Financial Analysis of General Motors and Ford Motor Company FNCE442 Advanced Finance (FN) Professor: Due date: June 01, 2009 Table of Contents Executive Summary3 Introduction4 Porter Five Forces Analysis Model5 Competitive rivalry within the industry5 Barriers to Entry6 Threats of Substitutes and Complements6 Bargaining Power of Customers6 Bargaining Power of Suppliers7 SWOT Analysis7 GM SWOT Analysis7 Strengths7 Weaknesses8 Opportunities9 Threats10 Ford SWOT Analysis10 Strengths11 Weaknesses11 Opportunities11 Threats11 Ratio Analysis12 Recommendations13 Conclusion13 Appendix “A” Financial Ratio’s14
Appendix “B” Performance Ratings18 Table 119 Table 220 Works Cited21 Executive Summary The two largest automakers in the world want to maintain their status as the top two. GM and Ford have been around for over one hundred years making automobiles for everyone to enjoy. During these recessionary times it will be very hard for these two companies to survive. Financial and non-financial aspects of the companies through a porter model and a SWOT analysis will show that if they do not focus on the external and internal aspects of the economy, it will be very difficult to realize the opportunities that await them in the future.
Financial analysis ratios such as the profitability, Operations, Resources, Debt, Liquidity, and value ratio will be analysed for both GM and Ford. The ratios will be compared to reveal overall there must be a reduction in the debt and expense in order to change these companies into viable companies again. Overall, as weak as they are, Ford is showing to be stronger than GM. The vast majority of the ratios indicate that both GM and Ford must increase sales and decrease costs to produce profitable companies again.
This can be accomplished somewhat by listening to the consumer demand and producing more green products. Then they must react and produce what the consumers are asking for in a timelier manner. Recommendations for the auto makers to maintain its current positioning in the market will include paying down long-term debt, maintaining relationships with consumers, and preparing for future growth. The two North American auto makers have the potential to become among the best auto makers worldwide as ranked by the J. D. Power Associates (J. D. Power and Associates). Introduction
What happened to the economy to cause such chaos in the auto makers industry? Was it the economy or was it the auto makers themselves that caused such turmoil for the industry? The Auto Makers are struggling to survive during this economic recession. The big “three” North American auto makers want to stay part of the big “three”. Early in 2009 the United States Government helped out two of the three with a stimulus package. Chrysler was the first to accept the U. S. Government help, unfortunately they were also the first auto maker to declare chapter 11 in the bankruptcy court.
General Motors also accepted the stimulus package from the U. S. Government, and they are still in a very serious financial position. Ford did not accept any of the stimulus money, although they are struggling very hard to keep operations going. Financial and non-financial aspects of GM and Ford will be analysed to determine if it is possible for them to survive and come out stronger after this recession. A comparison of the Ford Motor company that is currently stimulus free and General Motors will be prepared.
A Porter Model analysis will be conducted to look at the auto industry as a whole. A SWOT analysis of each of the auto makers will be presented to assess each organization individually. Financial analysis ratios such as profitability, operations, activity, leverage, and market ratio will be analysed for Ford and General Motors. The data will be compared and recommendations will be outlined that will allow the auto makers to stay amongst the top makers in North America. The purpose of compiling this paper is to take a deeper look into the auto industry and see what has been happening.
I choose this topic as it indirectly affects the company that I work for, as we are in the aftermarket truck accessories business. This report will concentrate on two of the three major auto makers in North America. The third company has already filed chapter 11 in the bankruptcy court in New York, Chrysler LLC. At the onset of 2009 all three of the auto makers were in very poor financial positions; that is when the stimulus packages were introduced by the U. S. president Mr. Barrack Obama. Chrysler LLC was the first to accept the stimulus package with General Motors not far behind.
