FoMoCo lost $58,391 for every EV it sold during the quarter.
The ugly EV news from Ford Motor Company just keeps coming. This afternoon, the company reported that it lost $1.224 billion in its EV business during the third quarter. In early October, the company reported EV sales “were up 14.8 percent on best-ever sales of 20,962 vehicles.” Thus, simple division shows that the storied automaker lost $58,391 for each EV it sold during the quarter.
The company’s losses on its EV business, known as Model e, for the first nine months of 2024 total $3.7 billion. For reference, that $3.7 billion loss is equal to the gross profit (Ford calls it EBIT, short for earnings before interest and taxes) it made on Ford Blue, the division that makes internal combustion vehicles.
Alas, these results aren’t surprising. Ford has been hemorrhaging cash on EVs for the past two years. It lost $4.7 billion on EVs in 2023 and $2.2 billion on EVs in 2022. The third-quarter numbers simply show, yet again, that Ford’s leadership has made a colossal blunder. CEO Jim Farley and his lieutenants didn’t understand what motorists want to buy. That’s a bad thing if you’re running one of the world’s biggest car makers.
FoMoCo’s third-quarter losses are being made public just two months after the company announced it was killing a planned three-row, all-electric SUV. In August, the company said, “With pricing and margin compression, we’ve made the decision to adjust our product and technology roadmap and industrial footprint to meet our goal of reaching positive EBIT within the first 12 months of launch for all new models.”
In other words, Ford was warning two months ago that it was having to slash prices on its EVs and that the third quarter would be a stinker. And it was. Also in August, the company said it was going to move some of its battery production out of foreign factories into US locations so it could qualify for more federal subsidies available under the Inflation Reduction Act. As I reported here last year, Ford and other automakers are aiming to collect tens of billions of dollars via the 45X tax credit in the IRA for making batteries in the US. For instance, Ford is building a battery plant in Marshall, Michigan, which is expected to create about 4,200 jobs. According to Good Jobs First, each job at the new Ford plant will cost taxpayers $3.4 million.
From Morningstar: “Are Electric Vehicles Short-Circuiting? Auto Manufacturers Revise Electrification Strategies After Slowing Demand.”
While Ford can claim its sales have increased, the fundamental problems in the EV market have not changed. As seen above, the credit rating agency Morningstar, which 13 months ago was forecasting huge growth in EVs, has now turned negative on the sector. In an October 21 report titled, “Are Electric Vehicles Short-Circuiting? Auto Manufacturers Revise Electrification Strategies After Slowing Demand,” (registration required) Morningstar said the major automakers, including VW, Ford, GM, and Mercedes, have delayed their EV plans or slashed planned output due to weak sales. Morningstar noted that while some automakers, including Ford, have cut prices, that has hurt their profitability. It also says that with EV sales “to early adopters now seemingly exhausted, EVs are struggling to maintain ongoing sales momentum among mainstream consumers.”
Morningstar then listed the issues that have plagued EVs for decades:
EV ranges remain significantly affected by extreme weather conditions, with cold weather (i.e., below 40 degrees Fahrenheit) potentially decreasing range by about 25%). Concerns about the EV charging infrastructure are exacerbated by lackluster reliability records of public EV charging stations. Moreover, charging times, notwithstanding significant developments in recent years, remain considerably longer than the typical time it takes to refuel a conventional ICE vehicle. Additionally, while EVs have fewer parts than ICE models and typically require less maintenance than ICE vehicles, one-off repairs (notably involving the EV battery pack) can prove inordinately expensive. Accordingly, across most jurisdictions, insurance premiums for EVs are typically higher than for comparable ICE vehicles, mainly because of the potentially markedly higher repair costs. (Emphasis added.)
That paragraph pretty well sums up the EV marketplace, particularly regarding cold weather, charging infrastructure, and charging times. (See this story on Hertz for more on the repair cost issue.) All those problems have been evident since the days of Edison. So why didn’t Ford and the other automakers see this debacle coming? Was it herd mentality? Were they responding to government pressure? If so, why didn’t they push back? What did they know about EV demand from their own market research?
