Boo. This move to quarterly is a bad thing

I assume the move to quarterly reporting is to try and hide bad short term sales. 

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Boo. This move to quarterly is a bad thing

I agree. 

58 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

I assume the move to quarterly reporting is to try and hide bad short term sales. 

Better all the pain at once 4 times a year, i suppose. 

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Boo. This move to quarterly is a bad thing

I actually have to disagree with you my friend as I think too much speculation by the rich using robot trading is hurting businesses who need to change over product lines and make long term changes for survival.

4 times a year I think is more than enough info for people to research and decide if they want to invest in the company and how long they want to hold onto it.

I welcome this as long as they do continue to grant the transparency of how the business is being run to the investment community.

I think they want to report sales declines 4 times a year rather than 12.  Because we know they are going to have a lot of declines the next 2 years when you take away all the sedans some of the SUVs are dropping already.  Bad combo to kill 4 product lines and have Escape and Explorer in decline at the same time.

I remember when they named the Furniture guy CEO thinking this can't go well, and it seems like Ford is starting to struggle now.

The thinking here is that Ford will lose some revenue and profits, but it will be selling more profitable products, so their margins will improve. The problem I see is that they boast how they increase ATP, when a good chunk of it is attributable to is getting rid of your most affordable products.

51 minutes ago, Suaviloquent said:

The thinking here is that Ford will lose some revenue and profits, but it will be selling more profitable products, so their margins will improve. The problem I see is that they boast how they increase ATP, when a good chunk of it is attributable to is getting rid of your most affordable products.

 

Selling fewer products at a higher price point worked out great for Saturn with the Astra, really turned things around for GM. 

one might see similar results across town for Ford. Yes, I know the F series sells a ton at high Volume, but the pickup market is getting increasingly competitive. If nothing else, I would love to get rid of the chicken tax, so other companies could compete in the light truck market. 

Oh the Detroit 3 (or 2 and FCA) would never allow it unless it allows them to offshore pickup production too. And the Tacoma should be made in San Antonio, Toyota is printing money with that thing riding on super old underpinnings and weak frames.

Toyota actually touts the C channel rear of the cab as a feature for off-roading - it allows the frame to flex... 

5 minutes ago, Suaviloquent said:

Oh the Detroit 3 (or 2 and FCA) would never allow it unless it allows them to offshore pickup production too. And the Tacoma should be made in San Antonio, Toyota is printing money with that thing riding on super old underpinnings and weak frames.

Toyota actually touts the C channel rear of the cab as a feature for off-roading - it allows the frame to flex... 

😕😕😕😕

How a company could say a C frame that flex's is an off road feature is beyond me.

😕😕😕😕

Going quarterly has an effect on incentive offerings.

when you report monthly, your monthly sales are live or die.  You have to dive into the incentive basket each month.  Your corporate financials depend on it, one bad month, boom. 

When its quarterly, the GM's get desperate on December 30th or whatever because they leave month one and two without much for incentives, and then they panic and discount the shit out of their product in month 3 to make quarterly numbers.  You have to break out the huge incentives in the last week or two of the third month now.  I think they can sit on their marketing plans longer but then panic at the end of the quarter.  Its only panic 4 times a year instead of 12.  And only 4 bad reports to the press and investors instead of 12.  Come to think of it, when we got the Malibu with all the huge discounts it was a June 30, last day of Q2.

This doesn't even reflect any additional possible 'private offer' nor my GM card.

4 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I think they want to report sales declines 4 times a year rather than 12.  Because we know they are going to have a lot of declines the next 2 years when you take away all the sedans some of the SUVs are dropping already.  Bad combo to kill 4 product lines and have Escape and Explorer in decline at the same time.

I remember when they named the Furniture guy CEO thinking this can't go well, and it seems like Ford is starting to struggle now.

^^^^^YUP^^^^^^

How many times have we all read 'February is a notoriously slow month' or 'There was that huge blizzard in the Northeast in Dec'? as a modifier for sales numbers? I am leaning toward quarterly reporting as a tool to average out the numbers as being a good thing. I expect more OEMs to follow suit, especially as everyone's sedans continue to crater.
Look at Porsche- they don't publish % change numbers. Of course you can pull out a calculator, but IMO it (perceptually) minimizes declines.

1 hour ago, Suaviloquent said:

Toyota actually touts the C channel rear of the cab as a feature for off-roading - it allows the frame to flex... 

Holy crap; what a load of crap.

The Colorado/Canyon twins along with the Ranger should take care of the Tacoma by imposing lost sales on THAT Toyota.

8 hours ago, Suaviloquent said:

The thinking here is that Ford will lose some revenue and profits, but it will be selling more profitable products, so their margins will improve. The problem I see is that they boast how they increase ATP, when a good chunk of it is attributable to is getting rid of your most affordable products.

 

The other problem is when you cut all these models our, aside from shrinking the number of people coming to your dealers, you drop revenue.  And Ford (or any car company) has massive overhead costs.   They have huge labor costs, pension and healthcare costs, that stuff doesn't go away, they have loads of factories unless they try to shutter some and sell off the real estate.  I know the F150 makes a ton of profit, but I would guess the F150's revenue isn't enough to keep the lights on at Ford.  According to their annual report they need to pay $500 million to the pension fund in 2018.  That is probably 100,000 F150's sales just to fund the pension plan.  Ford paid 73 cents per share dividends in 2018, they have 3.9 billion shares outstanding, so there is $2.5 billion dollars spent.    I think life gets rough if their revenue takes a big hit.