Ford Motor Company still has not accepted any stimulus money from the U. S. Government. What is so different between General Motors and Ford that one had to get help from the government and the other did not? The differences in product and financial strategies along with listening to what the customers want could be some of the major differences between the two surviving companies. Porter’s Five Forces Analysis Michael Porter identified five forces that influence an industry. These forces are: 1. Degree of rivalry, 2. Threat of substitutes, 3.
Barriers to entry, 4. Bargaining power of customers, and 5. Bargaining power of suppliers. Like other industries operating under free market, capitalistic systems, viewing the automotive industry through the lens of Porter’s five Forces can be helpful in understanding the forces at play (Dagmar Recklies, The manager. org). Competitive rivalry within the industry With the rise of foreign competitors in the 1970’s and 80’s, rivalry in the American auto industry has become much more intense as Firms compete on both prices and non-price dimensions.
Price competition erodes profits by drawing down price-cost margins while non-price competition (e. g. , new car rebates and interest free loans) drives up fixed cost (new product development) and marginal cost (adding product features). Different companies are providing different incentives to attract customers to purchasing their own vehicles. Ford in the past was very successful due to their advantages relating to volume and scale and it was anticipated that they would become the biggest player in the industry taking the place of General Motors.
However, due to the actions taken by their arch rival, General Motors, Ford continues to remain in second place. Ford experienced adverse publicity due to the tire scandal (Firestone Nov 9, 2000) and also the poor marketing of baby Jag while General Motors introduced incentives such as “GM military offer”. The degree of rivalry in the automotive industry is further heightened by high fixed costs associated with manufacturing cars and trucks and the low switching costs for consumers when buying different makes and models. Threats of Substitutes and Complements
While five-forces do not directly consider demand, it does consider two factors that influences demand ? substitutes and complements. Although new cars generally are slightly price elastic, suggesting few real substitutes (e. g. , bus and rapid transit), the demand for a particular model is highly sensitive to price because of the availability of close substitutes for a given model. Ford introduced “baby Jag” to attract younger generations to purchase Jaguar cars. The effect of such an action proved to be negative in damaging Jaguar’s reputation, and is a weakness for Ford.
Quality assurance needs to be more of a focal point for Ford to avoid recalling cars and expensive repair operations. Ford and Firestone experienced a faulty tire scandal in 2000, which caused a two billion dollar loss (BBC Online). With these threats present, it makes the high cost of start-up and operations in the auto industry more of a disadvantage. Barriers to Entry The presence of new firms in an industry may force prices down and put pressure on profits, as well as change the way the auto industry functions.
There will be barriers to establish a new firm and the new entrant can be at significant cost disadvantage. Consequently, entry is currently a weak threat to profitability. Ford has already revolutionized car production in the world, so entry wasn’t a threat to Ford. The shortcoming of the consumer needs of environmentally friendly transportation opens some barriers entry in the auto industry. Bargaining power of customers Buyer power refers to the ability of individual customers to negotiate prices that extract profit from the seller.
Individual consumers have some influence over price within a given dealership, but little power over manufacturers. Customers can easily, and with little cost, switch to other auto dealers. In 2001, Ford’s F-serious sales and profits went down when new pickups were launched by Toyota and Dodge. When Ford was concentrating in the major areas of product development, manufacturing systems, it was an overly engineered costly vehicle for the hypercompetitive U. S market. In part, components for Ford products have risen since expanding their vendor base.
Bargaining power of suppliers Auto manufacturers require inputs-labour, parts, raw materials and services. The cost of these inputs can have a significant effect on profitability. Ford was dependant on different suppliers for various parts, but soon it had the problem with the quality of components and compatibility of parts made by different manufacturers. Parts were becoming too expensive, it was costing more compared to buying from fewer suppliers. In this segment of the American market, it is a strong threat to profits. SWOT Analysis
A scan of the internal and external environment of the organization is an important part of the strategic planning process. Environmental factors internal to the firm usually can be classified as strengths (S) or weaknesses (W), and those external to the firm can be classified as opportunities (O) or threats (T). Such an analysis of the strategic environment is referred to as a SWOT analysis. GM SWOT Analysis (General Motors Corp. ) Strengths Strength is the internal attributes that helps a company (GM) to achieve its objectives. There are five main strengths.