Here’s my prediction: A few years from now, after the automakers have lost billions more due to their misplaced bets on EVs, business schools and analysts will be asking those very same questions.
That’s what happens when you try to sell a vehicle that no one wants.
That shows that Bidenomics is working.
no-one wants?
“In early October, the company reported EV sales “were up 14.8 percent on best-ever sales of 20,962 vehicles.””
W O W…
14.9%
That’s a whopping 2,935 cars
A small percentage of a small number is still a small number.
Thing is, EVs will be lucky to last 8-10 years and then have zero value, and near zero recycling ability.
They are TRASH WAITING TO HAPPEN !
That’s Net Zero for you
Net Zero value over ten years.
Net Zero worth for recycling.
Or, even, garbage (as Bidet would say).
How many of those were corporate virtue signaling or celebrity virtue signaling, versus Honest Joes?
Meanwhile the Ford F series sales in the same time frame was only 191,267
LINK
That was just for Trucks
I shall remind you, again, that car “sales” are from the factory to the dealer. It doesn’t tell you anything about sales to the end user from the dealer. Also, maybe there are still some fleet sales in that number. Lastly, a successful car model in the US can sell as many as 400,000 cars in a year. 20,962 in a quarter isn’t very good for their entire EV product line. (I’m assuming that it is a quarterly number.)
Nick, you know that small relative numeric differences expressed as percentages can be much ado about nothing in terms of actual impact / outcomes.
Is this the sort of numeric logic being taught in unis these days?
Certainly the sort of numerical logic used in the CSIRO.
Affordability, Charging-Infrastructure, & Range-Anxiety Continue To Keep Americans From Embracing EVs
.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/affordability-charging-infrastructure-amp-range-anxiety-continue
.
BY TYLER DURDEN
.
While the US and the EU look at different ways to add tariffs to China-made electric vehicles to prevent supply disruption, the reality is, overall demand for EVs is starting to peak.
Such was the topic of a new FT report that looked into why Americans aren’t buying more electric vehicles.
“It’s just not accessible to us at this point in our life,” one couple told FT, who said they were looking for a more affordable vehicle.
They went with a $19,000 Honda Accord after a trade-in, since only five new EV models under $40,000 have hit the market in 2024, the report says.
.
A number of factors have decreased buying of EVs, including among environmentally conscious consumers. Various sources, including FT reported about the following issues:
1) high EV prices (increase monthly lease payments),
2) high financing interest rates (increase monthly lease payments),
3) short driving range,
4) lack of charging infrastructure,
5) high insurance cost,
6) high on-the-road charging cost
7) time wasted sitting in vehicle while charging; it takes 5 minutes to fill a gas tank to get about 500 miles of driving, but it take at least 1 to 2 hours to fast-charge a EV battery to get 250 miles of driving
That waste is enormous, if you multiply that time by millions of EVs charged per day.
That waste will make the US worker less productive, further lower his standard of living.
8) high repair and bodyshop cost, and long times for bodyshops to get parts
9) very low resale/trade-in value,
10) low-range during hot and cold weather, especially with a few passengers and some luggage
11) more rapid wear of tires and brakes and expensive replacement cost
12) spending at least “$15000 + labor + hazardous landfill charge” to replace an EV battery in an 8-y-old car
13) worrying about having enough charge, and where to charge, when making a longer trip from A to B
14) worrying about the battery catching fire, while parked in the garage, or on the road
15) inability for an EV to tow almost anything for some distance, without having to recharge along the way
.
Everett Eissenstat, a former senior US Trade Representative told FT: “There is no question, this list of woes is an explanation of the very slow EV adoption in the US and in Europe. We are just not producing EVs consumers need at prices plus other costs, they can afford”. That meager result is after more than 10 years of high subsidies, and Media hype.
