Ford Motor Analysis

18
Ford Motor Company Financial Analysis 2011 Name: LE TUAN ANH ID: 12407168 Professor: CORTEZ Michael Class: Financial Accounting 2

Transcript of Ford Motor Analysis

Page 1: Ford Motor Analysis

Ford Motor Company Financial Analysis

2011

Name: LE TUAN ANH

ID: 12407168 Professor: CORTEZ Michael

Class: Financial Accounting 2

Page 2: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 2

Table of Contents Overview ....................................................................................................................................3

Performance highlights from 2005-2009 ..................................................................................3

1. Fiscal 2005 highlights .......................................................................................................4

2. Fiscal 2006 highlights .......................................................................................................4

3. Fiscal 2007 highlights .......................................................................................................4

4. Fiscal 2008 highlights .......................................................................................................5

5. Fiscal 2009 highlights .......................................................................................................5

Financial Ratios Analysis ..........................................................................................................6

1. Liquidity...........................................................................................................................6

2. Efficiency .........................................................................................................................6

3. Profitability ......................................................................................................................8

4. Leverage......................................................................................................................... 11

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 12

Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 13

References................................................................................................................................ 14

Appendix ................................................................................................................................. 15

Page 3: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 3

2,024

-12,613

-2,723

-14,672

2,717

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Net Income (USD Mil)

I. Overview:

Ford Motor Company is widely known as a global automotive industry leader based in

Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. Originally, Ford was merely an American automaker

found by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903. Henry Ford was deemed to be the most

important person contributing to the development of Ford Motor Corporation by introducing the

Fordism method which is described as "the eponymous manufacturing system designed to spew

out standardized, low-cost goods and afford its workers decent enough wages to buy them"

(Grazia, 2005). Gradually, Ford has been widening their manufacturing and distributing network

across six continents. As of the year 2009, according to world motor vehicle production report by

OICA (OICA, 2009), Ford was recognized as the second largest automaker in the U.S, the

fourth-largest in the world based on annual vehicle sales, following Volkswagen Group and the

third largest automaker in Europe. With about 198,000 employees and about 90 plants

worldwide, the company’s major automotive brands include Ford, Lincoln, Mercury and Volvo.

For the same year, it is note-worthy that “Ford emerged as the sole American automaker in a

position to survive the steepest sales downturn in decades without a government bailout” (Ford

Motor Company, 2011). However, due to negative influences from the global financial turmoil,

in 2010 Ford sold Volvo to Geely Automobile and discontinued the Mercury brand as well.

Along with the automotive sector, Ford Motor Corporation also provides financial services

through Ford Motor Credit Company. “The Financial Services sector’s revenue is generated

primarily from interest on finance receivables, net of certain deferred origination costs that are

included as a reduction of financing revenue” (2009 Annual Report, 2009).

II. Performance highlights from 2005-2009:

Page 4: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 4

1. Fiscal 2005 highlights:

In the fiscal year 2005, Ford continued to have healthy sales of a number of great new

products such as Ford Mustang, Five Hundred and Fusion; Mercury Montego and Milan; and

Lincoln Zephyr. Furthermore, Ford also achieved the award of the best-selling crossover utility

vehicle (CUV) in the U.S. for Ford Escape, with total CUV sales increased by 28 percent

compared to 2004. Besides, Ford F-Series stood out as the best-selling truck in the U.S. for the

29th year successively, with a sales record of more than 900,000 units for the second straight

year. According to Ford’s 2005 annual report, this year saw a slight increase in the total

consolidated net sales which amounted to $176.8 billion. In spite of that, due to a sharp rise in

commodities price in North America, including oil and steel, as well as intensified competition

from around the world, Ford reported a drop in net income from over $3 billion in 2004 to $2

billion in 2005.

2. Fiscal 2006 highlights:

In 2006, Ford started to experience plenty of troubles which drove the company to incur a

big loss for the year. Consequently, in United States sales Toyota took the second place of Ford.

