Blue Ops: The Clandestine Bailout Of Ford
12-22-2010, 01:54 PM
#1
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Ops: The Clandestine Bailout Of Ford Blue Ops: The Clandestine Bailout Of Ford
By Bertel Schmitt on December 21, 2010
One major reason for Ford’s surging market share is Americans who refuse to buy a car from a company that has been bailed-out with their tax dollars. In survey after survey after survey, Americans took issue with the bailouts. The backlash was so severe that one of the first measures Joel Ewanick implemented at GM was to get rid of GM. He replaced “General Motors” with “the parent company.” Smart move: You can be against Government Motors. But who dares to be against parenthood?
Ford meanwhile rode high on the perception that they didn’t accept a single dollar. “Ford did not seek a government bailout,” says a very recent Rasmussen Report, “and 55 percent of Americans say they are more likely to buy a Ford car for that reason.”
Americans (and possibly GM and Chrysler) are the victims of a big lie, says Wall Street insider Eric Fry. And he has the numbers to back it up.
“During the crisis of 2008-9, for example, Ford Motor Company borrowed as much as $7 billion from a lending facility of the Federal Reserve. But the details of these borrowings did not come to light until just three weeks ago. And even now, very few investors – or car-buyers – seem to realize that GM and Chrysler were not the only “Big 3” car companies to receive a helping hand from the government. Ford also cashed a few government checks.”
Fry is not talking about the DOE retooling loan, and Ford’s well publicized use of government loan guarantees. Fry found a $7 billion government check to Ford that was hidden from the public’s eye. Well, not really, it was mentioned on page 18 of a document submitted by Ford to the Senate Banking Committee on December 2, 2008, but who reads that stuff?
While Americans learned that a TARP was not just used to cover some dirt in the yard, but also gaping holes in the balance sheets of banks, brokers and automakers, the public remained oblivious to other governmental ATMs, such as the Fed’s Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF). Says Fry:
Just one month before Mulally declared, “We do not face a near-term liquidity issue, and we are not seeking short-term financial assistance from the government,” Ford Motor Credit had borrowed nearly $4 billion from the Fed’s Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF). And just two weeks after this remark, Ford Motor Credit borrowed an additional $3 billion from the CPFF. In all, Ford borrowed $7 billion between October 27, 2008 and June 17, 2009.
From March 2009 through August 2009, Ford was the biggest borrower from that heretofore undercover lending facility for carmakers in need.
Knowing that he will be torn to shreds unless he has impeccable evidence, Fry presents a complete timeline, from the first withdrawal from the CPFF on 10/27/08 through Fords refusal of government aid on 1/29/09 (same day: Ford Motor Credit rolls over $1.488 billion of CP with the CPFF) to multiple transactions in the summer of 2009.
Follow the timeline, and read the article in Fry’s article at The Daily Reckoning.
Interestingly, Fry does not blame Ford or Mulally for taking the money:
“Mulally deserves no blame for availing himself of funding that was freely – if very privately – provided by the Federal Reserve. After all, Mulally’s Wall Street counterparts were already busy tapping various credit facilities at the Fed. So can we blame Mulally for thinking to himself, “Hey, I’d like to tap that too!”?
Fry doesn’t want to “cast stones at Mulally.” He wants to “catapult boulders at the Federal Reserve, and by extension at the exalted notion that institutionalized secrecy is an essential component of “guiding” a free market economy.” Fry’s assertion: Not Ford lied to America. The American government, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department did.
Says Fry:
“To reiterate, we don’t blame Mulally or Ford for taking advantage of an advantageous situation. We blame the Federal Reserve (and the Treasury) for nourishing an environment of preferential treatment, non-disclosure, backroom deal-making and every other form of capricious market manipulation.”
By Bertel Schmitt on December 21, 2010
One major reason for Ford’s surging market share is Americans who refuse to buy a car from a company that has been bailed-out with their tax dollars. In survey after survey after survey, Americans took issue with the bailouts. The backlash was so severe that one of the first measures Joel Ewanick implemented at GM was to get rid of GM. He replaced “General Motors” with “the parent company.” Smart move: You can be against Government Motors. But who dares to be against parenthood?
