Non-Bailed Out Auto Company Posts 33% Sales Increase

[TrainTrac]

:banana::smile0006::smile0011::smile0015:

Tuesday, January 05, 2010



Non-Bailed Out Auto Company Posts 33% Sales Increase, Bailed Out Companies Post Declines



By Rob on January 5, 2010 at 12:41 pm



Which is a comparison made all the more interesting when you consider that, despite Obamas promises to the contrary, the federal government is very much involved in the day-to-day operation of the bailed out auto companies.

Ford Motor Co. posted a 33% rise in December U.S. light-vehicle sales, ending a stellar year for the auto maker compared with its rivals. Ford recorded its first full-year market-share gain since 1995.



Meanwhile, Chrysler Group LLC posted a 3.7% decline compared with a year earlier and said its full-year sales were the worst the auto maker had seen in 47 years.

The moral of the story? Government shouldnt be running businesses.



On a related note, I wonder how much of Fords sales boost was driven by the fact that the company isnt on the government dole? I think theres a lot of resentment among Americans over the bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors, and a lot of anger over the fact that it was pretty obviously just a move to prop up union jobs, and maybe thats being reflected in the choices of Americans when theyre buying cars.



Also, remember that Ford is still heavily invested in the sort of SUVs and light trucks that Americans prefer to buy as opposed to Chrysler and GM which are emphasizing the hybrids and small cars that Congress wants America to buy.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Non-bailed out?



Really?



How much of their increased sales were on Focus and Fusion being bought under "cash for clunkers?" Some, I bet. If so, then that's still my tax dollars propping up another of Detroit's finest.



TJR

 

[Rodger Tellefson]

Using TJR's philosophy: Does that mean that GM got a double bailout?

 

[TrainTrac]

C4C only helped Ford based on consumer/market choices. Even with C4C, folks still had to choose to buy a Ford product over that of a competitor.



By "non-bailed out", I believe the author was referring to Ford not being owned in part by the Fed gov't, not having said gov't involved in the day-to-day operation of the company, making personnel decisions like firing CEO's, salary caps, and business/policy decisions.



I didn't like C4C either, but you've got to give Bill Ford some credit for identifying Ford's financial woes several years ago, stepping down and bringing in Alan Mulally, taking steps to get their finances in order prior to getting into such dire straights that they would need to take a direct gov't bailout, like GM and Chrysler. And so far, GM and Chrysler haven't shown much progress for all of our money that they've been given.

 

[Bud Williams]

Personally I like Bill Ford.

I wish he would adopt me though...:smile0015:

 

[Todd Cloutier]

Ford has gotten assistance through other channels (dept of Energy for instance), but they have not been required to hand over any equity to the Gov't.

 

[Bill Barber]

The 33% was just for the month of Dec.Not the entire year.

 

[Gavin Allan]

The ultra-liberal Ford Foundation gets good treatment from the current administration, too.

 

[Andy Cabrera]

I LOVE Ford



I bought 200,000 shares of Ford stock when it was $1.84 back in February with the 401K money of my last job.



I REALLY LOVE FORD!!!!!

:smile0006:

 

[gary s]

as i previously mentioned...............

fusion, escape, explorer gained major sales in the fleet enviorment.

ford is throwing "silly" money to fleet customers to get the numbers back up.

a win / win for everyone ????

maybe, but the residual is horrible



still am kicking myself for not jumping on the ford stock back then :smile0003:



either way, this is putting ford in the right direction.

not to be confused with moving foward :smile0007:

 

[swshawaii]

Attn: Andy (Cabrera) and Gary S



ANY stock tips? :smile0002: