes.

It's simple capitalism and it works fine but sometimes people lose out; everyone can't be a winner and in a global market, the days of keeping a money-losing model around just for sentimental reasons or because the CEO likes it are long, long gone.

Doesn't mean I like it or always agree.
I'll hate to see the Camaro - an American muscle car legend - disappear and I think some replacements stink, such as touting the boring, generic new 'Impala' as a 'heir' of the original Impala, which once was quite a cool car (with a 427 and a 4-speed) but got fat and boring and was originally dropped years ago.

Same with the new Thunderbird. Looks like a replicar and is as slow as the original for near 40 large, Yawn.
Still, the 'new' Impala and T-Bird are selling briskly so I can understand why Ford and GM have revived them. I think that pasting a famous name on a generic car like the Malibu or the Impala is bogus, but these are really not my kind of cars and I can see why they do it; to lure the gullible into the showroom and sell them fake nostalgia. Ford did this in the mid-70's with the infamous Mustang II. Fine. Buyer beware and all that.

I just can't get too upset over Ford dropping money-losing models in a recession and with the global competition they face, as well as the financial losses from the Firestone debacle.
I'm sorry for the laid-off workers but that's life. I've lost a few decent jobs when the company moved., downsized or folded a local division through mergers. Stuff happens.

We'll survive without some Ford or Mercury models and I'm sure the Mustang is quite safe for a long time to come, which is my real concern, anyway.

01-13-2002, 04:32 PM	#8
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	Layoffs and Model cuts I'm not a corporate expert (although I've worked for a few but nothing as huge as Ford) but I know that Ford is sagging. It faces dramatic industry overcapacity and near-flat worldwide demand. As a result, its stock is now trading at less than 10 times its earnings -- just one-third the multiple accorded the Standard & Poor's 500 as a whole. Not good, folks. I assume the layoffs were financially justified (no one is guaranteed a lifetime job, as I've learned over the years) and the gutting of the Mercury line was an obvious move, although I agree that the Cougar could have been saved, but the rest of the models they decided to cut weren't performing and simply stating that more advertising or better merchandising could have turned it around for these models is probably wishful thinking. Chrysler-Daimler dropped the Prowler and the Plymouth line entirely for much the same reasons; much competition, low sales and dim prospects. GM dropped the Oldsmobile line. A company that has been around for over 100 years and has a rich history, including being a stock-car favorite in the beginning days of NASCAR with the famous 'Rocket 88' (303 Cubic Inches - 160 HP bone stock in 1951). That move will cost GM close to a billion to buy out the Oldsmobile dealers and settle accounts. They didn't do this on a whim. Bottom line: When a huge auto maker decides to drop a model line, partially or entirely, it's a thought-out decision based on economics and profitability, which is why a car company - or any business - exists: Profit. Ford is owned by stockholders and they want the stock to increase in value and if a model has to go, it goes. It's simple capitalism and it works fine but sometimes people lose out; everyone can't be a winner and in a global market, the days of keeping a money-losing model around just for sentimental reasons or because the CEO likes it are long, long gone. Doesn't mean I like it or always agree. I'll hate to see the Camaro - an American muscle car legend - disappear and I think some replacements stink, such as touting the boring, generic new 'Impala' as a 'heir' of the original Impala, which once was quite a cool car (with a 427 and a 4-speed) but got fat and boring and was originally dropped years ago. Same with the new Thunderbird. Looks like a replicar and is as slow as the original for near 40 large, Yawn. Still, the 'new' Impala and T-Bird are selling briskly so I can understand why Ford and GM have revived them. I think that pasting a famous name on a generic car like the Malibu or the Impala is bogus, but these are really not my kind of cars and I can see why they do it; to lure the gullible into the showroom and sell them fake nostalgia. Ford did this in the mid-70's with the infamous Mustang II. Fine. Buyer beware and all that. I just can't get too upset over Ford dropping money-losing models in a recession and with the global competition they face, as well as the financial losses from the Firestone debacle. I'm sorry for the laid-off workers but that's life. I've lost a few decent jobs when the company moved., downsized or folded a local division through mergers. Stuff happens. We'll survive without some Ford or Mercury models and I'm sure the Mustang is quite safe for a long time to come, which is my real concern, anyway.