To some extent, the outgoing CEO is taking the fall for a nationwide slump in auto sales, which affects all auto companies.
I think this change is mainly window dressing: the outgoing CEO was committed to self-driving car research, as is the new guy. The fundamentals of the company are unlikely to change.
I suspect that the stock would go up in the short term if Ford started putting more money into SUVs and crossovers, at the expense of the company's long-term success. If Ford's investors believe that self-driving cars (or at least, semi-autonomous cars) are the future, they should be willing to put up with a low stock price over the next few years.
why does everyone keep saying car sales are in a "slump". Sales are off only about 5% compared to last year, which was the highest annual sales in history. This year's new car sales are still incredibly high compared to the average yearly sales from the last 10 years.
Overall car sales have hit a plateau, you can't expect it to keep breaking records year after year, which it has done since 2009.
SUVs and trucks are still in high demand, it's sedans that have taken the biggest hit.
GM's sales have gone up over the past few years, their share price has been pretty steady, and they're long term strategy for electric, shared, and autonomous is looking gangbusters. Ford not so much.
Why don't American vechicle manufacturers get it? Toyota figured it out years ago, but now have their own set of problems--price.
I'm looking for a new vechicle for my mom. I go to the Dens of Delusions, and literally feel sick. Just puffy vechicles with way too much stuff that will eventually go dead.
I don't want all the tech. I just want a vechicle that will take her 200,000 to 300,000k, without the trans blowing up at 150k. Hell-- I have a Toyota from the 1980's that has 250k.
The engineers did a great job on the engines. It's that overly complicated six speed trans, with the overdrive that's the Achilles on pretty much every new vechicle.
And those warranties, "Seven year 100k on the Powertrain". Yes--99.9 will last 100k. They should last 200k at this point in history?
I can rebuild a Ford AOD, AOED, 4R70w with a few specialized tools (basic machinist tools, like a calipers, micrometers, and a few home made tools), in a hot garage in Missouri. Yes--I needed to take my time, but a doable job.
These new transmissions are just too complicated, and require too many specialized tools.
Ford is losing share – always a scary thing but especially bad in a falling market.
IME, the only way a Board can live with falling market share is if they believe the CEO/company is poised with some "secret weapon" bringing new competitive advantage soon.
Evidently, secret weapons are in short supply in Dearborn.
Anyone knows much about the new CEO, Jim Hackett? It seems like window dressing to me as I don't see Ford suddenly becoming like Tesla anytime soon, or ever.
Also looks like the outgoing CEO was the fall guy for the company's mediocre sales. Replacing him with a guy who oversees self-driving cars is not going to magically change the trend.
>Mr. Hackett, 62, a longtime chief of the office furniture giant Steelcase and a former Ford director, joined the company’s operational ranks last year as head of its “smart mobility” operation, which includes driverless technology.
"oversees but does not have any technical expertise in" self driving cars. Just a standard case of a senior executive taking over for a CEW who underperformed earnings expectations.
Window dressing is exactly what they want. We live in a climate where share price is based purely on branding and not on fundamentals. Elon Musk has convinced the market that he's the second coming of Steve Jobs and the market is buying into it hook line and sinker.
As a shareholder I think the Ford family wants to create an image that will signal to the market Ford is very serious about autonomous and electric. I'd be very surprised not to see some very publicized development of a new line of cars in the next year or two.
Jim Hackett is well known in Michigan sports. He's the one who was appointed interim athletic director despite lacking a sports background. He replaced another corporate CEO Dave Brandon (Dominos) who was fired. Hackett oversaw hiring the new AD and got good marks when he was there.
>Mr. Hackett, 62, a longtime chief of the office furniture giant Steelcase and a former Ford director, joined the company’s operational ranks last year as head of its “smart mobility” operation, which includes driverless technology.
The self driving car aspect of his responsibilities seem pretty tangential to his professional skillset, and not a reason for his ascension to CEO.
