Ford VFACTS May 2013

[Foylema]

Rolls-Royce 2066 :/ lol

[XR Martin]

1176 Morgans

Have they ever even built that many?

[MITCHAY]

Pretty impressive for the Chrysler 300. 89.5% market share of its segment.

[Bossxr8]

I don't think it's that impressive. For all the talk of its tech levels and cheap prices it doesn't sell that many really. Just proves large cars don't sell.

Caprice- 30
Just kill it already. It might be in runout but even when it wasn't it was still struggling to do 150 a month. Makes sense than the new one didn't even get any styling changes.

[mik]

Originally Posted by Wretched

good to see Focus and Ranger continue to lead the way
Territory in another solid month.
Fiesta outselling Falcon, never thought I'd see the day.

i was thinking about your comment while woofing down tea in front of the idiot box, and then it occured to me , its not all that hard to see fiesta selling better the falcon, without a word of lie, every ten minutes there is a small ford add, can you guess how many falcon commercials there was ???........... zip , nada, zero , not a single one.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by MrZ

Huh?! V8?? As for the I6 turbo, you're probably looking at around 20% of sales, or 140.

Yes, V8s as in GS and GT, Ford is building around six or seven engines a day...

[olds]

Just as long as all those 707 Falcons are being sold at a profit , the future will be fine .

[MrZ]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Well last month (April) was just over 60% wasn't it?

I'm not sure where you read that, but I would find that figure highly improbable. Fleets account for 80% of Falcon sales, and fleets don't buy turbo I6s.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I don't think it's that impressive. For all the talk of its tech levels and cheap prices it doesn't sell that many really. Just proves large cars don't sell.

Caprice- 30
Just kill it already. It might be in runout but even when it wasn't it was still struggling to do 150 a month. Makes sense than the new one didn't even get any styling changes.

Caprice PPV 130

GM announced Chevrolet SS price of $44,470.....They couldn't sell G8 at $29,990 without $5,000 discount attached.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I don't think it's that impressive. For all the talk of its tech levels and cheap prices it doesn't sell that many really. Just proves large cars don't sell.

Caprice- 30
Just kill it already. It might be in runout but even when it wasn't it was still struggling to do 150 a month. Makes sense than the new one didn't even get any styling changes.

They also sell a few in Korea, China, Middle East and the US. But stocks are low with none being built for the last few months but I doubt it will go much over 100 when the WN is on sale.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Caprice PPV 130

GM announced Chevrolet SS price of $44,470.....They couldn't sell G8 at $29,990 without $5,000 discount attached.

Holden must be hoping for a fall against the US dollar, the PPV gets a column shift soon which could help sales, being the number 1 complaint at the moment.

Chevy SS is 10 grand more than I was expecting it to be. They will be lucky to sell over 5000 a year.

[borough]

Mondeo 330, I find that pretty funny considering Toyota sold 1934 Camrys. Good to see the remaining two Australian manufactures at the top. Ford is down 6.3% this month, let that continue in the years to come.

[nstg8a]

Ranger was nzs top seller for may, so that's one small win

[Spammy]

Originally Posted by turbodewd

You will see in the heavily fragmented market that 700 units is actually very respectable.

You could say the exact same thing for any car not in the top 10 for mthly VFACTS.

Important differnce is that most cars are sold in many other international markets so 500 sales adds to the thousands of other sales worldwide. Falcons are sold here and kiwi land. No manufactuer can justify a low margin, mainstream car that sells in such small numbers.

Likewise nobody can justify development budget for that car either --- hence it gets left behind as other cars add features and technology.

Sad but a reality of the car game.

[BHDOGS]

the more the dollar drops the more it costs them to build cruise id say holdens ******.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by borough

Mondeo 330, I find that pretty funny considering Toyota sold 1934 Camrys. Good to see the remaining two Australian manufactures at the top. Ford is down 6.3% this month, let that continue in the years to come.

another bright spark

[Spammy]

Originally Posted by olds

Just as long as all those 707 Falcons are being sold at a profit , the future will be fine .

Remind me how much money Ford Aust has lost over the last 5 years? From memory its in the order of $500million.

[Gadgetman]

Originally Posted by mr smith

Rolls Royce cant be right, they sold 20 in 2011.

Nah mate, it's right. I bought all me family and me mates one last month. Those Phantoms were a great deal at just over a million each. Thank god for low finance rate atm.

[Gadgetman]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Caprice PPV 130

GM announced Chevrolet SS price of $44,470.....They couldn't sell G8 at $29,990 without $5,000 discount attached.

Forget about the $5000 discount. They just cant sell G8's in seppo land.

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Chevy SS is 10 grand more than I was expecting it to be. They will be lucky to sell over 5000 a year.

Yep, reckon you are right - in fact, I reckon Chev may struggle to sell 5000 over there. But what the yanks think are small numbers and a flop we consider to be a fair amount.

Fair chance Holden would be happy with a result of 5000-odd VFs going stateside each year - that extra volume would be about the same as an extra 2 to 3 months worth of domestic production.

If Ford Australia (aka Barry) were able to send 5000 Falcons to the states that would be about half a year of domestic - increase volume by about a third. I know all the reasons Falcon couldn't be exported...still doesn't make it a crying shame that it couldn't be.