Lower sales and declining margins combined with escalating expenditure on health care and

retirees drove all American carmakers into a corner, but perhaps Ford seemed to suffer the most

(Ford Motor Company, 2011). Based on Ford’s annual report, for the fiscal year 2006, it bore a

net loss of a staggering $12.6 billion which was properly the largest one in company history until

that year. At the start of the year, Ford had announced a restructuring plan involving dismissing

30,000 hourly jobs and 14,000 salaried workers, about one-third of its labor force (Ford Motor

Company, 2011). Later that year, it raised $23.6 billion in loans, placing substantially all

corporate assets as collateral to secure the line of credit including Ford logo. As a result, the

stock price of the company started to fall substantially by approximately $5 per share, which in

part spoilt Ford’s image in the eyes of investors.

3. Fiscal 2007 highlights:

In 2007, Ford witnessed a great improvement in global automotive sales. In detail, “in July

2007, Ford announced that it had earned a profit of $750 million in the second quarter, its first

quarterly profit in more than two years” (Ford Motor Company, 2011). Moving into the second

half of the year, however, Ford could not maintain this profit-earning situation any longer.

Eventually, for the whole fiscal year, Ford reported a net loss of $2.7 billion, but this still

represented an improvement of nearly $10 billion over 2006. According to Ford’s President and

CEO, Mr. Alan Mulally, not only were all of company Automotive operations profitable outside

of North America, excluding special items, but their Financial Services sector also earned a pre-

tax profit of $1.2 billion (2007 Annual Report, 2007). Furthermore, it was also reported that

Ford’s worldwide automotive revenue, excluding special items, amounted to $155.8 billion in

2007, compared with $143.3 billion in 2006. In spite of undeniable improvements Ford made,

Page 5: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 5

Mr. Mulally was still worried about the company and confirmed that it was negotiating with

possible buyers of Jaguar and Land Rover and was considering selling Volvo as well.

4. Fiscal 2008 highlights:

As a result of the financial crisis spreading worldwide in 2007, Ford Motor Company was

driven into lots of severe economic challenges, both in terms of our operating losses and cash

flow. According to company 2008 annual report, after earning a profit in the first quarter of

2008, Ford had an overall net loss of $14.7 billion for the year, making it the worst year in its

history. Company’s worldwide automotive revenue was $129.2 billion in 2008, compared with

$154.4 billion in 2007. It finished 2008 with total automotive liquidity of $24 billion, including

gross cash of $13.4 billion, but $25.8 billion in debt. Consequently, there was a significant drop

in Ford’s stock price in 2008 with the lowest price per share hitting nearly $1. Due to those

economic troubles, on June 2nd

, 2008, Ford sold its Jaguar and Land Rover brands to Tata

Motors for $2.3 billion. In general, the fiscal year 2008 was deemed to be the most difficult year

for the company in the attempt of global automotive sales and operations.

5. Fiscal 2009 highlights:

The year 2009 marked a spectacular recovery of Ford Motor with many significant

achievements. According to 2009 annual report, Ford earned a full year net income of $2.7

billion, which was the company’s first full year of positive net income since 2005 and a $17.5

billion improvement over the previous year. Also, it achieved a pre-tax operating profit,

excluding special items, of $472 million in 2009, which was a $7.3 billion improvement over

2008. Regarding the Financial sector’s performance, throughout the year Ford Motor Credit

Company earned a profit of $1.3 billion, an improvement of $2.8 billion from a net loss of $1.5

billion a year earlier. With a great deal of improvements in operating and selling performance, it

finished the year 2009 with $25.5 billion in Automotive gross cash, compared with $13.4 billion

at the end of 2008. Contributing to those impressive improvements was Ford’s great attempts in

cost reduction by substantially restructure its business, including personnel levels, facilities and

related costs, and the settlement of the United Auto Workers retiree health care Voluntary

Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) agreement (2009 Annual Report, 2009). For more

details, in 2009, Ford obtained $5.1 billion in automotive structural cost reductions.

Furthermore, “in 2009, Ford gained market share in the United States for the first time since

1995” (Progress and Goals - Economy - Sustainability Report 2009/10 - Ford). Not only did it

gain market share in the United States, but it also made significant advances at many global

markets, including Europe, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Taiwan and South Africa. For the same

year, Ford also achieved the highest customer satisfaction and the fewest "things gone wrong"

among all full-line manufacturers in the United States.