The five strengths are size of company and market share, technology potential, new leadership, Quality improvement and good customer relation program (QuickMBA,Knowledge to power your business). • Size of Company: GM is the one of the largest carmakers in the world, based on unit sales and presence in the world. GM today sells its vehicles more than 300 countries and has manufacturing operations in more than 30 countries. GM has a strong reputation both at home and abroad as one of the leading car manufacturersin the world. General Motors owns enowned brand names such as Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, Saab, Daewoo, Opel and Holden. • Technology potential: GM is the one of largest computer user in the world. GM acquired Electronic Data System (EDS) in 1984 to match customer needs and tastes. GM’s Hughes Electronic Division developed OnStar technology that differentiates its products. GM also uses Information Technology (IT) to integrate with worldwide suppliers. This use of technology increase efficiency and reduce cost. • New Leadership: GM benefits from new leadership.
New leaders always try to find comparative advantages of GM. They bring new organization structures and strategies and promote innovation to meet current business condition and be more efficient. • Quality Improvement: GM created joint ventures with Japanese carmakers such as Toyota, Honda, Isuzu Motors and Suzuki to learn Japanese lean production. This resulted in a reduction in the number of defects per car, raised quality and productivity, and reduced costs. GM claims that it will be equal to Japanese productivity and quality by 2010 by integrating IT and new plants. Good Customer Relation Program: This program shows that GM’s products have the same quality as imported cars. It encourages people to use its cars during the weekend and feel the high quality. Weaknesses Weakness is an internal attribute that inhibits a company from achieving its objectives. GM has four main weaknesses that it must over come. They are slow new car development, product design and brand image problem, low profitability, high cost production, and its bureaucratic culture. • Slow New Car Development: Consumers tastes for car change rapidly.
However, GM takes a long time (3 years) to develop new cars. Its competitors such as Toyota need only 18 months. General Motors inability to come up with a commercially viable hybrid vehicle on a timely basis is a weakness in the consumers’ eye. • Product Design and Brand Image Problems: Because of conflict car designs between its own divisions and design error, public acceptance for GM’s car is low. GM still does not know what customers want. Negative brand image also reduce the demand of GM’s products. Consumers believe that GM has a bad quality car with a high price.
As a result, its market shares fell (35. 5% in 1990 to 27. 3% in 2004). Failure to market cars that are fuel efficient and use other alternate energy sources has in part caused some of this decline. • Low Profitability: GM makes its most of profits from financing the sale of its products to customers not from actual car selling. In fact, GM is the least profitable company of the big “three”. Its return on investment is -1. 04 compare to Toyota’s . 06. Sales of highly profitable products such as SUVs and trucks are declining. Profitability from SUVs as of 2005 year end has declined by almost 34%.
The new pricing strategy featuring no haggle prices will cause a further deterioration of profit margins • Low Productivity and Quality: Although GM is learning Japanese’ lean production techniques that will increased productivity and quality, it’s competitors still have better productivity with better quality than GM. Toyota and Honda listed above GM in top quality ranking. Opportunities Regardless of the weaknesses, the competitions and battles for market-share and profit this company faces, it is critical for GM to recognize the opportunities that exist within and outside the industry as well as internationally.
The fact that GM has been in the industry for a long period of time presents it with the opportunity to learn from past shortcomings and experiences. In reality if GM applies and practices skills and knowledge learnt from the Japanese carmakers, it has a greater chance of success. Furthermore, GM’s continual improvements on these technical skills might in the long run produce opportunity for it to manufacture vehicles cost efficient and quality-orientated that could surpass current rival’s productions. GM has expanded globally, the world’s market is substantial enough for GM to establish a good reputation and capture more of the market share.
