Financial Analysis of Ford Motor Company

Corporate Financial Reporting 6N:215, Team Six Group Project (Spring 2013) Christine Lyon, Jeff Dobson, Kent Liu, and Roberto Pino

4/10/2013
0

FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of

automobiles headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan. Incorporated in 1903 during the industrial revolution by Henry Ford, the company has a long history of integrated manufacturing. It employs about 164,000 people and operates about 70 plants worldwide. Ford produces several product lines. Some of its most important products are the F-Series trucks, Explorer SUV, and Fusion, Focus and Mustang cars. Ford is also a leader in consumer goods financial services, with its Ford Motor Credit Company subsidiary. Fords market capitalization is about $51.24B.

ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT OF THE INDUSTRY

The automotive industry is global, mature, and competitive. New entrants face significant barriers including: significant start-up costs, strict regulatory requirements, intense competition, and the constant threat that expensive to develop products will be rendered obsolete or unsalable due to technological advancements and/or changing consumer tastes. OEMs revenues are affected by gas prices, regulation, material prices and currency exchange rates. OEMs also have significant relationship maintenance issues with both parts suppliers and labor. The top two OEM expenses are cost of components at 72.8% and labor at 4.7%. Labor is expensive as many workers are in unions and/or have unique skills (artistic, engineering, mechanical, et cetera). The recessionary period 2008-2010 is generally referred to as a global crisis in the industry. With concerns over lack of disposable income, gasoline prices exceeding $4 per gallon, and difficulty in securing financing, consumers either did not want to spend money to purchase new vehicles or could not secure loans to do so. American manufactures were hit
1

particularly hard due to their revenue reliance on the sale of trucks and SUVs, which are expensive and get lower fuel economy as compared to cars (SUVs and trucks have 15-20% profit margins; cars have about 3%). In 2008 Ford, GM and Chrysler could not secure operating revenue from lenders and asked the US Government for loans to avoid bankruptcy. Ford was the only major American OEM to not accept one of these loans from the US. GM and Chrysler did accept these loans, but subsequently reorganized under bankruptcy protection anyway. Although Ford received other loans from the US and other programs provided by many countries to subsidize the industry, Ford gained goodwill among American consumers for not taking a bailout. In 2009, Ford gained US market-share while GM and Chrysler lost it.1 Things have improved over the last couple of years. According to 2012 IBIS World reports, recent increases in vehicle sales and production have lessened concerns of further turmoil in the industry. The bounce back of the economy created revenue increases of 40.1% in 2010 and 4.8% in 2011. According to IBIS World, industry-wide revenues are expected to rise 3.5% annually over the next five years to $103.4B.

MANAGEMENT
The executives on the Ford team are well respected and have long histories in the industry. Senior management is detailed on Attachment A. In 2006, Alan Mulally joined Ford as the President and CEO. He is very well respected and has been recognized many times for his contributions and leadership in the automotive industry, including:
1

This is a complicated issue. For example, during the recession the US Department of Energy awarded numerous grants and loans to several OEMs, including Ford, GM, and Nissan. The US also attempted to help all OEMs in 2009 by developing the Cars Alliance Rebate System, which provided tax credits for vehicle purchases. Other governments provided loans enacted similar rebate programs, perhaps most notably Japan where the program excluded foreign OEMs such as Ford. As such, consumer sentiment may be somewhat misplaced, but it is clear that Ford is on the right side of this issue. 2

recognized by readers of Fortune as Business Person of the Year Industry Leader of the Year by Automotive News one of the Worlds Most Influential Persons by TIME one of The 30 Most Respected CEOs by Barrons 2011 Chief Executive of the Year by Chief Executive

The Ford executive team is compensated with cash bonuses based on performance. 2011 bonuses to the top five executives totaled about 11 million dollars.

THE ONE FORD PLAN, & RECENT PRODUCT DEVELOPMENTS

In 2007 Mulally introduced the One Ford initiative to streamline Fords global design and production. A copy of the chief objectives of the plan can be found at Attachment B. Though it may seem a simple, the One Ford plan is a dramatic change of operations. By using the same design, platforms, and parts globally, the One Ford approach reduces waste, leads to purchasing efficiencies and builds brand recognition. Before this, Ford built entirely separate vehicles in US and European markets and had seven brand lines. Ford has since sold or discontinued five of its product lines and now sells only Ford and Lincoln vehicles. The One Ford plan is estimated to be about half-way through implementation in regards to the vehicle portfolio. Successful reworks include the Fiesta and the Focus, which recently overtook Toyotas Camry as the best-selling car in the world. The new Fusion launched in the

Spring of 2013 to strong reviews, and indications are that maintaining Fusion inventory will be a challenge. The upcoming launch of a new F-150 series will be a major event for Ford as this line is traditionally a major component of Fords revenues.