NYT probably has some data saying that any headline including "self dirivng car" gets more eyeballs.
Why is age even relevant? Ageism isn't a fun thing to look forward to. If I make it to 56 I hope it doesn't get branded onto my professional accomplishments.
Oh I hear you - I'm closer to 56 than I'd like to be (mid forties). The point is Ford apparently tries to send a signal to shareholders that they have a clue about being a real player in self driving cars and this message is odd - seems more about slowing the decline in _existing_ revenue than generating new.
While there are 62 year olds who are quite comfortable with new technology and new ways of working, required to transform and innovate, you and I both know that _on average_ the older people get, the more they struggle with change and learning new things.
On average, it may be true to say that certain minority groups may be more violent or less intelligent. That doesn't mean it's ok to treat them as such.
It may seem like a glib comparison, and I hope it's substantive enough that it doesn't start a flamewar. But if one person can come to see ageism as equally valid as racism, then they can teach others, who will teach others, and eventually it will no longer be a problem.
At the CEO level of large, complex organizations, business experience and acumen, as well as legal and political experience, is much more important than background in specific technologies.
It might just be that he's Ford's top guy, so they put him in charge of Ford's biggest problem.
Though Ford's in-house autonomy efforts have been going nowhere fast. Then they started up Argo AI, another separate 'silicon valley style' company under ex-google SDC program manager Brian Salesky, and Jim Hackett was nowhere to be seen all through the press conferences and media accompanying that announcement, so I'm not sure Hackett had anything to do with it. Argo isn't exactly inspiring confidence in Ford's autonomy efforts either.
There's been a lot of big talk from both Ford and GM about the future of mobility the past few years, but while GM has played their cards perfectly and is doing exceptionally well, Ford's situation is a complete clusterfuck. I'm sure they mean well and understand the implications, but their execution has been sub-par.
> NYT probably has some data saying that any headline including "self dirivng car" gets more eyeballs.
The NYT headline is "Ford Motor Is Replacing Mark Fields as C.E.O.". Also, they do not give any more emphasis on "self-driving" than needed.
> Jim Hackett, who oversees the Ford subsidiary that works on autonomous vehicles, will take the reins from Mr. Fields. Ford plans to make an announcement on Monday morning, the officials said.
I first read this title as "Ford replacing CEO with self driving car." That would have brought new meaning to the struggle of labor vs. automation, but alas it wasn't meant to be.
It was embellished for hakcernews, and it isn't present in the linked article.
nyt gives you get 10 articles for free per month, although I decided to pay $10 per month. Their quality of journalism is pretty good for what they charge.
I typically use those up on clickbait articles that I don't decide to read after all, and then by the time one comes along that I would read I get the paywall.
I'm disinclined to pay for the NYT because of its role in getting Trump elected. By refusing to subject HRC to appropriate scrutiny and by amplifying all of Trump's stunts and gaffes, the paper was useless as an authoritative voice during a very important time in history.
If the quality were more consistent I'd happily use the google trick to get the articles for free, but much of the content is seemingly meant to generate clicks from issues that have already been covered extensively elsewhere.
You can google the headline of a NYT article in an incognito window and when the article comes up in the search results you can read it without a paywall getting in the way.
I invested in Ford partly because I think, unlike GM, they recognize an existential threat to their business and are trying to take steps to avoid it. It has been a horrible investment for me this far.
> I invested in Ford partly because I think, unlike GM, they recognize an existential threat to their business and are trying to take steps to avoid it.
Why do you think GM is unaware of the changing tides? They are currently selling the all-electric Bolt which is meant to compete directly with the upcoming Tesla Model 3. And they are investing however many billions of dollars into self-driving technology with their acquisition and support of Cruise Automation.
I have much disdain for GM's corporate culture. It is a company culture that knowingly allowed dangerous vehicles be sold for a decade until a Georgia litigator connected the dots (source: http://jalopnik.com/your-guide-to-the-problem-gm-didnt-fix-u... )
As for Cruise Automation, I am not convinced they have accomplished anything groundbreaking relative to their competitors.
