Jump to content

Ford to reveal future product plans on Thursday (Bronco under cover and a baby Bronco!)


Recommended Posts

God dammit I wish I still had my Ford stock just to be in that room

the sessions next week that Rmc523 posted about from elsewhere

kinda sound like they'll re-cap the Thursday meeting, no?...

 

You are invited to attend a special product preview ... Event details:

• Dates: March 19-22

• Duration: 60 minute sessions

• Location: PDC Showroom, 20901 Oakwood, Dearborn, Michigan 48124

• *** Please leave phones in your vehicle or a sticker will be placed over the camera ***

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the sessions next week that Rmc523 posted about from elsewhere

kinda sound like they'll re-cap the Thursday meeting, no?...

 

You are invited to attend a special product preview ... Event details:

• Dates: March 19-22

• Duration: 60 minute sessions

• Location: PDC Showroom, 20901 Oakwood, Dearborn, Michigan 48124

• *** Please leave phones in your vehicle or a sticker will be placed over the camera ***

That's what I'm wondering and asked this in my previous post in this thread. Looks like later-today's meeting will be re-discussed next week to allow more shareholders to listen and view the info.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the sessions next week that Rmc523 posted about from elsewhere

kinda sound like they'll re-cap the Thursday meeting, no?...

 

You are invited to attend a special product preview ... Event details:

• Dates: March 19-22

• Duration: 60 minute sessions

• Location: PDC Showroom, 20901 Oakwood, Dearborn, Michigan 48124

• *** Please leave phones in your vehicle or a sticker will be placed over the camera ***

maybe no photos but I bet there will be a lot of sketches and CGI images after this event.

 

The ultimate long lead drip feed advertising event where you get investors and analysts talk about the products they will see.

 

Buy Ford stock, says analyst long pessimistic about automaker

AutomotiveNews, Michael Martinez, March 14, 2018

 

UPDATED: 3/14/18 4:15 pm ET - adds stock close

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Jonas said he was raising Ford's underlying earnings forecasts by the greatest amount in five years in part because of Hackett's efforts to slash costs and improve profitability.

 

Late in 2017, Hackett vowed to cut $14 billion in engineering expenses and shift $7 billion in product-development funding from cars to more profitable light trucks, among other changes. He has set a long-term goal of 8 percent profit margins.

 

Hackett and other Ford leaders plan to provide more details to the media Thursday on the company's product plans through 2020.

 

Thursday's presentation follows months of calls by Wall Street to be more transparent, including a memorable back-and-forth between Hackett and Jonas during Ford's fourth-quarter earnings call in January.

 

On Wednesday, Jonas said Ford's restructuring has the ability to reduce its costs by 20 to 40 percent and that there's still upside for its money-making F-150 pickup, which he estimates is by itself worth 35 percent more than the entire company.

 

"Our revised target gives Ford credit for adjusting its global portfolio to emphasize its strong position in US pickup trucks, where the company has outsized exposure," Jonas wrote.

 

He said many challenges remain, including the perception of an outdated product portfolio and apparent lack of cohesion around an "Auto 2.0" strategy.

 

Yet he argued that Ford has a "window of opportunity" if it takes a few concrete steps, including cutting small-margin sedans from its lineup, adding more SUVs, exiting underperforming markets such as Latin America and potentially spinning off the Smart Mobility subsidiary that Hackett led before replacing Mark Fields as CEO last May.

 

"Ford isn't out of the woods yet, but we think that the bar is pretty low here," Jonas said. "Decisive strategic actions and a cessation of negative revisions can improve investor confidence in management from a low level. Some of the restructuring actions we have anticipated may unsettle short-term investors. All else equal, we'd be buyers of weakness."

 

 

In the Q4 sales Call Hackett mentioned to Jonas that Ford wanted to bring him under the tent but the time wasn't tonight

I wonder if Jonas has now seen what's coming and that's why he's gone 180 degrees and stopped bagging Ford...

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from the Ford Authority blog today:

 

 

​Is it true :(:nonono: ?.

 

Starting to look like it, which is stupid. They really need to scrap, burn, destroy, obliterate, the MKT and just stop making them. Lincoln needs a full size car for China and the US so I don't understand if they do this. The Continental in my opinion, is pretty good but could have been much better. A newer model isn't going to sell gangbusters if doesn't dominate head and shoulders above the competition. That ancient 6 speed transmission did not help it out one bit. It will take more than one model sold for a few years to really make some progress in this shrinking segment. People really tend to buy the badges in the large car segment (see Cadillac).

 

Anyhow,Hackett needs to strengthen Lincoln not neuter it. He can do that and Ford at the same time too, as they are not exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if the Continental discontinuation is misinformation to see where it leaks out from...

 

It makes zero sense to kill off both the MKZ and Continental at this point in time...luxury cars are the only sedan based products that are actually selling.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d be shocked if they killed Continental and MKZ without at least one CD6 replacement sedan.

 

I thought Continental was mainly created for the China market anyway - how is it doing there?

 

They won't be dropping them. They're set to be moved to CD6, and I think they'll both be made in FRAP.

 

Well Saturday's WSJ had a Dan Neil story with the headline..."2018 Volvo S90 T8: Lincolns Don't Come Close".

 

Story goes on to cover the sale to Geely for 1.8 billion-4.7 less than the price paid for Volvo 11 years earlier. Neil then highlights great success Geely is having-after spending 11 billion on the brand. Last year world sales of 571,577 cars -up 53% from 2010, while Lincoln sales tank.