FORDS MAJOR ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Fords accounting policies follow GAAP and their financial statements are audited and certified by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (Attachment C). Significant policies include:
3

Foreign Currency Translation: The assets and liabilities of foreign subsidiaries using the local currency are translated to U.S. dollars using end-of-period exchange rates and any resulting translation adjustments are reported in Other comprehensive income/loss.

Allowance for Credit Losses: Ford estimates credit loss reserves for notes receivable on an individual basis. An allowance reserve is established based on expected future cash flows, the fair value of any collateral, and the financial condition of the debtor.

Inventories (LIFO, FIFO): Cost for a substantial portion of US inventories is determined on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis. LIFO was used for approximately 18% and 17% of total inventories at December 31st, 2012 and 2011, respectively. FIFO was used for the other approximately 80% of total inventories.

RECENT PERFORMANCE
In 2012, Ford had 12% of the US market share of car sales and 21% of the US market share in the SUV and light truck market. Financial data for Ford and some of its chief competitors GM, Honda and Toyota are detailed in Attachment D. Fords financials show strong return on investments, with a Return on Equity (ROE) of 37% and Return on Assets (ROA) of 3.1% in 2012. This compares to GM with a ROE of 16.6% and an ROA of 4%, Toyota with an ROE of 2.7% and an ROA of 1%, and Honda with an ROE of 4.8% and ROA of 2%. According to DBRS, in the automotive sector, an ROE of greater than 14% yields an Exceptional AA Business Strength Rating. But note that Fords ROE and ROA in 2011 was significantly higher than previous years and 2012. This spike in ROE and ROA is due to the increased Net Profit due to reporting of a tax credit carryover.

Fords Return on Net Operating Assets (RNOA) for 2012 was 39% down from 134% in 2011 (recall the carry over tax credit). RNOA is good measure of performance because it shows revenue received on operating assets. In 2011, Fords Net Operating Profit After Taxes was significantly higher at $20,222 vs. $5,664 in 2012 which can again be explained by the tax credit recorded that year. Nevertheless, Fords 2012 RNOA of 39% is higher than that of GM (33%), Toyota (22%) and Honda (11%), indicating that Ford is making a better return on its operating assets. Ford also possesses an efficient manufacturing operation as illustrated in its high inventory turnover Ratio. With an Inventory Turnover Ratio of 17 times per year and an Average Inventory Days Outstanding (AIDO) of 24 days, Ford turns over its inventory much faster than its competitors, which range from Honda with an Inventory Turnover Ratio of 6 times/ year and AIDO of 64 days, up to Toyota which has an Inventory Turnover Ratio of 11 times/year and an AIDO of 37 days.2 Ford is well positioned to meet their short-term expenses, possessing a large amount of assets that can easily be converted to cash. This is illustrated by their high Current Ratio (Current Assets/Current Liabilities) of 1.40 down from 1.47 in 2011. Using the more conservative Quick Ratio, Fords liquidity still looks good with a Quick Ratio of 1.19, down from 1.29 in 2011. Ford has the highest Current and Quick Ratios of the four companies.3 Fords solvency ratios show it operates with larger than typical Debt-to-Equity Ratio (10.95 in 2012 up slightly from
2

Ford, GM and Honda all value their inventory using the FIFO method primarily, stating the value at the lower of cost or market value. Toyota mainly uses an average-cost basis.
3

In 2012, Toyota had a Current Ratio of 1.05 and a Quick Ratio of .91 and Honda, with a Current Ratio of 1.32 and a Quick Ratio of 1.03. General Motors (GM) has a Current Ratio of 1.30 up from 1.13 in 2010 and 1.20 in 2011 and a Quick Ratio of 1.02 in 2012.
5

