This paper provides a detailed overview of Ford Motor Company's organizational structure, global operations, and financial performance. The analysis employs vertical, horizontal, and ratio analysis tools to evaluate Ford's financial position against General Motors across liquidity, efficiency, solvency, profitability, and market prospects. Key findings indicate that Ford demonstrated superior revenue growth (10% vs. 2.1%), improved net income (26% increase), and stronger profitability metrics in 2013, positioning it as a more attractive investment opportunity despite higher debt ratios. The paper concludes that Ford's cost management and financial operations strengths outweigh GM's advantages in total sales growth.
Ford Motor Company is an American automaker and the world's fifth largest automaker based on worldwide vehicle sales. Based in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit, the company was founded by Henry Ford on June 16, 1903. Ford Motor Company would go on to become one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world, as well as being one of the few to survive the Great Depression. The largest family-controlled company in the world, Ford Motor Company has maintained continuous family control for over 110 years.
Ford currently encompasses two brands: Ford and Lincoln. The company once owned five other luxury brands—Volvo, Land Rover, Jaguar, Aston Martin, and Mercury—but these brands were sold to other companies over time, and Mercury was discontinued.
Early in its history, Ford faced legal challenges from the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers, which claimed patent rights to most gasoline-powered automobiles. After several years of legal disputes, the Association eventually dropped its case against Ford in 1911.
Ford, being a global organization, exhibits a complex structure that is fairly mechanistic in nature. Based on functional classification, the company operates with a CEO, chairman, and multiple vice presidents arranged in a hierarchical system.
The Chief Executive Officer oversees:
The Group Vice Presidents handle operations in:
The Executive Vice Presidents manage operations for:
The Chief Operating Officer oversees global trading and automotive risk management, as well as communications. The Chief Technical Officer directs Ford of Europe, sustainability and environmental safety engineering, engineering and global product development, and powertrain engineering. The Chief Financial Officer manages the controller and treasurer functions.
Below these chief officers work numerous directors, demonstrating a relatively low span of control overall. A clear chain of command flows from the CEO through vice presidents to department directors and employees. The degree of centralization is fairly high. Although employees are encouraged to share opinions, ultimate decision-making authority resides with top management.
Ford's headquarters is located in Dearborn, Michigan. The company operates 80 plants worldwide across Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, and Vietnam.
In 2013, Ford generated total revenues of $146,917 million from automotive and financial services sectors. The automotive sector sold approximately 6,330,000 vehicles at wholesale worldwide, generating revenues of $139,369 million. The financial services sector contributed $7,548 million in revenues. At year-end 2013, the company reported total assets of $90,326 million.
Ford employed approximately 181,000 people globally across North America, South America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific-Africa regions. The company's supply chain included about 1,200 suppliers and more than 11,000 dealerships globally. Ford manufactures diverse vehicle types including small cars, midsize cars, convertibles, luxury cars, sports cars, SUVs, trucks, vans, minivans, and wagons.
Regarding customer base, Ford does not depend on any single customer or small group whose loss would materially harm the business. In addition to vehicles sold through dealerships for retail sale, Ford supplies vehicles to dealerships for fleet customers, including commercial fleets, daily rental companies, and governments. The company also sells parts and accessories through dealerships and authorized distributors, and offers extended service contracts through its dealer network.
Ford identified three overarching goals to guide the company's strategic direction:
To achieve these goals, Ford established six specific objectives:
Financial statements such as balance sheets, income statements, and statements of cash flows are used to evaluate Ford Motor Company's financial performance and position. This analysis compares Ford's metrics to those of General Motors Company.
Three primary financial statement analysis tools are employed:
Vertical analysis of Ford's assets reveals that finance receivables comprise the largest portion at 38.4%, followed by property, marketable securities, inventories, and cash and cash equivalents. For liabilities and equity, noncurrent liabilities represent 77% of the total, compared to 10% in current liabilities and 13% in stockholders' equity.
On the income statement, cost of goods sold dominates net sales at 85.2%, with operating expenses at 9%.
Comparing Ford and GM's 2013 income statements, both companies have automobile and financial services sectors, with automobile revenues being dominant. General Motors derived 97.85% of revenues from automobiles compared to Ford's 94.86%, indicating a stronger dependence on automotive sales for GM. Both companies maintain similar cost and expense ratios, exceeding 96% of total revenues. Notably, Ford achieved higher net income (4.87%) relative to total revenues compared to GM (3.43%) in 2013.
On the balance sheet, Ford maintains less cash and cash equivalents (7.16% of total assets) and inventory (3.82%) compared to GM in percentage terms. However, Ford's debt ratio is higher at 56.77% compared to GM's 49.98%, indicating greater financial leverage.
