(...)
But GM, Ford and D-C are in different circumstances.
While GM has a profitable foreign division (they make Vauxhaul, Holden, Opel and Saabs), the foreign division is not as big as Ford's. GM sold about $28.6B worth of vehicles in North America last quarter vs. about $17.3B outside North America. GM has also had to pay out lots of money to cover the pensions for Delphi (the parts maker in bankrupcy that GM used to own).
Ford has a higher percentage of overseas operations. For every 10 cars they sell here, they sell about 8 oversears (sorry, I couldn't find overseas sales figures) vs about 5 for GM. So they are able to balance out overseas markets.
One thing I don't understand is why GM sold GMAC. I mean that was making money for them. And even when they lost money on a car, they could get some back by financing it.
D-C is a whole other ball of wax, because they were part of a merger of equals with Diamler-Benz (it just seems Dialmer-Benz was more equal).
I am sure that how well paid up the pensions are for the three companies plays into their financial results. However, making liabilities for the future like they did without knowing the ballpark of the future costs is rather stupid. Which why companies go with 401ks rather than pensions nowadays. And European operations have an advantage because the government does the pensions in most european countries.
It seems for will do alright with the Focus and the 500. They also sell a lot of trucks, which aren't doing as well right now as they used to.
Actually, it is all about making cars people will buy. I want a BMW, a Hummer, Explorer Sport Trac, an Escape Hybrid, a Honda Fit, an Dodge Ram with 4WD (but no plow), Dodge Nitro CrossFire, Liberty, and a Honda ATV (4wd + plow, too). I need a really big garage. Which of these am I likely to buy in the next year: none (although the Honda Fit is the most likely one).
It's what people will buy, not just what they want.
Jeff