Ford meanwhile rode high on the perception that they didn’t accept a single dollar. “Ford did not seek a government bailout,” says a very recent Rasmussen Report, “and 55 percent of Americans say they are more likely to buy a Ford car for that reason.”
Americans (and possibly GM and Chrysler) are the victims of a big lie, says Wall Street insider Eric Fry. And he has the numbers to back it up.
“During the crisis of 2008-9, for example, Ford Motor Company borrowed as much as $7 billion from a lending facility of the Federal Reserve. But the details of these borrowings did not come to light until just three weeks ago. And even now, very few investors – or car-buyers – seem to realize that GM and Chrysler were not the only “Big 3” car companies to receive a helping hand from the government. Ford also cashed a few government checks.”
Fry is not talking about the DOE retooling loan, and Ford’s well publicized use of government loan guarantees. Fry found a $7 billion government check to Ford that was hidden from the public’s eye. Well, not really, it was mentioned on page 18 of a document submitted by Ford to the Senate Banking Committee on December 2, 2008, but who reads that stuff?
While Americans learned that a TARP was not just used to cover some dirt in the yard, but also gaping holes in the balance sheets of banks, brokers and automakers, the public remained oblivious to other governmental ATMs, such as the Fed’s Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF). Says Fry:
Just one month before Mulally declared, “We do not face a near-term liquidity issue, and we are not seeking short-term financial assistance from the government,” Ford Motor Credit had borrowed nearly $4 billion from the Fed’s Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF). And just two weeks after this remark, Ford Motor Credit borrowed an additional $3 billion from the CPFF. In all, Ford borrowed $7 billion between October 27, 2008 and June 17, 2009.
From March 2009 through August 2009, Ford was the biggest borrower from that heretofore undercover lending facility for carmakers in need.
Knowing that he will be torn to shreds unless he has impeccable evidence, Fry presents a complete timeline, from the first withdrawal from the CPFF on 10/27/08 through Fords refusal of government aid on 1/29/09 (same day: Ford Motor Credit rolls over $1.488 billion of CP with the CPFF) to multiple transactions in the summer of 2009.
Follow the timeline, and read the article in Fry’s article at The Daily Reckoning.
Interestingly, Fry does not blame Ford or Mulally for taking the money:
“Mulally deserves no blame for availing himself of funding that was freely – if very privately – provided by the Federal Reserve. After all, Mulally’s Wall Street counterparts were already busy tapping various credit facilities at the Fed. So can we blame Mulally for thinking to himself, “Hey, I’d like to tap that too!”?
Fry doesn’t want to “cast stones at Mulally.” He wants to “catapult boulders at the Federal Reserve, and by extension at the exalted notion that institutionalized secrecy is an essential component of “guiding” a free market economy.” Fry’s assertion: Not Ford lied to America. The American government, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department did.
Says Fry:
“To reiterate, we don’t blame Mulally or Ford for taking advantage of an advantageous situation. We blame the Federal Reserve (and the Treasury) for nourishing an environment of preferential treatment, non-disclosure, backroom deal-making and every other form of capricious market manipulation.”
12-22-2010, 06:04 PM
#4
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-23-2010, 05:07 AM
#5
12-23-2010, 08:18 AM
#7
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmm so now i have a remark to all my faggoty ford friends that always use the same comeback. eat it blue oval *****. whats worse? the company who asks for help and takes full responsibility? or the company who secretly receives help and markets that they didnt?
Trending Topics
12-23-2010, 10:26 AM
#8
Ford markets that they didn't take a bail out. In reality, they took a secret loan from the Fed. GM markets that they are on pace to repay their loans well in advance of their time line. In reality, a majority of the money they received will never be payed back due to bankruptcy.
12-23-2010, 10:36 AM
#9
I like GM, Ford and Chrysler for that matter so I'm putting all that behind us now but what I DO have a problem with is this: Why?
