The same FUD that TSLA is exposed to with SBC and EV Credit Sales?
And you ignore the interest charge that is 100% related to Automotive? Yet you include pension obligation gains that are entirely a future expenditure reduction (assuming investments in their portfolio don't drop)?
One thing is for certain - American OEMs employ an army of financial engineers. Strip away the noise and you'll quickly see that their operating margins for automotive are awful.
View attachment 744273
Back out the stuff that has nothing to do with F's vehicle sales and you have a structurally non-profitable business. At least based on their current volumes. If they manage to get production back to 2019 levels, then maybe that perspective changes.
$90B in sales, less $82B in Cost of Sales, less $8.7B in selling costs (that almost exclusively relates to vehicle sales), less $1.4B Interest Expense (again ONLY relates to their vehicles divisions), ignoring Other Income (RIVN revaluation as well as Global Pension revaluation), and again you end up with an objectively negative operating margin for all things related to their vehicle business.
Their segment disclosure is financial engineering at its finest. It's taking large expense buckets and putting them in stand-alone categories in an attempt to frame that as unrelated to the vehicle business.
To tie this back to Tesla, it's one reason that I appreciate the transparency and simplicity of their quarterly and annual disclosures. This is coming from someone who deals with public company disclosures for a living. F and GM remind me of legacy GE. Layers of financial engineering interplay all to try to paint things in rosy lights, when the underlying data clearly shows you structural issues.