[janddbone]

Falcon is still one of their best sellers and if you take local production out of sales they drop to ninth........ What a plan!!! I don't agree that Ford have a Falcon problem in Australia, they have a Ford problem!

[JPFS1]

Would love to see Ford Australia's real financials.

So they say local production was un-profitable? I say they are not being truthful about that.

The local prod. numbers (for this month), based on extremely conservative sale price (30K) would have generated a minimum 69 MILLION revenue for the month EBIT or just over 800 MILLION a YEAR, almost HALF total revenue of the imported models. Lets not get into the complexities of R&D investment, TAX and offshoring profits to area's of heavy growth and capital expenditure, where the real losses occur. They pay big dollars to their tax guru's to paint a certain picture that we don't get to see.

With that, Ford Australia must be the most inefficient business going around. Mmmmm.

Local platform profit was not the issue imho.

[Gadgetman]

Originally Posted by brett.r.johnstone

Falcon is still one of their best sellers and if you take local production out of sales they drop to ninth........ What a plan!!! I don't agree that Ford have a Falcon problem in Australia, they have a Ford problem!

Don't worry about falcon Brett. By the time 2016 comes around along with the trend of the large car segment, Falcon will probably be at around 300 units per month at best and the commodore will be lucky to crack 1000 units per month at the time as well.

[Gadgetman]

Its also about being profitable isn't it? You know the reason why people start and run business's. You don't run a business based on losing money to please a minute section of the market.

[bobthebilda]

=JPFS1;4764052]Would love to see Ford Australia's real financials.

So they say local production was un-profitable? I say they are not being truthful about that.

The local prod. numbers (for this month), based on extremely conservative sale price (30K) would have generated a minimum 69 MILLION revenue for the month EBIT

EBIT is not revenue. Earnings before interest and tax is whats left over after you minus your costs from your revenue.

You would have to have your head in the sand if you think they are making money on local production.

With that, Ford Australia must be the most inefficient business going around. Mmmmm.

In Australia, you are probably right on that point.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

Would love to see Ford Australia's real financials.

So they say local production was un-profitable? I say they are not being truthful about that.

The local prod. numbers (for this month), based on extremely conservative sale price (30K) would have generated a minimum 69 MILLION revenue for the month EBIT or just over 800 MILLION a YEAR, almost HALF total revenue of the imported models. Lets not get into the complexities of R&D investment, TAX and offshoring profits to area's of heavy growth and capital expenditure, where the real losses occur. They pay big dollars to their tax guru's to paint a certain picture that we don't get to see.

With that, Ford Australia must be the most inefficient business going around. Mmmmm.

Local platform profit was not the issue imho.

This.

There has been some shifty accounting to justify the Annoucement.

I'd like to see how much assets were written down to get the 141 mil loss.

[Spammy]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

Would love to see Ford Australia's real financials.

So they say local production was un-profitable? I say they are not being truthful about that.

The local prod. numbers (for this month), based on extremely conservative sale price (30K) would have generated a minimum 69 MILLION revenue for the month EBIT or just over 800 MILLION a YEAR, almost HALF total revenue of the imported models. Lets not get into the complexities of R&D investment, TAX and offshoring profits to area's of heavy growth and capital expenditure, where the real losses occur. They pay big dollars to their tax guru's to paint a certain picture that we don't get to see.

With that, Ford Australia must be the most inefficient business going around. Mmmmm.

Local platform profit was not the issue imho.

You have no idea - without R&D there is no car and you only pay tax on profits and you only offshore profit when you have a profit.

IIRC 100,000 units per year is considered absolute break even point for a main stream manufactuer. Do you think they are more or less profitable at 25,00 units??

[Spammy]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

This.

There has been some shifty accounting to justify the Annoucement.

I'd like to see how much assets were written down to get the 141 mil loss.

Wasn't it a $100 mill loss on actual sales and an additional $170m write down.

Quick calc based on 25,000 cars is $4000 loss per car.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Spammy

Wasn't it a $100 mill loss on actual sales and an additional $170m write down.

Quick calc based on 25,000 cars is $4000 loss per car.

There was a huge profit on imported product ( esp : Ranger). A loss on local product, and a large write down of assets.

Without the Asset write down FoA is profitable, but accounting can do anything.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

Would love to see Ford Australia's real financials.

So they say local production was un-profitable? I say they are not being truthful about that.

The local prod. numbers (for this month), based on extremely conservative sale price (30K) would have generated a minimum 69 MILLION revenue for the month EBIT or just over 800 MILLION a YEAR, almost HALF total revenue of the imported models. Lets not get into the complexities of R&D investment, TAX and offshoring profits to area's of heavy growth and capital expenditure, where the real losses occur. They pay big dollars to their tax guru's to paint a certain picture that we don't get to see.

With that, Ford Australia must be the most inefficient business going around. Mmmmm.

Local platform profit was not the issue imho.

Well, even if you forget the Falcon and Territory and substitute them with two global models (say Fusion sedan/hatch and Edge SUV) which use global parts supply, have no up front and ongoing R&D costs that FoA has to pay for itself, together with the higher margins on SUV's and up-spec sedans, and I have to wonder how they came to the conclusion they "aggressively explored all options".

The #1 issue with Falcon and to a lesser extent Territory is the manufacturing economies of scale had shriveled. This of course impacts your bottom line when you have the same fixed costs regardless of your output, and R&D costs for unique models and parts for same have to be amortised over less and less cars.