China and India for instance are very large markets with potential and growing markets with countless market niches and cultural differences. GM could take the opportunity of these differences and manufactures cars that appeal and are consistent with the values of these cultures to attract customers. Furthermore, developing the ability to respond and react to customers needs is another entrance for GM to advance its current performances. In recent years, automobile buyers are demanding more hybrid and bio-fuel efficient cars.
GM has not responded to this demand as much as other companies such as Toyota and Ford have. The opportunity for GM to invest in manufacturing this type of vehicles better than its competitors is a supreme highway that could perhaps get and establish a position of profit-gain and market expansion for GM. Use R&D to adopt alternative fuel technologies in its existing line of SUVs and manufacture state-of-the-art hybrid vehicles. Introduce self managed creative work teams to improve and speed- up product development of new technologies in emerging markets such as China and Europe. Threats
Threats are always almost in existence with all business opportunities. In this particular case, threats include competitions, legal regulations and guidelines, rising of fuel price, and global warming. The rivalry from Toyota and Ford has chapped away the large market that GM once enjoyed. This threat came on when these companies proved that they could manufacture automobile better than GM and they have continued to out performed GM since the early 1990s. Their strategies have clearly shown to continue with a higher performance than GM and maintain competitive advantage in the market.
GM might have perhaps been able to developed strategies to gain an edge over its competitors, but the limitations from legal guidelines (including ethical issues) have perhaps threatened it from a degree of success. The economy is changing and so are the wants and needs of potential customers. Fuel price have impacted automobile buyers to adjust their buying behaviour. More and more people are leaning toward smaller cars that are fuel-efficient and environmentally suitable. It exerts a challenge on GM for adjustments on what it manufactures and how it distributes to future buyers.
Ford SWOT Analysis (Ford Motor Co. ) Strengths Ford Motor Company and all its individual brands have been enjoying the benefits of the good reputation that they hold. They have brands and models of cars to appeal to every kind of demographic group, and simply cater to the needs and wants of consumers. Ford is particularly successful in their sponsorships, advertising and other forms of marketing. Ford has, in the past, sponsored the football Champions League, with “Destination Football” slogan. The current research and development activities of Ford llow them to be pioneers in certain production technologies. Weaknesses In an attempt to attract younger generations to purchase Jaguar cars, Ford introduced “baby Jag”. The effect of such an action proved to be negative in damaging Jaguar’s reputation, and is a weakness for Ford. Quality assurance needs to be more of a focal point for Ford to avoid recalling cars and expensive repair operations. This has been evident to my family and me, as we have been a Ford family for many generations, and through many generations of recalls.
In 2000, Ford and Firestone experienced a faulty tire scandal which caused a two billion dollar loss. Opportunities To develop vehicles that uses other forms of energy than petrol and diesel and to become pioneers in this area. The numbers of car owners who replace their old models with new ones are on the increase. Demand for cars overall is increasing. Threats Further increases in gasoline prices, and eventually the world supply of gasoline diminishing. To become laggards in any technological advancements. The demand for Japanese cars is on the increase.
Unless Ford is able to improve on their weaknesses, there is a risk of them losing further market share to other car manufacturing firms. The Chinese made sport utility vehicles, sports coupes and sedans to enter the US market in 2007. These cars are being sold at $7000 in comparison to $13,995 the cheapest alternative available from Ford. This is thought to have an adverse effect on Ford’s sales unless Ford is able to further decrease their production costs and be able to sell their vehicles at cheaper prices. In short, the main differences between GM and Ford with respect of the SWOT analysis are as follows:
Financial Ratio Analysis (Larry Stubs, Geocities) Analysis of financial ratio information helps to give us an understanding of the trend of the growth potential of a company, what the level of risk is within the company, and how much financial flexibility the company has. Keeping in mind that there are limitations to financial ratio analysis, large multinational corporations as we are dealing with here are more difficult to analysis just because of the shear volume. Ratios do not take into account economic factors, as with times on inflation.
