You are on page 1of 18

2011

Ford Motor Company


Financial Analysis

Name: LE TUAN ANH ID: 12407168 Professor: CORTEZ Michael Class: Financial Accounting 2

Table of Contents
Overview ....................................................................................................................................3 Performance highlights from 2005-2009 ..................................................................................3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Fiscal 2005 highlights .......................................................................................................4 Fiscal 2006 highlights .......................................................................................................4 Fiscal 2007 highlights .......................................................................................................4 Fiscal 2008 highlights .......................................................................................................5 Fiscal 2009 highlights .......................................................................................................5

Financial Ratios Analysis ..........................................................................................................6 1. 2. 3. 4. Liquidity...........................................................................................................................6 Efficiency .........................................................................................................................6 Profitability ......................................................................................................................8 Leverage......................................................................................................................... 11

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 12 Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 13 References................................................................................................................................ 14 Appendix ................................................................................................................................. 15

Page | 2

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 companys 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 sectors 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:


Net Income (USD Mil)
2,024

2,717

2005

2006

2007 -2,723

2008

2009

-12,613 -14,672

Page | 3

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 Fords 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 Fords 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 Fords 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 Fords 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 pretax profit of $1.2 billion (2007 Annual Report, 2007). Furthermore, it was also reported that Fords 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 | 4

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. Companys 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 Fords 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 companys 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 sectors 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 Fords 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 | 5

III. Financial Ratios Analysis:


1. Liquidity: a. Current ratio and Quick ratio:
2.45

2.28
2.09

2.32

2.36

2.13

2.19

1.64

1.33

1.25

Current Ratio Quick Ratio

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

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 2005s quick ratio), which indicates a good sign of Fords 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 Fords 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 Fords balance sheet, it can be seen that the company heavily relies on account receivables in generating cash to meet companys short-term obligations. However, a large account receivables number is not always a good sign of the companys liquidity ability. Therefore, in order to thoroughly assess Fords 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 | 6

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1

2.94

274.68
252.29 228.49 252.69

300 250 200

124.15

1.45

1.6

1.44

1.33

150 100 50 0

0.5
0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Average Collection Period (Days)

Receivables Turnover

The above graph illustrates Ford Motor Corporations 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, Fords receivables turnover number appears to be relatively small, which somewhat implies the inefficiency in collecting its outstanding receivables. As we discussed before, Fords 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:
14.4 14.2 14 13.8 13.78 13.6 13.4 13.2 26.49 13 12.8 12.6 2005 28 14.22 13.77 13.63 27.64 26.78 13.2 26.52 25.67 27.5 27 26.5 26 25.5 25 24.5 2006 2007 2008 2009

Days in Inventory

Inventory Turnover Page | 7

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:
0.63 0.62 0.59 0.58 0.57

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Asset Turnover The above graph shows a 5-recent-year analysis of Fords 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: Fords 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 Fords 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 Page | 8

Net Profit Margin (%)


1.14 2005 2006 2007 -1.58 2008 2009

2.3

-7.88 -10.03

substantially and hit the lowest point of -10.03% in 2008. However, the year 2009 saw a spectacular recovery of Fords performance, as much as 2.3% net profit margin. b. Return on Assets (ROA):
Return on Assets (%) 1.32 0.72 2005 2006 2007-0.98 2008 2009

-4.6 -5.9

It can be easily observed that the Fords 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):
Return on Equity %

364.01

84.76 15.62 2005 2006 2007 -48.38 2008 2009 -34.74

Page | 9

As can be seen from the graph, Fords 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): Earnings Per Share
1.05 2005 2006 2007 -1.38 2008 2009 0.86

-6.72

-6.46

As a matter of fact, this ratio serves as a very important tool for financial investors in order to appropriately assess companys profitability before deciding to buy its shares. According to the above graph, there is a high likelihood that Fords 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:
36.46

Payout ratio

0 2005 2006 -3.71 2007 2008

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 | 10

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: Debt/Total Assets

107.93 104.01

101.24 97.98 95.19

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

In the period of 5 latest years, there has been a trend of Fords increasingly heavy reliance on external debt to finance their business. As can be observed from the graph, Fords 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 debtpaying 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: Interest Coverage Ratio
0.98 0.73

2005

2006

2007

2008

-0.40

2009

-0.41

-0.90

Page | 11

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, Fords 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: Cash Flow to Debt
0.085 0.062 0.034

0.080

-0.001 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Same as interest coverage ratios, Fords poor debt-paying ability is explicitly clarified by its very low cash flow to debt ratios. This ratio is used to examine companys 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 companys 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 | 12

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 | 13

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/wpcontent/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 | 14