10.87 in 2011) compared with its competitors - GM has a 2012 Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 1.49, Toyota
a 1.91 and Honda a 1.68. Viewed alone, we might conclude Ford has a long term operations

problem. But if we look at Fords Interest Coverage Ratio we see its operating income covers the interest expense associated with its liabilities (by 10x). This means Fords returns on its investment debt are far higher than the cost of the debt, which is largely due to the debt being primarily associated with Fords Lending Operations (as opposed to its Automotive Operations). Overall the bottom-line performance of Ford is high, producing a consistently high Gross Profit Margin of around 15%, which is higher than General Motors (11%) and Toyota (12%), but not as high as Honda (26%). Although its Gross Profit Margins are not as high as Hondas, Ford yields a Net Profit Margin of 4.2% which is the highest of the four companies. Ford is increasing revenue and lowering expenses compared to its competitors. Investors have been rewarded as Ford increased dividends from 5 cents up to 10 cents per share in January 2013. Market-wise, Fords stock may be a bit underpriced. It trades at a lower P/E than these competitors and thus has a much higher dividend yield. The following chart is as of March 31, 2013. It may be that investors are leery about Fords high debt. Five year charts for all Companies discussed are found at Attachment E. All prices appear to be moving upward (note the drop off in 2008 due to the recession and GMs absence due to bankruptcy).

Price Ford Toyota Honda GM 13.15 102.64 38.26 27.82

EPS 1.42 5.16 2.14 2.91

P/E Ratio 9.23 19.88 17.88 9.56

Mkt Cap 51.58B 162.52B 68.96B 38.01B

Div Yield 3.22% 1.40% 2.14% 0

Bibliography
Danova, Antonio, IBISWorld Industry Report 33611a, Car & Automobile Manufacturing in the US, January 2013 Danova, Antonio, IBISWorld Industry Report 33611b,SUV & Light Truck Manufacturing in the US December 2012 DBRS, Methodology, Rating Companies in the Automotive Industry, dbrs.com , DBRS, Limited, April, 2011 <http://www.dbrs.com/research/239056/rating-companies-in-the-automotive-industry.pdf> Donlan, JP, CEO of the Year, Alan Mulally: The Road Ahead, chiefexecutive.net, Chief Executive Group, LLC, June 27, 2011 <http://chiefexecutive.net/ceo-of-the-year-alan-mulally-the-road-ahead> Ford Motor Company, 2011 Annual Report, corporate.ford.com, Ford Motor Company, March 14, 2012. <http://corporate.ford.com/doc/2011_annual_report.pdf> Ford Motor Company, 2012 Annual Report, corporate.ford.com, Ford Motor Company, March 14, 2013. < http://corporate.ford.com/annual-report-2012/index> Ford Motor Company, Ford 2012 Proxy Details Annual Meeting Information, Executive Compensation ,media.ford.com, Ford Motor Company, March 13, 2012 <http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=36283> Ford Motor Company, One Ford, corporate.ford.com, Ford Motor Company http://corporate.ford.com/doc/one_ford.pdf> Google Finance, Ford Motor Company, google.com/finance, Google, April 5, 2013, <http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AF&ei=pupeUaj4GcOmqQG_NQ> United States Security and Exchange Commission, Ford Motor Company, sec.gov, United States Government, December 31, 2012, <http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/37996/000003799613000014/f12312012-10k.htm>

ATTACHMENT A
Board of Directors
Stephen G. Butler (1,5) Kimberly A. Casiano (1,3,5) Anthony F. Earley, Jr. (2,3,5) Edsel B. Ford II (3,4) William Clay Ford, Jr. (3,4) Richard A. Gephardt (3,5) James H. Hance, Jr. (1,4,5) William W. Helman IV (3,4,5) Irvine O. Hockaday, Jr. (1,5) Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. (2,3,5) Richard A. Manoogian (2,5) Ellen R. Marram (2,3,5) Alan R. Mulally (4) Homer A. Neal (3,4,5) Gerald L. Shaheen (1,5) John L. Thornton (2,4,5) William Clay Ford (Director Emeritus) Committee Membership (1) Audit (2) Compensation (3) Sustainability (4) Finance (5) Nominating and Governance

Executive Officer Group

William Clay Ford, Jr. Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Board Alan R. Mulally President and Chief Executive Officer Mark Fields Chief Operating Officer James D. Farley, Jr. Executive Vice President, Global Marketing, Sales and Service and Lincoln John Fleming Executive Vice President, Global Manufacturing and Labor Affairs Joseph R. Hinrichs Executive Vice President and President, The Americas Stephen T. Odell Executive Vice President and President, Europe, Middle East and Africa Robert L. Shanks Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Thomas K. Brown Group Vice President, Global Purchasing Raymond F. Day Group Vice President, Communications Felicia J. Fields Group Vice President, Human Resources and Corporate Services Bennie W. Fowler Group Vice President, Quality and New Model Launch David G. Leitch Group Vice President and General Counsel J Mays Group Vice President and Chief Creative Officer, Design Raj Nair Group Vice President, Global Product Development Stuart J. Rowley Vice President and Controller