Corporate management can manipulate data in the financial statements, and there is always a time delay between the end of the accounting period and the actual publication of the financial numbers, as is the case with GM, the last numbers available was for year ending 2007. The analysis performed on GM and Ford was conducted based on a four (4) year history, starting in 2004 and ending in 2007 as 2008 was not available for GM, although it was available for Ford. Explanations of the ratio analysis is detailed in appendix” A” with the ratio analysis shown in table 1 and 2 below. Recommendations
There are many areas within General Motors and Ford that need to be improved on in order to make them viable companies again. General Motors Corporation and the Ford Motor Company are the two largest automakers in the world today. In order to survive through the good times as well as the bad, they must pay attention to the indicators and react quickly. General Motors is very well known for a slow reaction time to changes, as was mentioned about the time to bring a new product to market. Ford on the other hand reacts a bit quicker, but still not fast enough to soften the blow of a recession.
Since there is very little margin in the automobiles they are making today, maybe outsourcing parts and components would be a more cost effective way to cut costs. Getting a good handle on the debt and ensuring it is not out of line and is still manageable during tougher times. Reaction to customer needs with a greener product would help a great deal in grading the rough road ahead. Focusing more on the development to market time of a product will give the consumer more faith that the automakers are responding to their needs and wants.
Conclusion General Motors is no longer the high-performing organization it was in the 1950s. Only when it rediscovers its competitive advantage, stabilizes its financial performance and finds a way to develop a unified corporate culture will it meet this level of performance again. GM, however, is on the road to chapter 11. Hard work of the new GM and the implementation of our recommendations will give the new General Motors the potential to evolve into a dynamic organization again.
The macro environment in which Ford Motor Company operates in is changeable and highly competitive, which was further depicted by the Porters five forces analysis. The micro environmental analysis indicated that Ford Motor Company remains robust, however, must ensure that their weaknesses are mitigated and that they are positioned to anticipate the threats that face them in the future. Appendix “A” Ratio test| Analysis| Return on Equity Ratio| This ratio indicates the ability to have an adequate return on investments. GM is currently at -1. 04, while Ford is sitting at . 5. Neither of these numbers is very good, although Ford is still showing a positive number. This would indicate that GM is in much more financial difficulty than Ford is in at the present time. These companies must find ways to cut costs of production and or overheads; this will increase net income and produce a more attractive ROE to the investor. | Return on Assets Ratio| This ratio shows the effectiveness that management is employing the firm’s resources. The return the company earned on its assets, low ratio indicates poor management ability.
This could also indicate further analysis of the firms assets might reveal inefficient assets which can be disposed of and converted to cash. The ratios revealed that both GM and Ford have negative ratios, since both companies have been around for a long time it would be best to analysis this ratio further to see if there are inefficient assets. | Gross Profit Margin| Indicates the % of gross profit earned from sales. Both companies have a very low margin. This reveals that cost must be very high, or that they are in a very competitive market.
A comparison of industry between GM and Ford revealed they are pretty close on this ratio, which indicates as we all know, sales must increase and the costs must decrease in order to improve these numbers. | Net Profit| Indicates the net profit earned from sales. Again both companies are at a negative percentage, which indicates they must increase sales or cut costs. Since there is a recession upon us, the most viable solution is to cut costs as much as possible. | Asset Turnover| The effectiveness of the company assets to generate sales.