I can't speak much about the Bolt. A quick Google search shows a Bloomberg story stating they will lose 8-9k per car sold. GM better hope it doesn't sell well, if that is the case! (link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/gm-s-read...)
I'm sorry for the cheap shot but the Ford pinto is a much bigger (if unfair to Ford - "A subsequent study concluded that the fire risks of the Ford Pinto were no greater than its contemporaries." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto ) black mark.
I didn't even recall the GM incident without clicking the link even though it was so recent.
I'm in the same boat and this move both surprises me and disturbs me to an extent. I thought Fields was doing a great job but the market just isn't interested in Ford shares right now. But they've beaten earnings estimates over and over and seemed very serious about developing new tech.
This seems like a knee jerk reaction made by the Ford family out of fear that was unwarranted. But I hope to be proven wrong.
As a long time Ford shareholder, this article seems to be applying a cause and effect that is at best speculative. It's important not to confuse share price with company performance, because in the short term the two can have zero correlation.
This move has to do with one thing and one thing only- share price. The Ford family isn't satisfied with the image Fields was giving the company to investors and wants to shake things up in the hopes of jump starting the demand for its stock.
Despite the doom and gloom image portrayed in the article, Ford has actually been wildly profitable for years and is far from struggling. In fact they are coming off a series of the most profitable quarters in company history. This move has little to nothing to do with autonomous car development or electric for that matter, both of which Ford is already investing in heavily.
49 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 42.3 ms ] threadToo bad this isn't true ;)
I think this change is mainly window dressing: the outgoing CEO was committed to self-driving car research, as is the new guy. The fundamentals of the company are unlikely to change.
I suspect that the stock would go up in the short term if Ford started putting more money into SUVs and crossovers, at the expense of the company's long-term success. If Ford's investors believe that self-driving cars (or at least, semi-autonomous cars) are the future, they should be willing to put up with a low stock price over the next few years.
Overall car sales have hit a plateau, you can't expect it to keep breaking records year after year, which it has done since 2009.
SUVs and trucks are still in high demand, it's sedans that have taken the biggest hit.
Otherwise, I agree with your comment.
The GM share price is not steady either -- it has dropped nearly 15% from its value in March, and about 6% from it's value on January 1st.
Why don't American vechicle manufacturers get it? Toyota figured it out years ago, but now have their own set of problems--price.
I'm looking for a new vechicle for my mom. I go to the Dens of Delusions, and literally feel sick. Just puffy vechicles with way too much stuff that will eventually go dead.
I don't want all the tech. I just want a vechicle that will take her 200,000 to 300,000k, without the trans blowing up at 150k. Hell-- I have a Toyota from the 1980's that has 250k.
The engineers did a great job on the engines. It's that overly complicated six speed trans, with the overdrive that's the Achilles on pretty much every new vechicle.
And those warranties, "Seven year 100k on the Powertrain". Yes--99.9 will last 100k. They should last 200k at this point in history?
I can rebuild a Ford AOD, AOED, 4R70w with a few specialized tools (basic machinist tools, like a calipers, micrometers, and a few home made tools), in a hot garage in Missouri. Yes--I needed to take my time, but a doable job.
These new transmissions are just too complicated, and require too many specialized tools.
I so waiting for a reasonably priced electric.
IME, the only way a Board can live with falling market share is if they believe the CEO/company is poised with some "secret weapon" bringing new competitive advantage soon.
Evidently, secret weapons are in short supply in Dearborn.
Also looks like the outgoing CEO was the fall guy for the company's mediocre sales. Replacing him with a guy who oversees self-driving cars is not going to magically change the trend.
"oversees but does not have any technical expertise in" self driving cars. Just a standard case of a senior executive taking over for a CEW who underperformed earnings expectations.