 

He then lays the blame on Wall Street as Ford management refused to spend the money needed on Lincoln.."as investors won't support them". He goes on..."Instead Ford is content to glam up mass market Ford products and call them Lincolns"

 

While he raves about the S90, the price as tested was $82,140. Quite a bit more than a loaded Continental?

 

His closing line....."Ford coulda, shoulda, but wouldn't"

 

Nope, Black Label Contis are in the 80K range.

 

Every other article has rated the Conti over the S90, so....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yesterday there are all sorts of Seeking Alpha postings about the high value of the F-150 "franchise" as it stands on its own.

 

Mr Jonas of Morgan Stanley is one of these cheerleaders who suddenly jump on a new band wagon. After dumping on Ford for months, its like all of a sudden..."holy shit-I guess they weren't lying-it is the number one selling vehicle and the ATPs are through the roof"

 

Amazing-what a difference a day makes. Or as someone has suggested, perhaps Hackett blew in Mr Jonas ear some big news.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They won't be dropping them. They're set to be moved to CD6, and I think they'll both be made in FRAP.

 

 

Nope, Black Label Contis are in the 80K range.

 

Every other article has rated the Conti over the S90, so....

Thx for that info- and I don't think this guy Neil is noted for his bias TOWARD Ford but it was a hatchet job.

 

Then again, with a hybrid system including an 87 HP electric rear axle drive, it is a pretty sophisticated vehicle compared to the Lincoln-not that I'm a fan of complexity.

 

I also think a main thrust of the article was that Ford blew it with the fire sale of Volvo. And as much as I like Mulally, I think he should have given more thought to the Volvo sale. It was not in the same basket as Jac's other wet dreams IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is typical. Analyst pounds and pounds against a stock for ambiguous reasons. Company defends and defends itself as it is highly profitable. Stock hits lows, then all of the sudden analyst has new moment (after they have bought at the lows) and says they see a bright future. Stock goes up, investor dumps. Rinse, repeat.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thx for that info- and I don't think this guy Neil is noted for his bias TOWARD Ford but it was a hatchet job.

 

Then again, with a hybrid system including an 87 HP electric rear axle drive, it is a pretty sophisticated vehicle compared to the Lincoln-not that I'm a fan of complexity.

 

I also think a main thrust of the article was that Ford blew it with the fire sale of Volvo. And as much as I like Mulally, I think he should have given more thought to the Volvo sale. It was not in the same basket as Jac's other wet dreams IMO.

 

Hindsight is 20/20. The world was in a recession so Ford didn't have much leverage. It would have been nice but what if Ford had waited it out to find a better price. Would Ford have been up there with Chrysler and GM, effectively begging to stay in existence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think a main thrust of the article was that Ford blew it with the fire sale of Volvo. And as much as I like Mulally, I think he should have given more thought to the Volvo sale. It was not in the same basket as Jac's other wet dreams IMO.

 

Did you miss the part where Geely put 11 BILLION dollars into the brand? Seriously, Ford did not have the capability to do that at the time. They really didn't have a choice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hindsight is 20/20. The world was in a recession so Ford didn't have much leverage. It would have been nice but what if Ford had waited it out to find a better price. Would Ford have been up there with Chrysler and GM, effectively begging to stay in existence?

Agree for sure on the 20/20 comment. I just think of the PAG, seems to me Volvo was the only one that provided something in the form of technology that was shared with Ford. Would have been nice if Mulally's "One Ford" had made one exception. And as for Mulally, I wish he was here today.

 

 

Did you miss the part where Geely put 11 BILLION dollars into the brand? Seriously, Ford did not have the capability to do that at the time. They really didn't have a choice.

Yes-I cited that. But it wasn't spent in one year. My response to JC above I think covers my sentiment on Volvo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hindsight is 20/20. The world was in a recession so Ford didn't have much leverage. It would have been nice but what if Ford had waited it out to find a better price. Would Ford have been up there with Chrysler and GM, effectively begging to stay in existence?

 

You have to look at where Ford was at that time. Keeping Volvo would have likely required borrowing more money (which I don't think was possible - I think they were maxed out) and probably killing other things. And there is no way Ford would have been able to put $11B into one luxury brand and wait 11 years for it to produce anything significant. Especially when they didn't really share much outside the D3 platform.

 

What makes sense for Geely doesn't necessarily make sense for Ford at that time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes-I cited that. But it wasn't spent in one year. My response to JC above I think covers my sentiment on Volvo.

 

Let's look at it another way. Let's say that $1.7B they sold Volvo for paid for the new F-Series platform and the switch to aluminum.

 

Would you trade that and all its profits to have Volvo back? Don't forget the $11B you would have had to pay to bring Volvo up to a competitive product today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob....dont forget Jaguar and specifically Land Rover ( which is doing EXTREMELY well ) kinda sad Ford cant do the same with Lincoln.....

I hear you Dean. But at the time it seems the only member of the PAG group that was not just sucking money was Volvo. I thought the AWD system used in Taurus was in fact the Volvo system. Plus Volvo was a brand with a loyal US customer base and a good reputation for durable vehicles-unlike Jag and Land Rover.

 

No doubt the Chinese and Indians with their cash have turned all three around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it be that there will be a press event for public consumption...but then more info will be released to investors/journalists with confidentiality agreements?

The Detroit news article said something about releasing some of the information to the public at the end of the quarter. I personally dont expect to really see anything meaningful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...