Ziad S. Ojakli Group Vice President, Government and Community Relations David L. Schoch Group Vice President and President, Asia Pacific Bernard B. Silverstone Group Vice President, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Ford Motor Credit Company Nicholas J. Smither Group Vice President and Chief Information Officer

*As of March 14th, 2013

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT C
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Ford Motor Company: In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and the related consolidated statements of operations, of equity and of cash flows, including pages 84 through 179, present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Ford Motor Company and its subsidiaries at December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company's management is responsible for these financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting in this Annual Report. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements and on the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our integrated audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audits of the financial statements included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions. Our audits were conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The accompanying sector balance sheets and the related sector statements of operations and of cash flows are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. A company's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company's internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company's assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Detroit, Michigan February 21, 2012

ATTACHMENT D
Comparative Financial Analysis
Ratios Year Ending Financials Revenues ($M) Cost of Goods Sold ($M) Gross Profit ($M) Gross Profit Margin Net Income ($M) Profit Margin (Net Income as % of Sales) Net Receivables Inventory ($M) Performance Asset Turnover Return on Net Operating Assets Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT) Avg Net Operating Assets (NOA) Return on Equity Receivable Turnover Ratio Profitability Return on Assets Dividends per Share - Common Stock Diluted EPS Excluding Extraordinary Items Price to Earnings Ratio Liquidity Current Ratio Quick Ratio Solvency Debt-to-Equity Ratio Debt Ratio Cash Flow Cash Conversion Cycle (Days) Inventory Turnover Ratio Average Days to Sell Average Inventory Days Outstanding Cash from Operating Activities Cash from Investing Activities Cash from Financing Activities Net Change in Cash
Market Cap: $52.03B Fiscal Year End: Dec 31 Market Cap: $39.07B Fiscal Year End: Dec 31 Market Cap: $71.55B Fiscal Year End: Mar 31 Market Cap: $164.39B Fiscal Year End: Mar 31

Ford Motor Company

2010
$128,954 $104,451 $20,158

General Motors
Trend 2010
$135,592 $118,768 $10,813

Honda (M)
Trend 2010
8,579,174 6,414,721 2,164,453

Toyota (M)
Trend 2010 2011 2012 Trend
18,950,973 18,993,688 18,583,653 15,971,496 15,985,783 15,795,918 2,267,176 2,378,362 2,195,089

2011
$136,264 $113,345 $19,305

2012
$134,252 $112,578 $18,559

2011
$150,276 $130,386 $19,105

2012
$152,256 $140,236 $16,672

2011
8,936,867 6,496,841 2,440,026

2012
7,948,095 5,919,633 2,028,462

16%
$6,561

14%
$20,213

14%
$5,665

8%
$6,172

13%
$9,190

11%
$6,188

25%
268,400

27%
534,088

26%
211,482

12%
209,456

13%
408,183

12%
283,559

5%
$78,451 $5,917

15%
$78,541 $5,901

4%
$82,338 $7,362

5%
$8,699 $12,125

6%
$13,215 $14,324

4%
$14,439 $14,714

3%
1,983,634 935,629

6%
1,918,759 899,813

3%
1,893,876 1,035,779

1%
6,456,148 1,422,373

2%
5,892,157 1,304,242

2%
6,523,271 1,622,282

0.72
$6,557

0.79
134% $20,222 $15,109

0.73
39% $5,664 $14,680 $5,065

1.06
69% $6,095 $8,797

1.04
33% $4,574 $13,851 189,329

0.77 37%
423,721 1,158,225

0.68 11%
121,668 1,140,591 198,804

0.63 15%
250,469 1,713,078

0.61 22%
170,601 789,190

281.6% 1.95 4% $0.00 $1.66 10.11 1.43 1.26 (245.71) 1.00 19 19 21

$11,477 $6,908 ($24,421) ($6,089)

36.6% 1.90 3% $0.10 $1.42 9.12 1.40 1.19 10.95 0.92 154 17 22 24
$9,045 ($14,290) $3,705 ($1,489)

24.7% 16.10 6% $0.00 $2.89 12.67 1.13 0.87 1.30 0.34 $0.00 $4.58 4.36 1.22 0.95 1.40 0.37 (5) 10
37