Page 6: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 6

2.09

2.28 2.32

1.33

2.45

1.64

2.13 2.19

1.25

2.36

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Current Ratio

Quick Ratio

III. Financial Ratios Analysis: 1. Liquidity:

a. Current ratio and Quick ratio:

As can be shown in the above graph, both current and quick ratios appear to follow the same

patterns throughout 5 years. From 2005 to 2007, both have remained at a stable level of more

than 2 times (except 2005’s quick ratio), which indicates a good sign of Ford’s capability for

meeting short-term obligation. However, moving to 2008, both current and quick ratios started to

plummet from over 2 times to 1.33 and 1.25 times respectively. This can be explained by the

negative impacts of the global financial turmoil. In fact, in the year 2008, Ford had to sell its

Jaguar and Land Rover brands to Tata Motor for financing their operations and covering their

short-term debts as well. The year 2009 saw a rapid recovery of Ford’s performance which drove

both current and quick ratios to bounce back again to 2.45 and 2.36 respectively. In general, it

seems that Ford has a quite effective liquidity management.

Moreover, the above graph also shows that throughout 5 years quick ratios are nearly

equivalent to current ratios. This indicates that Ford annually keeps a relative small number of

inventories, leading to a minor difference between these two ratios. Further, based on Ford’s

balance sheet, it can be seen that the company heavily relies on account receivables in generating

cash to meet company’s short-term obligations. However, a large account receivables number is

not always a good sign of the company’s liquidity ability. Therefore, in order to thoroughly

assess Ford’s liquidity, we need to go further with analyzing receivables turnover ratios which

will be covered in the next part. (Refer to receivables turnover analysis for further information).

2. Efficiency:

a. Account Receivable Turnover:

Page 7: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 7

124.15

252.29228.49

252.69274.68

2.94

1.451.6

1.44 1.33

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Average Collection Period (Days) Receivables Turnover

26.4926.78

27.64

26.52

25.67

13.7813.63

13.2

13.77

14.22

24.5

25

25.5

26

26.5

27

27.5

28

12.6

12.8

13

13.2

13.4

13.6

13.8

14

14.2

14.4

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Days in Inventory Inventory Turnover

The above graph illustrates Ford Motor Corporation’s efficiency in collecting cash from its

credit sales. Accordingly, Ford has gradually loosened their credit policy with a considerable

increase in average collection period since 2005. The account receivables turnover started to

drop from about 2.94 times in 2005 to 1.45 times in 2006 and then remained stable over the next

4 years. Compared to other automobile companies from other countries in the world such as

Toyota, Nissan and Honda, Ford’s receivables turnover number appears to be relatively small,

which somewhat implies the inefficiency in collecting its outstanding receivables. As we

discussed before, Ford’s liquidity tends to be heavily dependent on its account receivables’

collecting ability. Therefore, even though Ford was doing a good job in term of high current and

quick ratios, perhaps it was not easy for the company to properly meet their short-term

obligations.

b. Inventory Turnover:

Page 8: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 8

The most noticeable point that can be seen in the graph in the previous page is the quite

stable level of inventory turnover ratio throughout the recent 5 years. Obviously, Ford made

incredible effort in managing their inventory with a relatively high inventory turnover ratio of

around 13.5 times or 26.5 days, compared to other automotive companies such as Honda or

Mitsubishi. Even in 2007 when the company had to suffer from the outburst of the global

financial crisis, Ford appears to still have controlled efficiently their inventories with a ratio of

13.2 times or 27.6 days.

c. Total Assets Turnover:

The above graph shows a 5-recent-year analysis of Ford’s asset turnover ratio which is

defined as a tool to analyze how efficiently a company uses its assets to generate sales.

Accordingly, for every dollar invested in assets, Ford generated average sales of $0.6 dollar in

the 5-year period. Also, as can be observed, their asset turnover ratio tends to have decreased

during 5 years. Ford started with a highest ratio during 5 years of 0.63 in 2005 and then plunged

to 0.58 in 2006 due to terrible drop in sales. Moving to 2007, Ford saw an improvement in net

sales which helped to push its asset turnover ratio to bounce back again to 0.62, but after that the

inefficiency in making use of assets to generate sales has been shown by continuing fall in asset

turnover ratio till the year 2009. In comparison with other automobile companies, Ford seems to

have slightly smaller asset turnover ratios. For instance, during the same period, Toyota has

shown an average asset turnover ratio of 0.88, while that of Mitsubishi is 1.35.