#9 (fast depreciation) is rapidly coming to the top of the list for many potential buyers
Some points like #4 and #13 are redundant.
Overall, can be reduced to 4 buckets with10 points
$$
Upfront costs
Cost of ownership (repair, tires, insurance, growing electricity prices)
Poor secondary market – fast depreciation
Lack of utility
Short driving range
Poor performance in bad weather
Inability to tow
Waste and inconvenience of ownership
Lack of charging infrastructure
Charging times – wasted time
Safety
Fire hazard
Parking restrictions
Plus they self combust AND have a lousy resale value
It’s generally quite difficult to resell a car that’s self-combusted.
Maybe it is insured, and the insurance company acquires it.
(Maybe there is a reason, other than inflation, that insurance rates have bumped 80% over the last 3 years)
Exactly! . . . and not only are the massive losses at Ford a sign of the cost of unrestrained virtual signaling, one should know they’re in a losing game when those losses mount despite the Federal government handing out a $7,500 tax rebate to a customer to buy one of your EV “clunkers”.
One would think Ford could have afforded better market analysts and accountants . . . but there you have it!
DEI hires perhaps?
Why? Politics!
And taxes. Okay maybe that’s the same thing.
Current Political agenda wants to “Save the Earth” to virtue signal their base. Saving the economy is secondary as anyone looking for value can tell.
Only in the West. The rest of the world does not care.
Secondary? No. I would put it below immigration, trans ideology, DEI ideology, shall I go on?
Commie Harris’ idea of freedom is taking away choices and forcing we peons to do exactly what the government (she) diktates.
Here’s a potential solution to the EV charging problem created by extreme cold. Build heated structures over charging locations (Heated Garages) and pull your car Inside to recharge in balmy 70°F/22°C temps.
Shoot, even a Drive in Recharging Restaurant. Pull in, plug in, order a meal and recharge while dining in the comfort of your gilded golfcart…after the Car Hop brings your meal to your driver side window.
I could actualy see someting like that built in Southern California. SonicGo
You could cook your own burger when the EV ignites
Drive in Movie.
You could supply the local homeless with markers and cardboard poster material as well.
Since they build their homes out of the cardboard you could charge them Personal Property Tax for it
So you will use more energy than the car saves you to keep the car warm. A garage is in most cases the part of the house that has less protection from cold getting in. (and heat getting out)
Charging indoors is being banned because of the fire risk.
The building would be heated by Fossil Fuels of course, because electric heating would be too expensive.
It’s not just the charging in cold weather that is the problem, it is travelling as well. The colder the weather, the swifter the charge dissipates.
Is any manufacturer making money on its EV sales? We see enough ads for them; yet they carefully downplay the fact that they are grossly overpriced, have reliability shortcomings, low resale values, and questionable cruising ranges, to say nothing of being greater fire hazards. And even in jurisdictions where generous subsidies are offered to offset their prices, they’re still too expensive. Studies have shown that once these incentives are removed, sales really collapse. I get the impression that the various producers are also being pressured by governments to advertise EVs more than they’d like to, but that’s still not helping their sales attraction. In addition, consumers resent being told what they should be buying to supposedly save the planet. Green advocates have been playing this song -and-dance for too long, so now people are ignoring it in increasing numbers.
Fisker just filed chapter 11 as have a few others. Tesla is profitable at least.
Tesla has diversified into many other options like Star Link, Space-X and X that add to their overall profitability
To be precise, Musk has, not Tesla. Tesla is stuck with EVs, Mega batteries, and auto driving that does not yet work.
If Tesla went to zero, Musk would still be VERY rich. SpaceX alone is a really valuable still private ‘three’ companies in one to be taken public.. His Falcon reusable rocket system, upon which NASA is now wholly reliant for the Space Station, Starlink—enabled by his reusable rockets, and Starship, which NASA will pay for to go back to the moon and beyond. NASA’s own moon rocket alternative has yet to have a successful launch. Musk just past number 5, with most recently a successful booster recatch!!!