If it's your tax dollars than why not buy the damn cars/trucks and help pay some of that loan back to yourself?
Your tax dollars also pay for our (awesome and much appreciated) military/armed forces, retired/disabled veterans, medical research, education etc and maybe even some other area that we might not approve of. Do we not support those areas in a time of need?
Sometimes I just don't get people and how they'll stand on their high horse just to drive home a point in support of some principle that's potentially going to hurt them in the end anyway.
One major reason for Ford’s surging market share is Americans who refuse to buy a car from a company that has been bailed-out with their tax dollars. In survey after survey after survey, Americans took issue with the bailouts.
If it's your tax dollars than why not buy the damn cars/trucks and help pay some of that loan back to yourself?
Your tax dollars also pay for our (awesome and much appreciated) military/armed forces, retired/disabled veterans, medical research, education etc and maybe even some other area that we might not approve of. Do we not support those areas in a time of need?
Sometimes I just don't get people and how they'll stand on their high horse just to drive home a point in support of some principle that's potentially going to hurt them in the end anyway.
12-23-2010, 12:41 PM
#11
If it's your tax dollars than why not buy the damn cars/trucks and help pay some of that loan back to yourself?
Your tax dollars also pay for our (awesome and much appreciated) military/armed forces, retired/disabled veterans, medical research, education etc and maybe even some other area that we might not approve of. Do we not support those areas in a time of need?
Sometimes I just don't get people and how they'll stand on their high horse just to drive home a point in support of some principle that's potentially going to hurt them in the end anyway.
Your tax dollars also pay for our (awesome and much appreciated) military/armed forces, retired/disabled veterans, medical research, education etc and maybe even some other area that we might not approve of. Do we not support those areas in a time of need?
Sometimes I just don't get people and how they'll stand on their high horse just to drive home a point in support of some principle that's potentially going to hurt them in the end anyway.
Personally, I'm a free market advocate. If a business has a poor plan, let it fail. As businesses fail, others step up to fill the void. Propping up bad businesses with taxpayer dollars is not a good trend to continue.
Last edited by Z Fury; 12-23-2010 at 01:42 PM.
12-23-2010, 02:07 PM
#14
12 Second Club
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Liberty, MO
Posts: 680
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even the best companies are having troubles in this economy.
Another thing that is getting harder and harder to swallow is the "Buy American" I am all for keeping the money here when I make purchases however can't we implement a new phrase? "Employ American"
Just a thought
Another thing that is getting harder and harder to swallow is the "Buy American" I am all for keeping the money here when I make purchases however can't we implement a new phrase? "Employ American"
Just a thought
12-23-2010, 02:36 PM
#15
Even the best companies are having troubles in this economy.
Another thing that is getting harder and harder to swallow is the "Buy American" I am all for keeping the money here when I make purchases however can't we implement a new phrase? "Employ American"
Just a thought
Another thing that is getting harder and harder to swallow is the "Buy American" I am all for keeping the money here when I make purchases however can't we implement a new phrase? "Employ American"
Just a thought
12-23-2010, 02:54 PM
#16
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Louisiana, USA
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The damage/boost to our domestic carmakers' reps is done. The only way to undo any of it now is through good products and good business practices going forward.
12-23-2010, 04:34 PM
#18
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Palm Beach, Fl
Posts: 1,066
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
9 Posts
Wow! Really interesting that they tried to keep this a secret. It's almost like they had an agenda to keep Ford looking like they were better than GM and Chrysler. Definately not good. There's no doubt that due to various circumstances Ford was in a somewhat better position to make it through the economic down turn.
12-23-2010, 06:00 PM
#19
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow! Really interesting that they tried to keep this a secret. It's almost like they had an agenda to keep Ford looking like they were better than GM and Chrysler. Definately not good. There's no doubt that due to various circumstances Ford was in a somewhat better position to make it through the economic down turn.
Ford's CEO would not have appeared in front of Congress if he didn't have to be there. Ford was just as hard hit and cash-strapped as the other two.