3. Profitability:

a. Net Profit Margin:

Ford’s net profit margin line appears to be matching perfectly with the net income line

displayed before. As can be seen from the following chart, there has been a dramatic fluctuation

in net profit margin, which indicates a high instability of Ford’s profit-generating capability.

Also, the profit margin of the company throughout 5 years generally stayed negatively or very

low as a result of high operating and taxes expenses. From 2006 to 2008, Ford had to suffer

harshly from the severe economic conditions, which forced profit margin to plummet

0.63

0.58

0.62

0.59

0.57

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Asset Turnover

Page 9: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 9

1.14

-7.88

-1.58

-10.03

2.3

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Net Profit Margin (%)

15.62

364.01

-48.38

84.76

-34.742005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Return on Equity %

substantially and hit the lowest point of -10.03% in 2008. However, the year 2009 saw a

spectacular recovery of Ford’s performance, as much as 2.3% net profit margin.

b. Return on Assets (ROA):

It can be easily observed that the Ford’s return on assets follows the same pattern as the net

profit margin. Like their net profit margin ratios, during the recent 5 years, return on assets has

been fluctuating considerably. Moreover, compared to other Japanese automakers like Honda,

Toyota or Nissan (around 4% ROA, except 2009) , Ford seems to be performing less efficiently

as a result of allowing relatively large account receivables in total assets.

c. Return on equity (ROE):

0.72

-4.6

-0.98

-5.9

1.32

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Return on Assets (%)

Page 10: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 10

36.46

-3.710 0 0

2005 2006 2007 2008

Payout ratio

1.05

-6.72

-1.38

-6.46

0.86

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Earnings Per Share

As can be seen from the graph, Ford’s Return on Equity ratios for the 5-recent-year period

have widely varied within a range of peaking at 364.01% as of 2006 and bottoming at -48.38%

as of 2007. This significant fluctuation can be explained by the wide changes in net income and

stockholders’ equity. Indeed, based on information from the balance sheet, Ford reported huge

negative numbers of stockholders’ equity in 2006, 2008 and 2009 as a result of negative retained

earnings and accumulated other comprehensive income. Therefore, despite high return on equity

ratios in 2006 and 2008, it does not necessarily imply a good sign because the results have been

generated from huge net losses and negative stockholders’ equity.

d. Earnings per Share (EPS):

As a matter of fact, this ratio serves as a very important tool for financial investors in order

to appropriately assess company’s profitability before deciding to buy its shares. According to

the above graph, there is a high likelihood that Ford’s shares could not make any appeal to

buyers due to its extremely low EPS. However, an important point that we need to take into

account is that throughout the recent global financial crisis, not only Ford but other US-based

automakers also had to suffer from terrible net losses. Another point is that in 2009 Ford marked

an incredible recovery, which was proved to be quicker than any other US automobile companies.

e. Payout Ratio:

The above chart displays payout ratios of Ford Motor Corporation. Like EPS, this ratio also

means a lot to investors when considering investing into the company. Therefore, from the

Page 11: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 11

95.19

101.24

97.98

107.93

104.01

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Debt/Total Assets

0.98

-0.90

0.73

-0.40 -0.412005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Interest Coverage Ratio

viewpoint of investors, it is very important that the payout be sufficiently high to provide a good

yield on the stock. However, recently Ford has turned out to be less attractive to investors;

consequently, it needed to have recourse to liabilities to finance its business. As we can see,

since 2007 Ford has not declared any dividend, which was properly due to its serious economic

troubles.

4. Leverage:

a. Debt to Total Assets Ratio:

In the period of 5 latest years, there has been a trend of Ford’s increasingly heavy reliance

on external debt to finance their business. As can be observed from the graph, Ford’s debt to

total assets ratios have been staying at a relatively high level of more than 95%, which indicates

a weak ability to withstand adverse business conditions, or in other words, Ford might have

encountered serious difficulties in meet their maturing obligations. In comparison with other

Japanese automakers such as Honda, Toyota or Nissan which usually attempt to maintain their

debt to assets ratios at less than 50% level, Ford is deemed to have a relatively poorer debt-

paying ability and long-run solvency. Simply put, not only would relying too much on external

debt likely bring Ford various dangerous troubles but it also makes Ford less competitive than

other competitors at the global markets.

b. Interest Coverage Ratio:

Page 12: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 12

0.085

0.034

0.062

-0.001

0.080

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Cash Flow to Debt

The period between 2005 and 2009 seems to be the hardest time for Ford Motor Corporation.

