Stonks: Ford Flails on Forecast

Matthew Guy
by Matthew Guy
stonks ford flails on forecast

Holders of Ford stock were disappointed this week when Blue Oval shares sank on news that supply chain issues and inflation will likely eat into Q3 results. The stock nosedived 12 percent on Tuesday, one of its sharpest falls in a decade.

The company was upfront about its fortunes, saying yesterday that parts shortages had delayed deliveries of new cars and inflation-related costs would be an eye-watering $1 billion more than expected for the quarter. Turns out it’s more than the prices of milk and bacon which have shot to the moon. In all, Ford shares slumped 12 percent on Tuesday to just a hair over 13 dollars. In trading today, it has recouped some of those losses; at the time of this writing, the stock stood at $13.50, clawing back roughly one-third of the losses.

This is newsworthy because many talking heads were expecting the chip headaches and parts shortages to have sorted themselves out by now. By most accounts, they have not. These issues hit the bottom line of automakers and are costly on their own; adding inflation to the mix makes the financials even more volatile.

All the same, Ford stands by its so-called ‘full year guidance’ which is a term used by numbers nerds to speak about how a large company expects to find the condition of its books at year-end. This could signal confidence from corner offices that Ford expects these issues (particularly the parked, chipless vehicles) to be temporary, simply pushing sales into the next quarter and having it all come out in the wash. With today’s partial recoup of stick price, it seems some on Wall Street agree despite yesterday’s profit warning.

[Image: Ford]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Join the conversation
6 of 22 comments
  • VoGhost VoGhost on Sep 22, 2022

    What Ford has done well is to make vehicles Americans want to buy. I thought they were crazy to abandon sedans, but it worked for them. They moved the resources that were engineering cars over to introducing the Bronco, Bronco Sport, Maverick, Lightening and Mach-e, all of which are in high demand.

    Where Ford screwed up is with supply chain resilience, where their inability to meet demand for these products, and inability to contain costs is becoming a real liability.

    • Jeff S Jeff S on Sep 24, 2022

      JMII--I have a Maverick XLT hybrid and love it but if the Maverick were not available or I couldn't have gotten one I would have bought a Santa Cruz because I wanted a compact pickup and I do use the bed of my truck as I have on all my previous trucks. For my purposes I prefer the Maverick especially have a hybrid which the Santa Cruz does not have. I am glad the Santa Cruz is offered and would like to see other manufactures offer a compact pickup.

  • Arthur Dailey Arthur Dailey on Sep 22, 2022

    What 'competitor' currently exists for the Maverick in North America? The Santa Cruz at least in Canada is in a different price bracket and appears to be more 'style over substance'. The Maverick's hybrid powertrain has been proven over a number of years and many millions of miles in other Ford vehicles.

    • See 2 previous
    • JMII JMII on Sep 23, 2022

      Spec wise the Mav and SC in the middle trim levels in the US are basically identical. In Canada you can't get a non-turbo FWD SC so your forced into the most expensive trim immediately.

      As noted the Mav's claim to fame is: cheap + hybrid. However once you start checking option boxes the SC comes out ahead. And yes a fully optioned SC is more expensive but it also has more tech. The biggest swing factor is styling - those that want that boxy truck look think the SC is ugly and thus will not purchase one regardless. I've read countless comments online about these two vehicles and hands down the fans of each draw the line at the styling (both interior and exterior). For example as a SC fan I think the Mav looks outdated and boring.

      If you want a small truck - and MANY do - then you have only these two choices. On the SC forums there are plenty of posts from those that have given up on Ford's never ending wait list and picked up a SC instead. While Hyundai can't keep up with demand either their allocation system means a SC could show up at your local lot. For the Mav they are order only and all spoken for. Any sitting on a Ford lot is a dropped order and will be over MSRP for sure.