“and auto driving that does not yet work.”
I saw an article yesterday about a Tesla that was on automatic pilot and it hit a deer that was crossing the road and the Tesla just kept going on down the road and did not stop.
Still a few bugs to be worked out.
I have more faith in deer becoming intelligent.
Space-X, Starlink and X are separate corporations from Tesla. Elon diversified, Tesla didn’t.
Yes, but where are the profits coming from…?
Tesla profits come mostly from EV subsidies. Doesn’t matter if those eventually fail, as he has wisely used them to diversify bigly. See SpaceX comment just above.
That used to be true but it’s not anymore. Tesla is making money selling cars.
Tesla is quarter to quarter operationally profitable, able to maintain production, but is deep in debt from previous investments that it will never be able to repay. This also restricts its ability to invest further.
Also, unlike other manufacturers like Ford, it does not have the option of burning profits made with ICE cars. This means, that as soon as it becomes operationally not profitable (market slow down, end of subsidies, Chinese price pressure, etc.), it has extremely high risk of bankruptcy.
Parts suppliers. Politicians. Cronies.
According to the UK i news paper Mercedes just announced it’s profits fell 54% in the period July to September “due to slowing EV sales and falling demand in China” (26 Oct 24)
“In early October, the company reported EV sales “were up 14.8 percent on best-ever sales of 20,962 vehicles.””
….
“Jim Farley and his lieutenants didn’t understand what motorists want to buy. ”
Sounds like motorists want to buy EVs. Ford has to lower its prices to meet the competition.
Not so fast padawan…
That’s 20,962 Total EVs
Ford sold 528,028 F series trucks through Q3
Ford sold 114,281 Vans through Q3
Just those two brands sold 642,300 vehicles.
Ford has sold well over a million vehicles to date
SO…
20,962/1,000,000 is scarcely 2% and likely less
You are comparing a YTD number with a Q3 one.
Q3 Ford Sales
July 164,585
August 183,000
Sept 147,831
Q3 total sales 495,416
EV sales 20,962 A whopping 4.23%
I stand corrected
Nit Stokes? Why the heck are you nit picking this minor irrelevant error, that really did not change anything? Your point being?
You do see that in absolute number the EV figures are irrelevant? As yourself maybe?
And these irrelevant numbers of EV come with a hefty price tag? Do you not see this? Or are you incentivized to not see this?
I am just feeding the troll I know, but I could not help myself.
Not only irrelevant but also costly into the $Billion+ loss category.
If we are to counter the Settled Science CAGW ideology, we need to be precise and accurate.
We have to operate on a much higher standard than the Climate Syndicate.
Nick’s point was valid.
On the subject of nit picking. Did I call him out for being wrong, or did I call him out for nit picking?
He, as you, are focusing on the nit, while ignoring that enormous elephant in the corner with the pink dress on. Very few, in total numbers, electric cars has an enormous negative impact on a number of levels.
Yes. Brilliant as usual. Taking a loss on current sales means that one should lower prices so as to increase the loss.
For car manufacturers, “Sales” means delivered to dealers, not that they got paid. This has been covered many times. Among other bookkeeping reasons, this keeps factory output from being taxed as corporate factory inventory and puts it on the dealers, who can claim depreciation and somewhat write off the cost of taking up a slot on their lot.
Could make it up on volume, if anyone would actually buy them.
If costs of production were under control, yes, a manufacturer could continue to produce — essentially for “free” — past the break even point and make it up in volume. This has rarely been the case for any vehicle, and never for EVs. And never, ever, for any product in a saturated market.
You can’t make up unit loss with volume. You just lose even more.
Recognize the joke, but there is an edge case where it almost works — if a manufacturer has paid off all the costs except labor, continued production will be profit, so long as price exceeds remaining costs.