16.6% 14.96 4% $0.00 $2.92 9.87 1.30 1.02 1.49 0.36 (3) 10
38 38 148

12.2% 10.70 5%
54 296

4.8% 9.94 2%
60 117 45 67

3.9% 11.39 1%
50 130

2.7% 10.78 1%
50 90

12% $0.05 $4.94 6.22 1.47 1.29 10.87 0.92 152 19 19 19

$9,784 ($3,041) ($4,241) $2,343

271.46 1.35 1.08 1.69 0.63

10.87 1.31 1.06 1.60 0.62 44 7

52

29.56 1.32 1.03 1.68 0.63 46 6

60

55.85 1.22 1.09 1.93 0.66

25.56 1.10 0.98 1.89 0.65 24 12

31

54.64 1.05 0.91 1.91 0.66 24 11

34

37
$7,171 $1,233 ($9,770) ($1,423)

40
$8,166 ($12,740) ($358) ($5,185)

38
$10,605 ($3,505) ($4,741) $2,351

53
1,544,212 (595,751) (559,244) 429,533

51
1,070,837 (731,390) (100,416) 159,122

64
737,429 (673,069) (44,121) (31,911)

33
2,558,530 (277,982) (578,534)

30
2,024,009 434,327 214,963

37
1,452,435 (355,347) (401,509)

(2,850,184) (2,116,344) (1,442,658)

Comparative Financial Analysis

Gross Profit Margin Ford GM Honda Toyota 2010
16% 8% 25% 12%

2011
14% 13% 27% 13%

2012
14% 11% 26% 12% 20%
25% 30%

Gross Profit Margin

16.0%

Profit Margin
14.0% 12.0% Ford GM 10.0% 8.0%
6.0% 4.0% 2.0% Ford

Profit Margin (Net Income as % of Sales) Ford GM Honda Toyota

2010
5.1% 4.6% 3.1% 1.1%

2011
14.8% 6.1% 6.0% 2.1%

2012
4.2% 4.1% 2.7% 1.5%
10%

GM
Honda Toyota

15%

Honda

Toyota

5%

0.0%

Return on Assets Ford GM Honda Toyota

2011
11.8% 5.2% 4.6% 1.4%

2012
3.1% 3.2% 1.8% 0.9%
14.0%

2010

2011

2012

2010

2011

2012

Return on Assets
300%

Return on Equity
250%

12.0%

Return on Equity Ford GM Honda Toyota

2011
282% 25% 12% 4%

2012
37% 17% 5% 3%

10.0% 8.0%
6.0% 4.0% 2.0% Ford

200% Ford

GM
Honda Toyota

150%

GM
Honda

100%

Toyota

50%

0.0%
2011 2012

0%
2011 2012

Asset Turnover Ford GM Honda Toyota

2011
0.79 1.06 0.77 0.63

2012
0.73 1.04 0.68 0.61 1.00 0.90
1.10

Asset Turnover
21.0 19.0 17.0

Inventory Turnover

Inventory Turnover Ratio Ford GM Honda Toyota

2011
19.2 9.9 7.1 11.7

2012
17.0 9.7 6.1 10.8
0.60 0.70

Ford 0.80
GM Honda

15.0

Ford
GM Honda

13.0 11.0 9.0 7.0 5.0

Toyota

Toyota

Current Ratio Ford GM Honda Toyota

2010
1.43 1.13 1.35 1.22

2011
1.47 1.22 1.31 1.10

2012
1.40 1.30 1.32 1.05

0.50
2011 2012

2011

2012

Current Ratio
1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.45 1.40

Quick Ratio

Quick Ratio Ford GM Honda Toyota

2010
1.26 0.87 1.08 1.09

2011
1.29 0.95 1.06 0.98

2012
1.19 1.02 1.03 0.91

1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20

1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00

Ford GM
Honda Toyota

Ford

1.10 1.00 0.90

0.80

GM
Honda Toyota

2010

2011

2012

2010

2011

2012

P/E Ratio Ford GM Honda Toyota

2010
10.11 12.67 271.46 55.85

2011
6.22 4.36 10.87 25.56

2012
9.12 9.87 29.56 54.64 40.00 50.00 60.00

P/E Ratio
10.00 8.00 Ford

Debt-to-Equity Ratio

Ford 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 GM Honda Toyota

Debt-to-Equity Ratio Ford GM Honda Toyota

2010
1.30 1.69 1.93

2011
10.87 1.40 1.60 1.89

2012
10.95 1.49 1.68 1.91

30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 2010 2011 2012

GM Honda Toyota

2010

2011

2012

ATTACHMENT E