Older fully amortised assets will result in a higher ratio. GM is a bit higher than Ford on this ratio, which may indicate that GM has some newer assets than what Ford is currently using. | Inventory Turnover| Times inventory is sold and replaced in a given period. Ford is sitting on their inventory for just under a month whereas GM is just over a month before they sell and replace their inventory. | Receivable Turnover| This is an indicator of how good the credit and collection policy of the company is doing. GM is collecting their receivables in appox. 9 days, but Ford has a much tighter collection time of approx. 9 days. These are both very good ratios for any business, as the standard term is net 30 days. | Debt to Equity| This is a ratio that all companies want to stay low, as this is an indicator of how highly leveraged a company is. If this ratio comes in to high then this would indicate that they would have an inability to pay dividends to the common shareholders. If this ratio goes too low it could indicate management is not optimizing their Capital structure.
In this case both companies are probably not utilizing the capital structure. | Debt to Assets| This is a safety measure for the bondholders, when the assets exceed the debt. There is a bit of a safety measure for both these companies as their ratios are both positive. But it is only a bit, debt would need to be reduced further to improve this ratio and restore faith to the bondholders. | Times Interest Earned| This ratio is also a safety measure for the bondholders. Showing the ability a firm has to pay its annual fixed interest charges from ongoing business operations.
Looking at the average on this ratio can be misleading or unfair, you must look at the trend of the business to see ability for continuing operations. The trend for GM has gone from 13. 28 in 2004 to 61. 41 in 2007; this shows a high probability of discontinued operations. Ford on the other hand has gone from 20. 81 to 13. 34, showing a constant improvement. This ratio shows the volatility of the company’s earnings, the higher the ratio, the higher the volatility of earnings. | Current| The ability to meet short term liabilities, for most companies this ratio should be 2:1.
If this ratio drops too low it could indicate possible solvency and be unable to meet their liability commitments. Reducing current liabilities and increasing current assets will adjust this ratio in the direction of an acceptable level. | Acid – Test| GM and Ford have positive ratios for the acid – test, indicating they do have some ability to cover current liabilities with their most liquid assets. Although these ratios are small now, with the reduction of debt, this ratio can also grow to an acceptable level. | Working Capital| The current assets used to finance cash conversion cycle.
The amount of time that is required to convert raw material into finished goods, sell the product, and collect the cash. The working capital for both of these automakers has been declining continuously over the last four years. This means the net current assets have also been decreasing, with large overhead costs; there would be less money to pay the current liabilities, which increases current liabilities and reduces the net current assets for the company. Reducing overheads and decreasing current liabilities will help with working capital. Dividend Payout| The percentage of net income paid out in dividends. Since both companies net incomes are at a negative, there would be no dividends to pay out. Increase in sales and reduction in expenses to gain a positive net income would enable these companies to payout dividends. There have been no dividends paid out in the past three years. | P/E Multiple| This it the most widely used financial ratio used by investors. This ratio indicates what the price investors are willing to pay for each $ of corporate earnings.
This has been a drastic decline over the years, indicating that investors are not looking at either of these companies for investment opportunities. The only way to improve this ratio and make these companies more attractive to future investors is to increase EPS, through an increase of sales and a reduction of expenses. | Appendix B: J. D. Power Ratings J. D. Power and Associates Green Efficiency Rating| | | | | | Ford| | GM| | Federal Government| | http://www. jdpower. com/autos/ratings/green-efficiency-ratings| | | | | | | | | | | | J. D.
