F, §1A diff (2016 → 2017)

ITEM 1A. Risk Factors. We have listed below (not necessarily in order of importance or probability of occurrence) the most significant risk factors applicable to us: Decline in industry sales volume, particularly in the United States, Europe, or China, due to financial crisis, recession, geopolitical events, or other factors. Because we, like other manufacturers, have a high proportion of relatively fixed structural costs, relatively small changes in industry sales volume can have a substantial effect on our cash flow and profitability. If industry vehicle sales were to decline to levels significantly below our planning assumption, particularly in the United States, Europe, or China, due to financial crisis, recession, geopolitical events, or other factors, the decline could have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flow. For discussion of economic trends, see the “Overview” section of Item 7. Lower-than-anticipated market acceptance of Ford’s new or existing products or services, or failure to achieve expected growth. Although we conduct extensive market research before launching new or refreshed vehicles and introducing new services, many factors both within and outside our control affect the success of new or existing products and services in the marketplace. Offering vehicles and services that customers want and value can mitigate the risks of increasing price competition and declining demand, but products and services that are perceived to be less desirable (whether in terms of price, quality, styling, safety, overall value, fuel efficiency, or other attributes) can exacerbate these risks. With increased consumer interconnectedness through the internet, social media, and other media, mere allegations relating to quality, safety, fuel efficiency, corporate social responsibility, or other key attributes can negatively impact our reputation or market acceptance of our products or services, even where such allegations prove to be inaccurate or unfounded. Further, our ability to successfully grow through investments in the area of emerging opportunities depends on many factors, including advancements in technology, regulatory changes, and other factors that are difficult to predict, that may significantly affect the future of electrification, autonomy, and mobility. Market shift away from sales of larger, more profitable vehicles beyond Ford’s current planning assumption, particularly in the United States. A shift in consumer preferences away from larger, more profitable vehicles at levels beyond our current planning assumption-whether because of spiking fuel prices, a decline in the construction industry, government actions or incentives, or other reasons-could result in an immediate and substantial adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Continued or increased price competition resulting from industry excess capacity, currency fluctuations, or other factors. The global automotive industry is intensely competitive, with manufacturing capacity far exceeding current demand. According to the December 2016 report issued by IHS Automotive, the global automotive industry is estimated to have had excess capacity of about 32 million units in 2016. Industry overcapacity has resulted in many manufacturers offering marketing incentives on vehicles in an attempt to maintain and grow market share; these incentives historically have included a combination of subsidized financing or leasing programs, price rebates, and other incentives. As a result, we are not necessarily able to set our prices to offset higher costs of marketing incentives, commodity or other cost increases, or the impact of adverse currency fluctuations, including pricing advantages foreign competitors may have because of their weaker home market currencies. Continuation of or increased excess capacity could have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued) Fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices, and interest rates. As a resource-intensive manufacturing operation, we are exposed to a variety of market and asset risks, including the effects of changes in foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices, and interest rates. We monitor and manage these exposures as an integral part of our overall risk management program, which recognizes the unpredictability of markets and seeks to reduce potentially adverse effects on our business. Nevertheless, changes in currency exchange rates, commodity prices, and interest rates cannot always be predicted or hedged. In addition, because of intense price competition and our high level of fixed costs, we may not be able to address such changes even if foreseeable. As a result, substantial unfavorable changes in foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices, or interest rates could have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. See “Overview” to Item 7 and Item 7A for additional discussion of currency, commodity price, and interest rate risks. Adverse effects resulting from economic, geopolitical, protectionist trade policies, or other events. With the increasing interconnectedness of global economic and financial systems, a financial crisis, natural disaster, geopolitical crisis, or other significant event in one area of the world can have an immediate and material adverse impact on markets around the world. Concerns persist regarding the overall stability of the European Union, given the diverse economic and political circumstances of individual European currency area (“euro area”) countries. These concerns have been exacerbated by Brexit, which, among other things, has resulted in a weaker sterling versus U.S. dollar and euro. We have a sterling revenue exposure and a euro cost exposure; a sustained weakening of sterling against euro may have an adverse effect on our profitability. Further, the United Kingdom may be at risk of losing access to free trade agreements for goods and services with the European Union and other countries, which may result in increased tariffs on U.K. imports and exports that could have an adverse effect on our profitability. FCE Bank plc (“FCE”), our subsidiary, is a bank authorized by the U.K. government to carry on a range of