ford motor analysis
TRANSCRIPT
Ford Motor Company Financial Analysis
2011
Name: LE TUAN ANH
ID: 12407168 Professor: CORTEZ Michael
Class: Financial Accounting 2
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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®ion=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
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®ion=USA&culture=en-us)
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®ion=USA&culture=en-us)