As a shareholder I think the Ford family wants to create an image that will signal to the market Ford is very serious about autonomous and electric. I'd be very surprised not to see some very publicized development of a new line of cars in the next year or two.
http://www.mgoblue.com/genrel/jim_hackett_934376.html
This may have brought him to the attention of William Clay Ford who lives in Ann Arbor. He went to work for Ford shortly thereafter.
The self driving car aspect of his responsibilities seem pretty tangential to his professional skillset, and not a reason for his ascension to CEO.
NYT probably has some data saying that any headline including "self dirivng car" gets more eyeballs.
While there are 62 year olds who are quite comfortable with new technology and new ways of working, required to transform and innovate, you and I both know that _on average_ the older people get, the more they struggle with change and learning new things.
It may seem like a glib comparison, and I hope it's substantive enough that it doesn't start a flamewar. But if one person can come to see ageism as equally valid as racism, then they can teach others, who will teach others, and eventually it will no longer be a problem.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/22/news/companies/ford-ceo-fiel...
[0]: https://energy.gov/lpo/ford
Though Ford's in-house autonomy efforts have been going nowhere fast. Then they started up Argo AI, another separate 'silicon valley style' company under ex-google SDC program manager Brian Salesky, and Jim Hackett was nowhere to be seen all through the press conferences and media accompanying that announcement, so I'm not sure Hackett had anything to do with it. Argo isn't exactly inspiring confidence in Ford's autonomy efforts either.
There's been a lot of big talk from both Ford and GM about the future of mobility the past few years, but while GM has played their cards perfectly and is doing exceptionally well, Ford's situation is a complete clusterfuck. I'm sure they mean well and understand the implications, but their execution has been sub-par.
The NYT headline is "Ford Motor Is Replacing Mark Fields as C.E.O.". Also, they do not give any more emphasis on "self-driving" than needed.
> Jim Hackett, who oversees the Ford subsidiary that works on autonomous vehicles, will take the reins from Mr. Fields. Ford plans to make an announcement on Monday morning, the officials said.
It was embellished for hakcernews, and it isn't present in the linked article.
I'm disinclined to pay for the NYT because of its role in getting Trump elected. By refusing to subject HRC to appropriate scrutiny and by amplifying all of Trump's stunts and gaffes, the paper was useless as an authoritative voice during a very important time in history.
If the quality were more consistent I'd happily use the google trick to get the articles for free, but much of the content is seemingly meant to generate clicks from issues that have already been covered extensively elsewhere.
Ford has said they expect to have a fully autonomous vehicles by 2021 (link: https://corporate.ford.com/innovation/autonomous-2021.html). That always seemed too ambitious to me, but I welcome being proved wrong.
I invested in Ford partly because I think, unlike GM, they recognize an existential threat to their business and are trying to take steps to avoid it. It has been a horrible investment for me this far.
Why do you think GM is unaware of the changing tides? They are currently selling the all-electric Bolt which is meant to compete directly with the upcoming Tesla Model 3. And they are investing however many billions of dollars into self-driving technology with their acquisition and support of Cruise Automation.
As for Cruise Automation, I am not convinced they have accomplished anything groundbreaking relative to their competitors.
I can't speak much about the Bolt. A quick Google search shows a Bloomberg story stating they will lose 8-9k per car sold. GM better hope it doesn't sell well, if that is the case! (link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/gm-s-read...)
I didn't even recall the GM incident without clicking the link even though it was so recent.
This seems like a knee jerk reaction made by the Ford family out of fear that was unwarranted. But I hope to be proven wrong.
This move has to do with one thing and one thing only- share price. The Ford family isn't satisfied with the image Fields was giving the company to investors and wants to shake things up in the hopes of jump starting the demand for its stock.
Despite the doom and gloom image portrayed in the article, Ford has actually been wildly profitable for years and is far from struggling. In fact they are coming off a series of the most profitable quarters in company history. This move has little to nothing to do with autonomous car development or electric for that matter, both of which Ford is already investing in heavily.