6 hours ago, dfelt said:

😕😕😕😕

How a company could say a C frame that flex's is an off road feature is beyond me.

😕😕😕😕

it means that they can ensure traction when the articulation of the rear suspension isn't quite enough to allow a wheel that would otherwise be off the ground. The frame flexes because of the unsupported weight pushing on it and bam you gain an inch, inch and 1/2 of effective wheel articulation...

It's so stupid but I heard a birdie wearing a Toyota shirt and ID at an event say that with a straight face. I died laughing inside. Does anyone who considers a Taco ever think of how bad it is for towing? The frames man the frames, that's why it's a 5,000 limit. GVWR is piss poor too.

It wasn't that long ago that all pickups used full C-channel frames, and they were pretty darn good off-road, and at towing and hauling.  Fully boxed frames everyone uses today just mean a larger percentage of engineering time and money has to go into the suspension to achieve a functioning final product for sale.

8 hours ago, smk4565 said:

And Ford (or any car company) has massive overhead costs.   They have huge labor costs, pension and healthcare costs, that stuff doesn't go away...

Ford had 364K employees 20 years ago, that's now about 200K, so labor costs have been reduced dramatically.

16 hours ago, balthazar said:

How many times have we all read 'February is a notoriously slow month' or 'There was that huge blizzard in the Northeast in Dec'? as a modifier for sales numbers? I am leaning toward quarterly reporting as a tool to average out the numbers as being a good thing. I expect more OEMs to follow suit, especially as everyone's sedans continue to crater.

Look at Porsche- they don't publish % change numbers. Of course you can pull out a calculator, but IMO it (perceptually) minimizes declines.

1

Porsche isn't the only who does that. See Kia, Hyundai, Jaguar/Land Rover to name a few. Its slightly annoying for me when writing up the summary - but then I have sources like Automotive News and GoodCarBadCar.net to give me the percentages.

(I know, first-world automotive writer problems).

4 hours ago, balthazar said:

Ford had 364K employees 20 years ago, that's now about 200K, so labor costs have been reduced dramatically.

And they will cut more workers this year no doubt.  They still have to pay all those retirees though.  I feel like Ford is a shrinking company.  Wouldn't surprise me if in 10-15 years they say, "we can't make money on crossovers, and we are shift to trucks, and they just have commercial vehicles and F150s.

I wonder if the whole crossover craze will have passed in 10-15 years.  

If you go back to -say- the '90s, when an SUV was a large, V8, 4WD [Explorer], then you fast forward to the car-based, much less practical & capable teeny compact CUVs & their mainstream acceptance... I'd say the answer would be 'no'.

4 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

I wonder if the whole crossover craze will have passed in 10-15 years.  

i think what will happen is soft looking compact crossovers will probably be 2/3 of the market, it will be all people can afford due to regulations and strangulation with MPG requirements and such.  So soft puff mini marshmallows like what the 2020 Escape looks like will become the norm even more what is forced on the market.

That disguised Escape prototype looks like a Corolla roof grafted on a Focus body.  Nothing new or different, just another appliance. 

5 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

I wonder if the whole crossover craze will have passed in 10-15 years.  

2 hours ago, balthazar said:

If you go back to -say- the '90s, when an SUV was a large, V8, 4WD [Explorer], then you fast forward to the car-based, much less practical & capable teeny compact CUVs & their mainstream acceptance... I'd say the answer would be 'no'.

 Its a legit thing. 

For me, SUV and crossovers are the same thing. Let me explain. Its in the same category.  Intertwined and evolved. By different branches of the automotive tree, but eventually became one and the same branch...

Its not as if there wasnt a crossover in the early 1970s to early 1980s with the AMC Eagle.  And the unibody mid 1980s Jeep Cherokee after that. And the body on frame small SUVs of the GMC Jimmy and Chevy Blazer (that got themselves hotrodded into the superfast Typhoon), and the Japanese 4runner and Pathfinder, The Suzuki Sidekick and its GM siblings. T he Ford small Bronco to become Explorer...and the advent of Audi Quattro and the like... All happened in the 1980s...

So...Ill start the clock at about 1994 anyway.  1994-2004-2014-2019 That would be 25 years of SUVs and CUVs selling many units to be really counted as a segment.  As a real mainstream segment.  

PS: I could go earlier than 1994. I could go 1990. Why?

That small Chevy Blazer/GMC Jimmy/GMC Typhoon...  Well, Oldsmobile got a version of that in 1990.  The SUV/CUV craze was already starting to bubble and Oldsmobile saw that coming in 1990...

So in reality, its closer to 30 years of the mainstream buyers getting their kicks with AWD and SUVs and CUVs...

30 years.  At this point in time, it aint a fad, nor a craze. Its THE  bread and butter segment.  I think our transportation pods will be tall and hatchbacky and AWD for a long time to come.  

PS: Poor AMC, if they could have just stuck around just another 5 or so years... 

The CUV/SUV distinction is less clear than it used to be, and means nothing to most consumers.  I think of SUVs as being truck-based (Suburban, Tahoe, etc) or on purpose built RWD/AWD platforms like the Wrangler, Grand Cherokee, Land Cruiser, etc.   CUVs are on car-based platforms and almost always FWD/transverse engine...

As far as mainstreaming, the early 90s when 5 dr midsize SUVs appeared in the Explorer and S10 Blazer marked a big growth point for the family hauler daily driver SUVs.