How Ford Avoided the Meltdown that Hit GM, Chrysler

The Obama administration is forcing GM and Chrysler to obtain big concessions from union workers and lenders to qualify for more federal aid.

Ford, however, is having better success on both fronts without a government mandate.

Unlike GM and Chrysler, the company has reached agreement with the United Automobile Workers to finance half of its new retiree health care trust with company stock.

Earlier this week, Ford also completed a deal with its creditors to retire $9.9 billion in corporate debt—some of which was part of the big borrowing in 2006.

Investors have welcomed the moves. Ford’s stock climbed 13 percent to close at $3.95 on Wednesday, the highest it has been since October.

That was when the car market crashed and the auto companies began burning through huge amounts of cash. A month later, Mr. Mulally was in the spotlight—along with GM’s chairman, Rick Wagoner, and Chrysler’s chairman, Robert L. Nardelli—during Congressional hearings on Detroit’s financial woes.

Mr. Mulally said Ford never intended to ask for federal help but needed to support the industry during its crisis.

“From Day 1, we had no desire to access the government money,” he said.

Ford parted ways with GM and Chrysler in December, when its two rivals effectively came under government supervision as part of their loan agreements.

Last month, the presidential task force forced Mr. Wagoner to resign at GM and began an effort to replace the company’s board.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ford, whose great-grandfather founded the auto company, and Mr. Mulally continue to pursue their long-range turnaround plans.

When Mr. Mulally came to Ford after 37 years with Boeing, one of his first tasks was to borrow the money needed to streamline the company and hasten its shift to smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

He made his presentation to more than 400 bankers in the ballroom of the Marriott Marquis in New York, and he knew he was facing a skeptical audience.

“The No. 1 thing we need to do is deal with our reality and tackle those issues head on,” he said.

Paul Sancya / AP

At the time, the consensus among analysts was that GM was in better shape than Ford.

“It was not seen as a positive that Ford needed to leverage itself so dramatically,” said John A. Casesa, a former Merrill Lynch analyst and consultant to auto companies. “It was more of an act of desperation.”

But Ford benefited from the easy credit of the times. The company originally sought to raise $18 billion and ended up with $23.6 billion.

It has needed every bit of it. Mr. Mulally acknowledged that he did not foresee that annual auto sales in the United States would drop to 13.2 million vehicles last year, from 16 million in 2006, and possibly as low as 10 million this year.

He also knows that a continued slump in sales will put even more pressure on Ford’s balance sheet.

“We have sufficient liquidity to handle what the situation is now,” he said.

Ford is betting that its newest products can stabilize its falling revenue. It has high hopes, for example, for the new Taurus midsize sedan that Mr. Mulally pushed for in his early days at the company.

But it is still an uphill climb. Ford’s sales are down 43 percent in the first three months of this year compared with the same period a year earlier. The overall United States market is down 38 percent.

• Slideshow: Detroit Auto Show 2009: What's New
• Slideshow: Top 10 Gas-Sipping Cars

Ford’s market share has been holding steady at about 15 percent. But that could move up, particularly if either GM or Chrysler is forced into bankruptcy.

A recent national study by the firm AutoPacific found that 72 percent of those surveyed would be more likely to buy a Ford product because the company is not taking government loans.

“This is America, and this is about making products people want and being self-sufficient,” Mr. Mulally said. “Clearly, the reputation of Ford is on the rise in the consumer’s mind.”

This story originally appeared in The New York Times

---

< Prev | 1 | 2