In spite of heavily relying on debts to finance business, as can be seen from the above graph,

Ford’s ability to meet its interest payments as they come due was obviously as low as its interest

coverage ratio (generally less than 1). The years 2006, 2008 and 2009 even witnessed negative

interest coverage ratios, which indicates that Ford could hardly generate enough operating

income to meet its due interest expenses.

c. Cash Flow to Debt Ratio:

Same as interest coverage ratios, Ford’s poor debt-paying ability is explicitly clarified by its

very low cash flow to debt ratios. This ratio is used to examine company’s ability to cover total

debt with its yearly cash flow from operations. Therefore, the higher the percentage ratio, the

better the company's ability will be to carry its total debt. Unfortunately, Ford appears to have

relied too much on debt to finance its business, which caused insufficient operating cash to meet

due obligations.

IV. Conclusion: During the period of 5 recent years, Ford Motor Corporation seems to have suffered

severely from the negative impacts of global financial crisis. Ford started to generate poor

figures from 2006, which can be explained by production inefficiency, high pension expenses,

heavy debt-financing policy, and asset-intensive nature of automotive industry. Therefore, Ford

could not make any appeal to potential investors to help them overcome troubles, which totally

pushed Ford into corner, especially in 2008 when Ford witnessed the worst net loss in company’s

history and needed to sell its Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata Motors. However, moving to 2009,

Ford managed to restructure their business with “The Way Forward” plan featuring

modernization of plants, a reduction in debt, cutting jobs as well as changing managerial rotation,

which properly contributes to its sales recovery worldwide. It is suggested that focusing on

strengthening brand image, together with making more efforts to penetrate into prospectively

growing Asian markets will be likely helpful for Ford to increase the unit sales. Another master

plan that Ford can think of is to make more expansion in developing hybrid cars and to look for

Page 13: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 13

alternative energy sources to power their vehicles which will help to power their sales in the near

future.

V. Limitations: While doing the analysis, I have encountered some difficulties which might cause

limitations for the analysis.

First, all the data used in the analysis have been collected from the latest 5 years reports;

therefore, the comprehensive financial situation and long-term trend may not be clearly reflected.

Also, the annual report for 2010 has yet to be released, which might prevent this analysis

from appropriately reflecting the current situation.

In order to produce a comprehensive analysis, a wide range of ratios should have been

seriously considered; however, only most critical ratios are employed due to lack of time and

information.

Page 14: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 14

References

2005 Annual Report. (2005, December 31). Retrieved February 1, 2011, from Ford Motor

Company: http://corporate.ford.com/doc/2005_AR_full.pdf

2006 Annual Report. (2006, December 31). Retrieved February 1, 2011, from Ford Motor

Company: http://corporate.ford.com/doc/2006_AR.pdf

2007 Annual Report. (2007, December 31). Retrieved February 2, 2011, from Ford Motor

Company: http://corporate.ford.com/doc/2007_ar.pdf

2008 Annual Report. (2008, December 31). Retrieved February 3, 2011, from Ford Motor

Company: http://corporate.ford.com/doc/2008_annual_report.pdf

2009 Annual Report. (2009, December 31). Retrieved January 28, 2011, from Ford Motor

Company: http://corporate.ford.com/doc/2009_annual_report.pdf

Ford Motor Company. (2011, January 5). Retrieved January 28, 2011, from The New York

Times: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/ford_motor_company/index.html

Grazia, V. (2005). Irresistible empire: America's advance through twentieth-century Europe.

Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

OICA. (2009). World Motor Vehicle Production. Retrieved January 27, 2011, from International

Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA): http://oica.net/wp-

content/uploads/ranking-2009.pdf

Progress and Goals - Economy - Sustainability Report 2009/10 - Ford. (n.d.). Retrieved

February 3, 2011, from Ford Motor Company:

http://corporate.ford.com/microsites/sustainability-report-2009-10/economy-progress

Page 15: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 15

Appendix

FORD MOTOR CO. (F) FINANCIAL RATIOS

LIQUIDITY

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Current Ratio 2.09 2.28 2.32 1.33 2.45

Quick ratio 1.64 2.13 2.19 1.25 2.36

EFFICIENCY

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inventory Turnover 13.78 13.63 13.2 13.77 14.22

Days in Inventory (Days) 26.49 26.78 27.64 26.52 25.67

Total Asset Turnover 0.63 0.58 0.62 0.59 0.57

Receivables Turnover 2.94 1.45 1.6 1.44 1.33

Average Collection Period (Days) 124.15 252.29 228.49 252.69 274.68

PROFITABILITY

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Net Profit Margin (%) 1.14 -7.88 -1.58 -10.03 2.3

Return on Assets (%) 0.72 -4.6 -0.98 -5.9 1.32

Return on Equity (%) 15.62 364.01 -48.38 84.76 -34.74

Earnings per Share 1.05 -6.72 -1.38 -6.46 0.86

Payout Ratio 36.46 -3.71 0 0 0

LEVERAGE

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Interest Coverage Ratio 0.98 -0.90 0.73 -0.40 -0.41

Total Debt/Total Assets (%) 95.19 101.24 97.98 107.93 104.01

Cash Flow to Debt 0.085 0.034 0.062 -0.001 0.080

Page 16: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 16

FORD MOTOR CO. (F) INCOME STATEMENT

Fiscal year ends in December. USD in

millions except per share data. 2005-12 2006-12 2007-12 2008-12 2009-12

Revenue 177,089 160,123 172,455 146,277 118,308

Cost of revenue 144,944 148,869 143,255 128,977 100,016

Gross profit 32,145 11,254 29,200 17,300 18,292

Operating expenses:

Sales, General and administrative 24,652 19,180 21,169 21,430 13,258

Other operating expenses 0 0 0 0 7,858

Total operating expenses 24,652 19,180 21,169 21,430 21,116

Operating income 7,493 (7,926) 8,031 (4,130) (2,824)

Interest Expense 7,643 8,783 10,927 10,437 6,828

Other income (expense) 2,146 1,658 (850) 163 12,678

Income before taxes 1,996 (15,051) (3,746) (14,404) 3,026

Provision for income taxes (512) (2,646) (1,294) 63 69

Other income (280) (210) (312) (214) 0

Net income from continuing operations 2,228 (12,615) (2,764) (14,681) 2,957

Net income from discontinuing ops 47 2 41 9 5

Cumulative effect of accounting changes (251) 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 (245)

Net income 2,024 (12,613) (2,723) (14,672) 2,717

Net income available to common shareholders 2,024 (12,613) (2,723) (14,672) 2,717

Earnings per share

Basic 1.10 (6.72) (1.38) (6.46) 0.91

Diluted 1.05 (6.72) (1.38) (6.46) 0.86

Weighted average shares outstanding

Basic 1,846 1,879 1,979 2,273 2,992

Diluted 1,846 1,879 1,979 2,273 2,992

(Source: http://financials.morningstar.com/income-statement/is.html?t=F&region=USA&culture=en-us)

FORD MOTOR CO. (F) BALANCE SHEET

Fiscal year ends in December. USD in millions

except per share data. 2005-12 2006-12 2007-12 2008-12 2009-12

ASSETS

Current assets:

Cash

Cash and cash equivalents 31,499 28,894 35,283 22,049 21,441

Short-term investments 11,044 26,728 15,515 17,411 38,657

Total cash 42,543 55,622 50,798 39,460 60,098

Receivables 114,497 106,863 109,053 93,484 84,583

Inventories 10,271 11,578 10,121 8,618 5,450

Deferred income taxes 5,881

Page 17: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 17

Other current assets 26,950 8,772 8,210 6,073

Total current assets 200,142 182,835 178,182 147,635 150,131

Non-current assets:

Property, plant and equipment

Gross property, plant and equipment 73,324 77,023 72,800 66,802 60,182

Accumulated Depreciation (32,617) (38,518) (36,561) (38,237) (35,404)