A lot of production budget is eaten up in plant and equipment and finding sources of supply and transportation. More costs are in specialized personnel training and retention (or dumping of the ones that can’t be trained). If the staff has been trained and is working at best production rate, supply logistics are established, and the plant and equipment changes are paid off, AND there is a market, then you can eat the prior unit “loss” and continue to build — and sell at a good profit. If there isn’t a market, best to close shop, as Ford is doing.
Ford set up a separate plant, special supply chains, and separate workforce for the electric F150. IMO, this was a deliberate effort to put all their EV eggs in a flagship basket. If they couldn’t make it work for their best selling pickup truck product line, or for the new mach-e with a fake “mustang” nameplate, they could write it off, just as they are doing. Having a specialized plant and dedicated work force for both products makes the books easy to show.
Worked for a start-up company once. Manufacturing our product required buying expensive components. The suppliers of those components had significant volume discounts. Initial sales lost money on each product sold. When sales hit higher levels, the supplier discounts kicked in and every unit sold was profitable.
**We initially lost money on every unit sold but made up for it with volume.**
Sometimes reality can be counterintuitive until you learn the details.
Exactly. Ford isn’t there.
Your example is not relevant for this case as I see it.
If you, as in the case of EVs, sell less than you produce – how can you “make up the loss” by producing more? Do you argue making more EVs, magically makes customers buy more?
Seems no one has heard that old joke. You’ll have to post it more often … make it up on volume.
Yeah, lets continue to lose a few BILLION every year because a tiny crowd of people are still buying them with a subsidy as a major attractant.
Here is part you ignored showing that Ford has lost BILLIONS every year on EV’s.
and this is BEFORE the announced price reduction:
You really have a college degree making profoundly stupid comments?
Nick,
Only someone like you would come to this website and try to put a positive spin on a sector of Ford’s business that is bleeding red ink like it is going out of style.
I would very much like to know why you keep coming to this website and persisting in this odd behavior.
Have you bought your EV yet Nick ?
Living in central Victoria, it would be almost totally USELESS, as you are well aware.
Stick to your big diesel or petrol dual cab ute…
.. its the the staple for anyone doing anything productive Australia outside the cities.
I almost never join the dog pile, but this is just pathetic
Why? I just point out that their sales went up 14%, despite the company losses. That doesn’t say no-one wants their cars.
That 14% is 20,962 cars spread over 50 states is just over 40 cars per state compared to Ford’s ICV market of Almost 500,000 in the same Q3 which in almost 1,000 cars per state.
Compared to 1,000 cars, 40 seems pathetic and for that 40 per state to be the cause of the hemorrhaging of $Billion+ is insane to continue production. It’s a Dog Market and it’s pathetic!
Correct. Phrased properly: “ALMOST no one wants those cars.”
Actually there are bigger issues, a friend decided to buy an electric Mini, list here in NZ $76k got them down to $43k. recorded as a sale but a lot of blood.
For the record I have a Q5 50TFSIe great car, hybrid tech is really good, but the plug in part is not worth the compromise. Hybrids will in my mind make it but with diesel as the high efficiency source of energy.
A small car as we had as young students were light and capable of 30mpg in old speak, the thermodynamic efficiency was well under 20% we should expect to see 70mpg in today’s world and that would be a victory for the environment.
more Stokesian wishful thinking.
The last I read, the MARKET SHARE of EVs sold was going down. That’s the best metric as to whether the total market wants your product or is rejecting is.
This is the inherent error in government subsidies used to “jump start” a new technology instead of letting the market set the price, and manufacturers then refine the product, often on low sales and thus modest losses, until we finally determine if the new technology is something that will never be, or eventually “takes off” as product quality, feature, and price combine to gain consumer confidence and preference.
MAGA common sense. But that is totally lacking in Dem/left/warmunist thinking.
They apparently think China will eventually go along with the Paris Accords.
