Will Ford Need Another Debt-For-Equity Swap?

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Ford has been benefiting heavily from “good kid syndrome” lately. You know how it goes, as long as your behavior is marginally better than your sibling’s, you’re the good kid. Just ask the self-styled Autoextremist.

I believe that Ford will emerge as the largest and most profitable U.S. automaker and stay that way for the foreseeable future. They have the strongest management team (led by ex-Boeing executive Alan Mulally who is simply one of the best who has ever worked in this business), they have sensational products here and on the way (their new product cadence is extremely impressive and rivals that of any automaker in the business), and they are demonstrating signs of real momentum in an absolutely dreadful market. I expect Ford to be a global force to be reckoned with in this business for years to come.

Mr. Delorenzo isn’t wrong, per se. Ford’s management and products look downright promising . . . compared to the other Detroit firms. Which is like saying you’ve got the nicest Camaro in the trailer park. Meanwhile, far from the oracles of product cadence and “real momentum,” people are looking at Ford’s numbers, and the words “global force to be reckoned with” aren’t flowing off any of their keyboards.

“We are concerned that the company’s leverage may reach unsustainable levels,” Kirk Ludtke of CRT Capital Group tells Reuters. “It seems likely that Ford will need to de-lever its balance sheet by pursuing additional equity and/or debt exchanges.” Ouch. And the irony is that Ford’s recently approved government retooling loan is actually adding to Ford’s overleverage (if at a discount). JP Morgan figures the government loans will push Ford’s gross debt levels to around four times its EBITDA. And in the words of the JP Morgan report, “auto companies should not be leveraged more than 2 times.” Who knew?

But the looming threat is a $10 billion credit facility which matures in 2011, just in time for Ford’s projected return to profitability. But if another debt-for-equity-swap is in the offing, it might not go as well the second time. Ludtke gives Ford stock a “sell” rating, calling it “overvalued” at Street Insider. According to the analysis, Ford will burn $18.4 billion in the next three years. Which means the company will have to raise $7 billion in additional capital. Or, heaven forfend, take a bailout.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 14 comments
  • Matt51 Matt51 on Jun 27, 2009

    "EcoBoost" - a pathetic joke. Adding a turbo isn't anything new, and won't save the Titanic as it sinks. Sell Ford shares short. Ford can't compete with Kia, or Mazda, or Honda, or Nissan, or GM, or maybe even Chrysler. Ford is bringing nothing new to the market to help them turn around. Focus? Fusion? Taurus? Any Lincoln or Mercury product? Even the latest Ram is rated higher than F150. Massive debt, inferior product, nothing much "new" besides "EcoBoost". The crash is coming, we won't have long to wait. They fired too many engineers in Dearborn, they really resemble Chrysler. The "loss" of Vauxhall/Opel is good for GM. They are dumping their high cost plants. GMC is not dead weight. They sell a lot of product.

  • King Bojack King Bojack on Jun 27, 2009

    Matt51: Ford's increasing marketshare (no matter the reason) begs to differ with your entire opinion of the company.

  • Jeff Self driving cars are not ready for prime time.
  • Lichtronamo Watch as the non-us based automakers shift more production to Mexico in the future.
  • 28-Cars-Later " Electrek recently dug around in Tesla’s online parts catalog and found that the windshield costs a whopping $1,900 to replace.To be fair, that’s around what a Mercedes S-Class or Rivian windshield costs, but the Tesla’s glass is unique because of its shape. It’s also worth noting that most insurance plans have glass replacement options that can make the repair a low- or zero-cost issue. "Now I understand why my insurance is so high despite no claims for years and about 7,500 annual miles between three cars.
  • AMcA My theory is that that when the Big 3 gave away the store to the UAW in the last contract, there was a side deal in which the UAW promised to go after the non-organized transplant plants. Even the UAW understands that if the wage differential gets too high it's gonna kill the golden goose.
  • MKizzy Why else does range matter? Because in the EV advocate's dream scenario of a post-ICE future, the average multi-car household will find itself with more EVs in their garages and driveways than places to plug them in or the capacity to charge then all at once without significant electrical upgrades. Unless each vehicle has enough range to allow for multiple days without plugging in, fighting over charging access in multi-EV households will be right up there with finances for causes of domestic strife.
Next