Profit/Loss results for 2008

[Hamico]

The big 3 results are in for 2008...

1. Toyota reports a profit of $123.4 million after tax

2. Holden reports a loss of $70.2 million after tax (was $6.6 million profit before extraordinary items)

3. Ford reports a loss of $274.4 million after tax (this is bigger than expected)


http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=64007&vf=12

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/ganewsnav?readform&lead


.

[Ghia351]

Were there any one-off's in the Ford numbers?

[Hamico]

Were there any one-off's in the Ford numbers?

Looks like there was...

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/34840/ford-australia-posts-record-loss-for-2008/

"The position for Ford though is not fully explained in the bald figure as it contains write-downs, a one-time restructuring cost of $162.18 million, and, thanks to superannuation funds going into reverse, a provision for a further $151.12 million for Ford employees’ defined benefit retirement fund (as against just $369,000 for 2007)"

[Ghia351]

Looks like there was...

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/34840/ford-australia-posts-record-loss-for-2008/

"The position for Ford though is not fully explained in the bald figure as it contains write-downs, a one-time restructuring cost of $162.18 million, and, thanks to superannuation funds going into reverse, a provision for a further $151.12 million for Ford employees’ defined benefit retirement fund (as against just $369,000 for 2007)"Wow, me needs to get that sort of super fund. hmm, a defined benefits scheme, lucky buggers. Thanks for looking up the details.

[Hamico]

Wow, me needs to get that sort of super fund. hmm, a defined benefits scheme, lucky buggers. Thanks for looking up the details.

It's a shame that Ford and Holden have to continually suffer these "one-off" write downs, cause it seems to happen every year !

It's the cost of having employees, that are sending Ford and GM broke.....

[vecommo]

So much for the "Ford makes more profit per unit" theories which certain people have been harping on about lately.

[Ghia351]

So much for the "Ford makes more profit per unit" theories which certain people have been harping on about lately.vecommoro , read the details of the articles.. They don't sell the same volume, have vastly different "one-off's or right downs" and when these are taken into account Ford actually improved it's situation from last year.
Maybe this will clear it up for you: :doh:

Holden built in Oz 119,246 cars (inc exports), an increase of over 11,000 cars from last year.

Ford sold in total 108,564 cars which include all it's imports. So Ford built about half the number of cars and made a loss of $14mill while Holden made a small profit of $6mill on double the number of built cars...

[Hamico]

Ford said its net sales revenue for 2008 was $3.29 billion – down about 7.5 per cent or $168 million from a year ago – from total sales of 108,564 vehicles including exports (down 5319 on 2007 figures).

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/59B6ECAAE366FD7DCA2575DA0020325A

[ExAreSix]

So much for the "Ford makes more profit per unit" theories which certain people have been harping on about lately.

If you cashed in your schmick for dollars, you'd struggle to afford a soft serve at McDonalds.

Deadset mate, you have no idea.

[Oldmate83]

If you cashed in your schmick for dollars, you'd struggle to afford a soft serve at McDonalds.

Deadset mate, you have no idea.


Hahaha. TOLD

[Jac001]

vecommoro , read the details of the articles.. They don't sell the same volume, have vastly different "one-off's or right downs" and when these are taken into account Ford actually improved it's situation from last year.

At the end of the day both companies lost a heap of money (more money has gone out than has come in) and both senior management groups should be ashamed of themselves for their inability to manage their companies.

[redvxr8clubby]

Wow, me needs to get that sort of super fund. hmm, a defined benefits scheme, lucky buggers. Thanks for looking up the details.

Yes I used to work for Telstra (10 years ago), they have similar same thing - you would contribute 5% of your wage. Your super entitlement was 20% x number of years of service x Final Average Salary (FAS). I think the Final Average Salary was based on your wage at your last birthday averaged over the last 3 years. So say if you worked for 10 years your super would be twice your FAS (10 x.2) (about 2 years wages). I moved from Telstra to another company 10 years ago and it was the main negative about making the move. I think many government employees probably have a similar thing, not as good as the pollies give themselves, but I don't think it gets much better than that. It was a better payout if you got yourself promoted and had that job over your last 3 birthdays.

[vecommo]

If you cashed in your schmick for dollars, you'd struggle to afford a soft serve at McDonalds.

Deadset mate, you have no idea.

O RLY?

And what, you are an oracle of wisdom when it comes to everything in the automotive industry?
It seems you only ever crawl out of the woodwork to give antagonistic responses to my posts. What else have you contributed here apart from that?

I do realise that there are other factors contributing to the profit/loss results, however after reading for the last 6 months Ford fans harping on about how Ford are more profitable than Holden etc etc, I find it quite fitting that this be rubbed into their faces.

[patto]

however after reading for the last 6 months Ford fans harping on about how Ford are more profitable than Holden etc etc, I find it quite fitting that this be rubbed into their faces.

i'd have to agree with vecommo on that point

[Ghia351]

i'd have to agree with vecommo on that point

The point you're both missing is that Holden built in Australia double the number of cars as Ford when you factor in all VE/LWB exports and all local sales and there only ends up a $20 million dollar "difference" in bottom line between the two when you exclude all one-off items.

[Excellent]

The point you're both missing is that Holden built in Australia double the number of cars as Ford when you factor in all VE/LWB exports and all local sales and there only ends up a $20 million dollar "difference" in bottom line between the two when you exclude all one-off items.

Holden had bigger fish to fry than just Falcon. You do remember that Holden invested more $$$ than Ford? To amortize the cost of VE it was always going to be substantially greater than it was for Ford to do the same for FG.

I'd say Holden have done reasonably well considering their overall investment in VE, exports, Torana platform and GMDAT.

[Tyre biter]

The point you're both missing is that Holden built in Australia double the number of cars as Ford when you factor in all VE/LWB exports and all local sales and there only ends up a $20 million dollar "difference" in bottom line between the two when you exclude all one-off items.

And this shows the desperate times. Ford built and sold what, only about 9% less cars than GMH but in the end was $20 million behind ($14 million of that in the red!). I accept I am by no means an accountant, nor an 'industry expert' by any measure, but this suggests to me that;

a) Ford are suffering with the exchange rate on all those imported vehicles, and/or,

b) Ford's long established practice of discounting the heck out of their cars just to move them is hurting the bottom line, and

c) GMH as a manufacturer are being propped-up to some considerable extent by exports and this can't be a healthy thing in times like these because one is at arms length from a market that is heavily relied upon.

I would further suggest the numbers reflect that Ford's long practiced pursuit of volume as opposed to healthy profit margins per unit is clearly them - not to mention the 'loyal' customer as has often been discussed here and elsewhere. But nowadays it seems that we in the Holden camp are not immune to this practice either, including the subsequent fall-out suffered in terms of diminished re-sale values.

If the comments by a number are accurate with regards to the ongoing labour costs (high) in Australia and one looks at these manufactured -v- imported -v- exported numbers, then I fear the Execs at either company would be looking often and closely towards justifying the reasons for continuing to manufacture in this country.

Maybe it is numbers like these that lie behind both company's plans to manufacture other platforms in this country (Focus and Cruze) because it might give them more control in a number of areas, or a semblance of it anyways. I hope it is the answer.

Cheers, TB