Net property, plant and equipment 40,707 38,505 36,239 28,565 24,778

Equity and other investments 1,550

Goodwill 5,839 2,069 1,593

Intangible assets 5,945 1,098 209

Deferred income taxes 4,950 3,500 3,108 3,440

Other long-term assets 22,682 45,327 59,274 37,427 14,742

Total non-current assets 69,334 95,719 101,082 70,693 44,719

Total assets 269,476 278,554 279,264 218,328 194,850

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

Liabilities

Current liabilities:

Short-term debt 27,676 28,275 63,662

Accounts payable 22,813 23,549 20,832 14,772

Accrued liabilities 72,977 24,287 23,579 28,728 46,599

Deferred revenues 4,708 4,093 3,667

Other current liabilities 14,594

Total current liabilities 95,790 80,220 76,779 110,829 61,193

Non-current liabilities:

Long-term debt 154,332 144,373 140,255 90,534 132,441

Deferred taxes liabilities 5,275 2,744 3,034 2,035 2,375

Minority interest 1,122 1,159 1,421 1,195 1,305

Other long-term liabilities 53,523 52,147 31,046 5,356

Total non-current liabilities 160,729 201,799 196,857 124,810 141,477

Total liabilities 256,519 282,019 273,636 235,639 201,365

Stockholders' equity

Common stock 19 19 22 24 34

Additional paid-in capital 4,872 4,562 7,834 9,076 16,786

Retained earnings 12,461 (17) (1,485) (16,145) (13,599)

Treasury stock (833) (183) (185) (181) (177)

Accumulated other comprehensive income (3,562) (7,846) (558) (10,085) (10,864)

Total stockholders' equity 12,957 (3,465) 5,628 (17,311) (7,820)

Total liabilities and stockholders' equity 269,476 278,554 279,264 218,328 194,850

(Source: http://financials.morningstar.com/balance-sheet/bs.html?t=F&region=USA&culture=en-us)

Page 18: Ford Motor Analysis

Page | 18

FORD MOTOR CO. (F) STATEMENT OF CASHFLOW

Fiscal year ends in December. USD in millions

except per share data. 2005-12 2006-12 2007-12 2008-12 2009-12

Cash Flows From Operating Activities:

Net income 2,228 (12,613) (2,723) (14,672) 2,717

Depreciation & amortization 6,722 16,519 13,736 12,333 6,931

Investment/asset impairment charges 311

Investments losses (gains) (410)

Deferred income taxes 787 (5,477) 1,954

(Gain) Loss from discontinued operations (5)

Accounts receivable 2,244

Inventory (76) (695) 371 (358) 2,333

Other working capital (1,561) (497) 5,932 (7,867) (2,607)

Other non-cash items 13,579 6,897 5,259 8,431 4,528

Net cash provided by operating activities 21,679 9,611 17,098 (179) 16,042

Cash Flows From Investing Activities:

Investments in property, plant, and equipment (7,517) (6,848) (6,022) (6,696) (4,561)

Property, plant, and equipment reductions 7,937 5,120

Acquisitions, net (2,031) (59,737) 1,210 6,841 (26,010)

Purchases of investments (6,278) (23,678) (11,423) (64,754) (78,789)

Sales/Maturities of investments 6,154 18,456 18,660 62,046 74,933

Other investing activities 9,192 41,823 (8,908) (580) 40,896

Net cash used for investing activities 7,457 (24,864) (6,483) (3,143) 6,469

Cash Flows From Financing Activities:

Debt issued 45,990

Debt repayment (70,403)

Common stock issued 325 431 250 756 2,450

Common stock repurchased (183) (31)

Dividend paid (738) (468)

Other financing activities (20,238) 15,493 (5,461) (9,860) (996)

Net cash provided by (used for) financing

activities

(20,651) 15,273 (5,242) (9,104) (22,959)

Effect of exchange rate changes (496) 464 1,014 (808) 470

Net change in cash 7,989 484 6,387 (13,234) 22

Cash at beginning of period 23,510 28,410 28,896 35,283 22,049

Cash at end of period 31,499 28,894 35,283 22,049 22,071

Free Cash Flow

Operating cash flow 21,679 9,611 17,098 (179) 16,042

Capital expenditure (7,517) (6,848) (6,022) (6,696) (4,561)

Free cash flow 14,162 2,763 11,076 (6,875) 11,481

(Source: http://financials.morningstar.com/cash-flow/cf.html?t=F&region=USA&culture=en-us)