Ford Pulls In $2.08 Billion Q1 Profit

by Edward Niedermeyer

Published: April 27th, 2010

The Ford Motor Company released its first quarter earnings today [Full report here, Slide presentation here (both PDF)], revealing that it gained over $2b in net profit on rising revenue and improved operating margins. Sales receipts rose to over $28b, and with each of Ford’s regional units posted operating profits, Ford’s gross automotive cash rose by $400m to $25.3b (although operating cash flow was $100m in the red). North American operations earned $1.2b in pre-tax operating profit, South America earned $203m, Europe recorded $107m and Asia-Pacific-Africa brought in $23m. Ford Credit racked up $828 in pre-tax profits, as lower depreciation levels improved results. Despite these fine results, Ford finished the quarter with $34.3b in automotive debt, a $700m increase from the beginning of the year. Ford paid $492m in interest on that debt in the first quarter.

Improvements in revenue and profitability are cause for celebration in Dearborn, but negative cash flow and increases in debt are niggling concerns. Especially when Ford’s CFO Lewis Booth is warning that these Q1 results are better than he expects for the rest of this year. Booth tells the Freep:

It would be unwise to think of the $2 billion as a running rate for the year

Ultimately though, Ford’s sales are up, and results are improving across the company’s global operations, meaning Booth still expects profits, albeit smaller ones, this year. And Ford isn’t trying to hide its optimism, increasing production goals by 30k units in the second quarter. Meanwhile, with 45 cents per share in earnings, Ford’s Q1 results beat Wall Street’s expectations, meaning the company’s stock should stay buoyant. Right now, that’s about all an automaker can ask for.

#2010 #FinancialResults #Ford #HighFinance #Profit #Q1

Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 17 comments

Lumbergh21 on Apr 27, 2010

Why did Ford stock take a dive today on the news that profits were higher than Wall Street projected? It also seems that anybody who is paying attention can identify Ford as the healthiest automaker despite all of the money pumped into Chrysler and GM by the government. Just shows you what a game of chance the stock market has become. p.s. Imagine Ford receiving half of the funding that GM got from the feds. How much debt would they be carrying then? Just a thought, but rather than throwing money down a rat hole, investing it in America, whatever you want to call it, where would the US auto manufacturing sector be if that money had been used to bolster the one auto manufacturer that showed any sign of "getting it" and changing the way they were doing business over a year ago?

Like Reply
MattMan on Apr 27, 2010

I bought a cumulative 3000 shares in a few different lots during October of 2008. All the lots were in the low $2 range. I did this inside of an IRA. Just as you guys wish you had bought *some*, I wish I had bought *more*. But hindsight is 20-20. At the time, the amount I invested was something I could afford to lose without it really impacting my retirement. I still have all the shares. I bought them with the intent of holding on to them for 10+ years. But they have appreciated so much that they are now a material part of my portfolio, which is making me rethink hanging on to them for the long term.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.