  • Dukeisduke I still think the name Bzzzzzzzzzzt! would have been better.
  • Dukeisduke I subscribed to both Road & Track and Car and Driver for over 25 years, but it's been close to 20 years since I dropped both. I tried their digital versions with their reader software (can't remember the name now), but it wasn't the same. I let it lapse after a year.From what I've seen of R&T's print version, it's turned into more of a lifestyle thing like The Robb Report. I haven't seen an issue of C/D in a while.I enjoyed both magazines a lot when I was subscribing. R&T for the road tests (especially the April Fools road tests), used car reviews, historical articles, and columns like Peter Egan's Side Glances and Dennis Simanitis's Technical Correspondence. And C/D for the road tests and pithy commentary, and columns like Gordon Baxter's, and Jean Shepherd's (that goes way back to the early '70s).
  • Steve Biro It takes very clever or amusing content for me to sit through a video vehicle review. And most do not include that.Tim, you wrote :"Niche titles aren't dying because of a lack of interest from enthusiasts, but because of broader changes in the economics of media, at least in this author's opinion."You're right about the broader changes in economics. But the truth is that there IS a lack of interest from enthusiasts. Part of it is demographics. Young people coming up are generally not car and truck fans. That doesn't mean there are no young enthusiasts but the numbers are much smaller. And even those who consider themselves enthusiasts seem to have mixed feelings. Just take a look at Jalopnik.And then we come to the real problem: The vast majority of new vehicles coming out today are not interesting to enthusiasts, are not fun to drive and/or are just not affordable.You can argue that EVs are technically interesting and should create enthusiasm. But the truth is they are not fun to drive, don't work well enough yet for most people and are very expensive.EVs on the race track? Have you ever been to a Formula E race? Please.And even if we set EVs aside, the electronic nannies that are being forced on us pretty much preclude a satisfying driving experience in any brand-new vehicle, regardless of propulsion system. Sure, many consumers who view cars as transportation appliances may welcome this technology. But they are not enthusiasts. I don't know about you, but I and most car fans I know don't want smart phones on wheels.There is simply not that much of interest to write about. Car and Driver and Road & Track are dipping deeper into nostalgia and their archives as a result. R&T is big on sponsoring road trips for enthusiasts - which is a great idea. But only people with money to burn need apply.And then there is the problem of quality in automotive writing. As more experienced people are let go and more money is cut from publications, the quality and length of pieces keeps going down, leading to the inevitable self-fulfilling prophecy.Even the output on this site is sharply reduced from its peak. And the number of responses to posts seems a small fraction of what it used to be. This is my first comment since the site was recently relaunched. I don't expect to be making many in the future.Frankly Tim - and it gives me no pleasure to write this - but your post makes me feel as though the people running this site have run out of ideas and TTAC's days may be numbered.Cutbacks in automotive journalism are upsetting. But, until there is something exciting and fun to write about, they are going to continue. Perhaps automotive enthusiasm really was a 20th century phenomenon..
  • THX1136 I think that the good ole interwebs is at least partially to blame. When folks can get content for free, what is the motivation to pay to read? I'm guilty of this big time. Gotta pay to read!? Forget it! I'll go somewhere else or do without. And since a majority of folks have that portable PC disguised as a phone in their pocket, no need for print. The amount of info easily available is the other factor the web brings to bear. It's perhaps harder now to stand out. Standing out is necessary to continued success.In an industry I've been interested (and participated) in, the one magazine (Mix) I subscribed to has become a shadow of it's former self (200 pgs now down to 75). I like print for the reasons mentioned by another earlier. I can 'access' it in a non-linear fashion and it's easily portable for me. (Don't own a smarty pants phone and don't plan to at the moment.)I would agree with others: useful comparison reviews, unique content not easily available other places, occasional ringers (Baruth, Sajeev, et al) - it would be attractive to me anyway. I enjoy Corey, Matt and Murilee and hope they continue to contribute here.
  • Daniel J I wish auto journos would do more comparisons. They do some but many are just from notes from a previous review compared to a new review. I see where journos go out to a location and test drive and review a vehicle on location but that does absolutely nothing for me without any comparison to similar cars. I also wish more journos spent more time on seat comfort. I guess that doesn't matter much when many journos seem to be smaller folks where comfort isn't as important. Ergonomics are usually just glossed over unless there is something very specific about the ergonomics that tick the journo off. I honestly get more from most youtube reviews than I ever do about reviews written on a page.