Power and Associates Quality Performance| | | | | | Model| Overall Quality| Overall Quality-Mechanical| Power train Quality-Mechanical| Body & Interior Quality-Mechanical| Features & Accessories Quality-Mechanical| Ford| | | | | | GM| | | | | | http://www. jdpower. com/autos/ratings/quality-ratings-by-brand| | | | | | J. D. Power and Associates Sales Satisfaction Survey| | | | | | Model| Overall Experience| Dealership facility| Salesperson| Paperwork/Finance| Delivery Process| Ford| | | | | | GM| | | | | | http://www. jdpower. com/autos/ratings/quality-ratings-by-brand| | | | | Scoring Legend
Among the best Better than most About average The rest Table 1 Ratio Comparison Ratio Group| GM 4yr. Average| Ford 4yr. Average| GM verse Ford| Analysis| Profitability| | | | | Return on Equity| 0. 19| 0. 88| W| Improved return from prior years, but still weak| Return on Assets| -0. 07| -0. 009| W| Declining management ability to utilize revenue from its assets| Operations| | | | | Gross Profit| 0. 14| 0. 15| W| Weaker than prior years, costs are rising. | Net Profit| -0. 03| -0. 03| S| Weaker than prior years, costs are rising. | Resources| | | | | Asset Turnover| 0. 8| 0. 6| B| GM could be using older assets than Ford| Inventory turnover| 11. 97| 13. 42| W| Ford seems to have a better just in time inventory system than GM| Debt| | | | | Debt to Equity| 4. 26| -10. 05| B| Gm has lots of debt, whereas Ford may not be optimizing their capital structure| Debt to Assets| 0. 44| 0. 288| B| This has been increasing over time, but still very weak| Liquidity| | | | | Current| 0. 76| 0. 957| W| Has been on a bit of an upswing, but weakening fast. | Acid-Test| 0. 29| 0. 354| W| It has been a struggle for both companies to meet their short term obligations. Value| | | | | Dividend Payout| -0. 0009| 0. 134| W| Indicates dividends are almost a thing of the past| P/E Multiple| -36. 03| 1. 97| W| Investors may be more inclined to invest in Ford rather than GM| Table 2 Financial Ratio’s (Ford Motor Co. 2004) (Ford Motor Co. 2005) (Ford Motor Co. 2006) (Ford Motor Co. 2007) (General Motors Corp. 2004) (General Motors Corp. 2005) (General Motors Corp. 2006) (General Motors Corp. 2007) Works Cited BBC Online. US senators slam Ford, Firestone. 06 September 2000. 15 May 2009 <http://news. bbc. co. uk/2/hi/business/913290. tm>. Dagmar Recklies, The manager. org. Porter’s Five Forces. June 2001. 21 May 2009 ;http://www. themanager. org/Models/p5f. htm;. Ford Motor Co. Annual Report 2004. 2004. 15 May 2009 ;http://www. ford. com/doc/2004_annual_report. pdf;. —. Annual Report 2005. 2005. 15 May 2009 ;http://www. ford. com/doc/2005_annual_report. pdf;. —. Annual Report 2006. 2006. 15 May 2009 ;http://www. ford. com/doc/2006_annual_report. pdf;. —. Annual Report/2007. 2007. 15 May 2009 ;http://www. ford. com/doc/2007_annual_report. pdf;. General Motors Corp.
Annual Report 2004. 2004. 15 May 2009 ;http://www. gm. com/corporate/investor_information/docs/fin_data/gm03ar/download/gm04arfull. pdf;. —. Annual Report 2005. 2005. 15 May 2009 ;http://www. gm. com/corporate/investor_information/docs/fin_data/gm03ar /download/gm05arfull. pdf;. —. Annual Report 2006. 2006. 15 May 2009 ;http://www. gm. com/corporate/investor_information/docs/fin_data/gm03ar/download/gm06arfull. pdf;. —. Annual Report 2007. 2007. 15 May 2009 ;http://www. gm. com/corporate/investor_information/docs/fin_data/gm07ar/download/gm07arfull. df;. J. D. Power and Associates. Making it easier to be a comsumer. 15 May 2009 ;http://www. jdpower. com/autos/car-ratings/;. Larry Stubs, Geocities. Ratio’s Used to Analysis Financial Reports. 21 May 2009 <http://www. geocities. com/larrystubbs/ratios. htm>. QuickMBA,Knowledge to power your business. Strategic Management. 2007. 15 May 2009 <http://www. quickmba. com/strategy/swot/>. Reuters. Chrysler Files for Bankruptcy. 30 April 2009. 1 May 2009 <http://www. reuters. com/article/pressRelease/idUS251778+30-Apr-2009+BW20090430>.