It is a worldwide pandemic of stupidity.
They don’t have any other choice. When China and India renege on reducing CO2 by 2030, the jig is up as the Paris accords will have produced nothing. Nobody builds new coal fired plants at the rate they do just to shut them off in 5 years.
Subsidies are the carrot approach to encouraging adoption of new technologies. The way all of the major manufacturers (except Toyota) jumped in simultaneously I suspect sticks were used. This could have been advanced warning of ICE vehicle bans, e.g. through coming EPA regulations, and/or it could have come through large investment firms with financial leverage and globalist ties.
I’d be surprised if any CEO or board actually thought going all in on EV’s was a good business decision — even with subsidies. Most CEO’s aren’t that creative, but they’re all proficient with balance sheets.
Many of them if not he most, are temporary mercenaries. Expensive, expendable and recycled.
Not under a command economy like fascism or communism. When bureaucrats determine “what is good for the economy” you will end up with shortages and only the powerful will enjoy the fruits.
This is part of Commie Harris’ “freedom versus chaos” pitch.
Hmmm…. is this part of the freedom or part of the chaos? Curious minds want to know.
Sometimes we have an example of how it should work.
Cell smartphones replaced land line phones without subsidies.
Commie Harris, a self-proclaimed Capitalist disagrees.
The car manufacturers drank the government’s pitch, and probably threats as well, on making EVs mandatory and now they’re paying the price. All those subsidies and they still went into the hole.
Yes. The car makers were bullied, bribed, coerced and mandated to produce cars that people did not want, by the government. Your government. Your cost as always. Call it economic justice.
Bryce is perfectly correct, as with most subjects, about Ford’s record with EVs. But is it corporate failure to fail so spectacularly, or is Ford “stupid like a Fox?” Ford has given EVs a fair try in their biggest worldwide markets – providing justification to keep future regulatory efforts at bay, executives get to keep their salaries, and ESG elements on the board and among the stockholders can be ignored. Those latter can be blamed for the lack or shortfall of dividends. Troublesome and costly new labor contracts for EV work can be abandoned without penalty, and where necessary, replaced with cheaper offshore or outsourced solutions.
The problem isn’t just Ford’s, or only EV manufacturers. Bryce and others bring up GM’s EV backtracking, and Chrysler/Jeep owner Stellantis (Obama’s gift to Italy and France) isn’t doing so well either.
Bryce might be right, that this is just another spectacularly dumb move from an industry that seems to be faltering at a politically mandated task, but it could also be as much sandbagging as it is virture signaling: a strategic “white mutiny” destined to fail in exchage for political (and tax) credits.
Yeah. I’ve been thinking these might be strategic losses. Give up some now, and then “we tried, but we’re too big to fail.”
My belief is that no one in their right mind would ever purchase an EV – especially one that used lithium batteries.
“An imaginary world brings very real benefits if you make others live in it.”
Wieslaw Brudziński
I’m not saying I’m of right mind, but I did get the 2015 Ford Fusion Energi. It cost me about $0.03/mile when charged vs $0.08/mile when gassed up. I also got a $4500 tax credit. I change the oil every 20,000 miles vs 10,000 that is recommended for the ICE version. I’ve never changed the brake pads and even at 150,000 they still have 50% life left. I’ve not had any issues with it. My motivation was primarily cost and secondarily trying out new tech. Over the life of the vehicle it cost me $9000 less to own and operate vs a similarly equipped ICE version. It’s now passed on to my son while I currently have a gas-guzzling (relatively speaking) F-150.
EVs are not a substitute for gasoline or diesel cars and trucks. Everybody knows that. We know the CAGW crowd and the government are lying to use and have been for decades. It’s past time to tell them to take a hike. If we only held individuals responsible for this travesty it would all come to an end.
They are putting airborne EV transportation into cities in about 2 years.
Horror stories abound around Halloween.
“So why didn’t Ford and the other automakers see this debacle coming?”