Ford's 2013 income statement shows substantial growth compared to 2012. Total revenues grew 10%, with automobile revenues increasing 10.11% and financial services revenues rising 7.95%. Despite total costs and expenses rising 10.81%, net income surged 26.2%, demonstrating improved operational efficiency.
On the balance sheet, total assets grew 6.66% year-over-year. Cash and cash equivalents decreased 7.61%, while inventory increased 4.7%. Total debt (short-term and long-term, including both automotive and financial services sectors) increased 9.17%, reflecting the company's ongoing financial obligations.
Liquidity measures a company's ability to meet short-term obligations. Ford's current ratio of 6.74 significantly exceeds GM's 1.3, indicating Ford holds substantially more current assets relative to current liabilities. While both ratios exceed the minimum threshold of 1.0, suggesting both companies can cover short-term obligations, Ford's higher ratio suggests excess current assets remain uninvested and potentially underutilized.
The quick ratio, which excludes inventory as it is less easily liquidated, shows Ford at 6.34 compared to GM at 1.08. Both ratios far exceed the automotive industry benchmark of 0.50, indicating both companies can easily meet short-term obligations. Ford's exceptionally high quick ratio suggests the company is experiencing solid growth, quickly converting receivables to cash, and maintaining strong financial flexibility.
Efficiency metrics measure how productively a company generates revenue from its asset base. General Motors' total asset turnover ratio of 0.98 means sales in 2013 were 0.98 times total assets. Ford's ratio of 0.75 indicates only 75% revenue generation relative to total assets, showing that GM deployed assets more efficiently to generate sales.
For accounts receivable turnover, GM's ratio of 5.45 indicates accounts receivable were converted to cash 5.45 times during the year, reflecting strong cash collection. Ford's ratio of 1.74 is considerably weaker, indicating slower cash conversion and reduced cash inflow for the period. Accounts receivable management is critical for maintaining operational liquidity.
Inventory turnover reveals Ford sold inventory 16.99 times versus GM's 9.55 times, indicating Ford maintained lower inventory levels relative to sales volume. This advantage is confirmed by days sales in inventory: Ford's 22-day figure versus GM's 37 days shows Ford converts inventory to sales faster.
However, days sales uncollected shows GM collects outstanding receivables in 78 days compared to Ford's 217 days, indicating GM's significantly faster cash collection cycle. This metric highlights Ford's weakness in converting credit sales to cash.
Solvency metrics assess a company's long-term financial stability and ability to service debt obligations. Ford's debt ratio of 86.76% means liabilities represent 86.76% of total assets, compared to GM's 74.04%. Correspondingly, Ford's equity ratio of 13.07% indicates shareholders own only 13.07% of assets, versus GM's 25.96%. These ratios indicate both companies are highly leveraged, but Ford carries greater financial risk.
The debt-to-equity ratio further illustrates this risk differential: Ford's 663% ratio versus GM's 285% shows Ford relies far more heavily on debt financing relative to equity. While Ford's ratio decreased from the prior year's 1,085%, it remains well above the automotive industry benchmark of 225%. This suggests limited capacity for additional debt financing and elevated risk during economic downturns.
The times interest earned ratio measures ability to service debt through earnings. Ford's ratio of 8.44 times indicates operating earnings cover interest expenses 8.44 times, providing a reasonable margin of safety. However, GM's ratio of 23.3 times demonstrates superior debt servicing capacity and lower default risk, making GM's debt less risky for creditors.
Despite these solvency concerns, Ford's debt increase of 9.2% in 2013 was outpaced by revenue growth of 10.1%, which exceeded the prior year's revenue decline of 1.2%. This indicates improved capacity to service debt obligations and enhanced stockholder returns in 2013.
Ford's profit margin ratio of 4.87% exceeds GM's 3.43%, demonstrating superior profitability per revenue dollar. Ford achieved sales growth of 9.4% compared to GM's 2.1%, contributing to stronger bottom-line expansion.
The gross margin ratio—which measures manufacturing efficiency—shows Ford at 14.76% versus GM at 13.20%. The automotive industry benchmark for 2013 was 13.44%, meaning Ford exceeded industry average profitability, while GM slightly exceeded it as well. Ford's superior gross margin indicates better cost management in production.
Return on total assets (ROTA) measures how efficiently companies deploy capital. Ford's ROTA of 3.65% slightly outperforms GM's 3.37%, indicating marginally better asset utilization. When examining operating profit margin (profit before interest and taxes), Ford's 12.8% exceeds GM's 11.3%, further confirming superior operational efficiency.
"Stock valuation, dividend yields, and final investment recommendation"
You’re 70% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.