Appendix
FORD MOTOR CO. (F) FINANCIAL RATIOS
LIQUIDITY Current Ratio Quick ratio EFFICIENCY Inventory Turnover Days in Inventory (Days) Total Asset Turnover Receivables Turnover Average Collection Period (Days) PROFITABILITY Net Profit Margin (%) Return on Assets (%) Return on Equity (%) Earnings per Share Payout Ratio LEVERAGE Interest Coverage Ratio Total Debt/Total Assets (%) Cash Flow to Debt 2005 0.98 95.19 0.085 2006 -0.90 101.24 0.034 2007 0.73 97.98 0.062 2008 -0.40 107.93 -0.001 2009 -0.41 104.01 0.080 2005 1.14 0.72 15.62 1.05 36.46 2006 -7.88 -4.6 364.01 -6.72 -3.71 2007 -1.58 -0.98 -48.38 -1.38 0 2008 -10.03 -5.9 84.76 -6.46 0 2009 2.3 1.32 -34.74 0.86 0 2005 13.78 26.49 0.63 2.94 124.15 2006 13.63 26.78 0.58 1.45 252.29 2007 13.2 27.64 0.62 1.6 228.49 2008 13.77 26.52 0.59 1.44 252.69 2009 14.22 25.67 0.57 1.33 274.68 2005 2.09 1.64 2006 2.28 2.13 2007 2.32 2.19 2008 1.33 1.25 2009 2.45 2.36

Page | 15

FORD MOTOR CO. (F) INCOME STATEMENT


Fiscal year ends in December. USD in millions except per share data. Revenue Cost of revenue Gross profit Operating expenses: Sales, General and administrative Other operating expenses Total operating expenses Operating income Interest Expense Other income (expense) Income before taxes Provision for income taxes Other income Net income from continuing operations Net income from discontinuing ops Cumulative effect of accounting changes Other Net income Net income available to common shareholders Earnings per share Basic Diluted Weighted average shares outstanding Basic Diluted 2005-12 177,089 144,944 32,145 24,652 0 24,652 7,493 7,643 2,146 1,996 (512) (280) 2,228 47 (251) 0 2,024 2,024 1.10 1.05 1,846 1,846 2006-12 160,123 148,869 11,254 19,180 0 19,180 (7,926) 8,783 1,658 (15,051) (2,646) (210) (12,615) 2 0 0 (12,613) (12,613) (6.72) (6.72) 1,879 1,879 2007-12 172,455 143,255 29,200 21,169 0 21,169 8,031 10,927 (850) (3,746) (1,294) (312) (2,764) 41 0 0 (2,723) (2,723) (1.38) (1.38) 1,979 1,979 2008-12 146,277 128,977 17,300 21,430 0 21,430 (4,130) 10,437 163 (14,404) 63 (214) (14,681) 9 0 0 (14,672) (14,672) (6.46) (6.46) 2,273 2,273 2009-12 118,308 100,016 18,292 13,258 7,858 21,116 (2,824) 6,828 12,678 3,026 69 0 2,957 5 0 (245) 2,717 2,717 0.91 0.86 2,992 2,992

(Source: http://financials.morningstar.com/income-statement/is.html?t=F&region=USA&culture=en-us)

FORD MOTOR CO. (F) BALANCE SHEET


Fiscal year ends in December. USD in millions 2005-12 except per share data. ASSETS Current assets: Cash Cash and cash equivalents 31,499 Short-term investments 11,044 Total cash 42,543 Receivables 114,497 Inventories 10,271 Deferred income taxes 5,881 2006-12 2007-12 2008-12 2009-12

28,894 26,728 55,622 106,863 11,578

35,283 15,515 50,798 109,053 10,121

22,049 17,411 39,460 93,484 8,618

21,441 38,657 60,098 84,583 5,450

Page | 16

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 160,729 201,799 196,857 124,810 141,477 256,519 282,019 273,636 235,639 201,365 Total liabilities 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) 12,957 (3,465) 5,628 (17,311) (7,820) Total stockholders' equity 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&region=USA&culture=en-us)

Page | 17

FORD MOTOR CO. (F) STATEMENT OF CASHFLOW


Fiscal year ends in December. USD in millions 2005-12 2006-12 2007-12 2008-12 2009-12 except per share data. 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 (20,651) 15,273 (5,242) (9,104) (22,959) activities (496) 464 1,014 (808) 470 Effect of exchange rate changes 7,989 484 6,387 (13,234) 22 Net change in cash 23,510 28,410 28,896 35,283 22,049 Cash at beginning of period 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&region=USA&culture=en-us)

Page | 18