Maybe they did.
“Was it herd mentality?”
No.
“Were they responding to government pressure?”
Same FMC said “no” to the 2008 bailout.
“If so, why didn’t they push back?”
Assumes “yes” instead of “no”.
“What did they know about EV demand from their own market research?”
They put their best guys on “something else”.
F management would look really dumb if the market went electric and they hadn’t even tried.
You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time.
They will struggle to remain
in business with losses of this magnitude.
Unfortunately, the car makers are only learning the hard way.
Ford must expect a government bail-out is one feasible reason for this debacle. Nothing else can explain this complete failure of a business plan.
I can’t understand why the industry goes along with this madness, they are willingly allowing themselves into economic suicide.
They & the energy industries should tell the government to take a hike, & if the government try ‘legal pressure’ then shut up shop for 6 mths & lay off 100s of 1,000s of workers … see how long the government lasts when the anger starts, the combined army & national guard are not big enough to protect the woke cretins.
In fact, VW is going broke and taking the German economy with them. https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/cars/news-blog/volkswagen-will-close-three-german-factories-in-cost-cutting-efforts-44509969 Most Automakers drunk the woke Koolaid when they should have told the Greens/politicians to F-off and put the money they have now lost in neutering the EPA and CAFE. This era in the future will beconsidered as another irrational financial mania, like https://www.britannica.com/money/South-Sea-Bubble or tulip-mania.
All this is more similar to Witch trials in the early modern period – Wikipedia
… rather than tulips and other bubbles. People actually wanted tulips. CO2, like a witch, doesn’t cause adverse weather/climate and hunting the sources down and killing them off won’t cure the – so called – existential climate crisis.
Those bubble manias were a little different. They were pure speculations, not based on idea of a potentially more productive technology replacing an older less productive one. In case of EVs, they were perceived by the public as a case similar to cars replacing horses, phones replacing telegraph, cell phones replacing landlines, etc. The only problem is that the EV technology is less productive by a large margin, and in many markets not feasible at meaningful adoption rates.
Ford Motor net profit margin for the quarter ending June 30, 2024 was 2.13%. Ford Motor average net profit margin for 2023 was 2.55%, a 51.8% decline from 2022.
Tesla 3Q 2024 Profit margin: 8.6%
Tesla and Ford are the only US auto manufacturers that have never declared bankruptcy. that may change in five years.
Ford Motor Third Quarter 2024:
Revenue: US$46.2b (up 5.5% from 3Q 2023). Net income: US$892.0m (down 26% from 3Q 2023). Profit margin: 1.9% (down from 2.7% in 3Q 2023).
This is just the latest example of markets being smarter than statist politicians.
There is the possibility that this is their target. Their aim is probably to participate in the collapse of the transportation industry. Those responsible will just fail up when the company collapses under the weight of bad decisions, moving on to bigger and better jobs, probably in government, where incompetency is rewarded.
The EV fantasy will be the death of car companies.
Of some, not all. The world is much bigger.
But.. Ford should continue to lose money on EVs in order to help save the planet! /s
The Inflation Reduction Act! LOL
And the beatings will continue until moral improves.
I get that this is about EVs.
However, there is yet another factor to consider. Copper.
Estimates were presented on a different page that current consumption ramped up to meet net zero would exhaust all the world’s copper reserves in 4 years. At current rate, it is 40 years (oil is 60+ years).
So, the point is, if we commit to net zero, we cannot go EV by 2030 due to lack of copper.
Just something to chew on while drinking coffee.
Well, the EV market is not growing anywhere, but Ford has more problems than most.
“Farley, who has been CEO of Ford since October 2020, said he drives a Xiaomi SU7, an electric sedan that retails for $30,000 that he had specially flown in from Shanghai.” Just to be clear, Ford has no investment in Xiaomi. He’s been driving it for six months and doesn’t want to give it up. Just what should the takeaway from that be for investors, employees, and consumers?