Ford Loses $1.2B As Restructuring Begins

4/21/06

(AP) Ford Motor Co. said Friday it lost $1.2 billion in the first quarter, its worst performance in more than four years, as revenues fell and the nation's second-biggest automaker started a massive and costly North American restructuring effort.

Its shares fell more than 3 percent in early trading.

The loss of 64 cents per share for the January-March period compares to a profit of $1.2 billion, or 60 cents per share, a year earlier. Sales fell 9 percent to $41.1 billion from $45.1 billion a year ago.

Ford said its results included a pretax charge of $1.7 billion, or 61 cents per share, for costs associated with its Way Forward restructuring plan, which calls for cutting up to 30,000 jobs and closing 14 facilities by 2012. The charge includes the costs of layoffs and buyouts and pay for hourly workers whose plants have been idled.

Excluding one-time special items such as restructuring charges, Ford said it earned $458 million, or 24 cents per share.

It was Ford's worst quarterly performance since the fourth quarter of 2001, when the company posted a $5.07 billion loss due to $4.1 billion in costs for a previous restructuring plan. In the first quarter of 2002, Ford posted a $1.1 billion loss.

Ford's North American automotive unit, which has been struggling with declining sales and high fixed costs, reported a pretax loss of $2.9 billion in the first quarter, including one-time items. Ford said that was primarily due to lower sales, increased incentives, acceleration of charges related to plant closings and losses at former Visteon Corp. plants now under the control of a Ford-managed entity.

Worldwide, Ford's automotive operations lost $2.7 billion before taxes, compared with a profit of $473 million a year ago. That included $2.5 billion in one-time special items such as restructuring charges. Ford sold

1.7 million vehicles worldwide, up 3 percent from a year ago.

Ford's financial arm, Ford Motor Credit Co., earned $479 million for the quarter, down 33 percent from $710 million a year ago. The division said higher borrowing costs due to Ford's junk credit rating was partly to blame.

"While we are not satisfied with our performance, particularly a loss in North America automotive, we are encouraged by the success in our global operations and at the Ford Motor Credit Company," Chairman and Chief Executive Bill Ford said in a statement. "We have said we intend to restore automotive profitability in North America by no later than 2008 and we remain committed to deliver on our promise."

Ford shares dropped 29 cents, or 3.7 percent, to $7.66 in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange, approaching their 52-week low of $7.11.

The Dearborn-based automaker's results were in stark contrast to its bigger crosstown rival General Motors Corp., which reported record quarterly revenues and a smaller loss for the quarter on Thursday. GM lost $323 million for the quarter versus a loss of $1.3 billion the previous year. GM has begun its own North American restructuring after losing $10.6 billion last year.

Bill Ford said Ford is in the very early stages of a dramatic change.

"This transformation isn't going to be quick and it isn't going to be painless," he said. "It involves risks and the financial rewards won't be immediate. But in the end, I believe we'll get there."

Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C @

formatting link

Reply to
Grover C. McCoury III
Loading thread data ...

But how much did Mr Ford, other members of the board of directors, and senior company officials get paid in hard and soft money last year while Ford was spiraling down hill?

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a Ford in charge of Ford. He seems to have his heart in the right place, especially in comparison to his predecessor, but the company is bleeding money and Americans are about to loose jobs.

It is time for a reality check when it comes to executives salaries. A fair base salary for the level of effort expected should be expected, on top of that should be a bonus tied directly to the performance of the company. If the company has a banner year, they should make X million dollars. If the company announces a 1.2 BILLION writeoff, they should not.

KAM. Ford stock holder

2005 Ford Explorer EB 1999 Ford Expedition 1989 Ford Mustang LX5.0 1972 Ford Gran Tor> 4/21/06
Reply to
Madmax

From Ford's media website

formatting link
"William Clay Ford, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer, received no cash salary or bonus for 2005. The value of his 2005 compensation totaled $13,298,279. In lieu of a cash salary for the first quarter of

2005, he received a restricted common stock grant of 32,837 shares with a one year restriction period valued at $372,043, continuing his practice of tying his compensation to the long-term performance of the company. In addition, Mr. Ford was granted 1,685,393 stock options under the 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan with a Black-Scholes value on the date of grant of $7,499,999. On May 11, 2005, Mr. Ford committed to forego any new compensation, including salary, bonus or other awards, until the company?s Automotive Sector achieves sustainable profitability. As a result, he did not receive any form of salary for his services as CEO for the second, third or fourth quarter of 2005. Mr. Ford received a performance-based incentive program award of 632,587 Restricted Stock Equivalents with a value of $4,959,482 on the date of grant, for 2005 performance under the 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as his eligibility for the award was established prior to the May 2005 commitment to forgo new compensation. For the third year, Mr. Ford has committed to donate shares representing his performance award to charities of his choice on the date the restrictions lapse in 2007. Mr. Ford also received other compensation totaling $466,755, which included $297,201 in value for required use of the corporate aircraft."

He seems committed to do> But how much did Mr Ford, other members of the board of directors, and

Reply to
Tony Alonso

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.