regulated activities within the United Kingdom and through a branch network in 11 other European countries through a passporting system, which allows it to establish or provide its services in the EU27 without further authorization requirements. If passporting arrangements cease to be effective as a result of Brexit, FCE could be required to reconsider its structure or seek additional authorizations to continue to do business in the EU27, which may be time-consuming and costly. The economic and policy uncertainty on-going in the euro area highlights potential longer-term risks regarding its sustainability. This uncertainty could cause financial and capital markets within and outside Europe to constrict, thereby negatively impacting our ability to finance our business or, if a country within the euro area were to default on its debt or withdraw from the euro currency, or--in a more extreme circumstance-the euro currency were to be dissolved entirely, the impact on markets around the world, and on Ford’s global business, could be immediate and significant. In addition, we have operations in various markets with volatile economic or political environments and are pursuing growth opportunities in a number of newly developed and emerging markets. These investments may expose us to heightened risks of economic, geopolitical, or other events, including governmental takeover (i.e., nationalization) of our manufacturing facilities or intellectual property, restrictive exchange or import controls, disruption of operations as a result of systemic political or economic instability, outbreak of war or expansion of hostilities, and acts of terrorism, each of which could have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Further, the U.S. government, other governments, and international organizations could impose additional sanctions that could restrict us from doing business directly or indirectly in or with certain countries or parties, which could include affiliates. Work stoppages at Ford or supplier facilities or other limitations on production (whether as a result of labor disputes, natural or man-made disasters, tight credit markets or other financial distress, production constraints or difficulties, or other factors). A work stoppage or other limitation on production could occur at Ford or supplier facilities for any number of reasons, including as a result of disputes under existing collective bargaining agreements with labor unions or in connection with negotiation of new collective bargaining agreements, or as a result of supplier financial distress or other production constraints or difficulties, or for other reasons. A work stoppage or other limitations on production at Ford or supplier facilities for any reason (including but not limited to labor disputes, natural or man-made disasters, tight credit markets or other financial distress, or production constraints or difficulties) could have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued) Single-source supply of components or materials. Many components used in our vehicles are available only from a single supplier and cannot be re-sourced quickly or inexpensively to another supplier (due to long lead times, new contractual commitments that may be required by another supplier before ramping up to provide the components or materials, etc.). In addition to the general risks described above regarding interruption of supplies, which are exacerbated in the case of single-source suppliers, the exclusive supplier of a key component potentially could exert significant bargaining power over price, quality, warranty claims, or other terms relating to a component. Labor or other constraints on Ford’s ability to maintain competitive cost structure. Substantially all of the hourly employees in our Automotive operations in the United States and Canada are represented by unions and covered by collective bargaining agreements. These agreements provide guaranteed wage and benefit levels throughout the contract term and some degree of income security, subject to certain conditions. As a practical matter, these agreements may restrict our ability to close plants and divest businesses. A substantial number of our employees in other regions are represented by unions or government councils, and legislation or custom promoting retention of manufacturing or other employment in the state, country, or region may constrain as a practical matter our ability to sell or close manufacturing or other facilities. Substantial pension and other postretirement liabilities impairing liquidity or financial condition. We have defined benefit retirement plans in the United States that cover many of our hourly and salaried employees. We also provide pension benefits to non-U.S. employees and retirees, primarily in Europe. In addition, we and certain of our subsidiaries sponsor plans to provide other postretirement benefits (“OPEB”) for retired employees (primarily health care and life insurance benefits). See Note 13 of the Notes to the Financial Statements for more information about these plans. These benefit plans impose significant liabilities on us and could require us to make additional cash contributions, which could impair our liquidity. If our cash flows and capital resources were insufficient to meet any pension or OPEB obligations, we could be forced to reduce or delay investments and capital expenditures, suspend dividend payments, seek additional capital, or restructure or refinance our indebtedness. Worse-than-assumed economic and demographic experience for pension and other postretirement benefit plans (e.g., discount rates or investment returns). The measurement of our obligations, costs, and liabilities associated with benefits pursuant to our pension and other postretirement benefit plans requires that we estimate the present value of projected future payments to all participants. We use many assumptions in calculating these estimates, including assumptions related to discount rates, investment returns on designated plan assets, and demographic experience (e.g., mortality and retirement rates). We generally remeasure these estimates at each year end, and recognize any gains or losses associated with changes to our plan assets and liabilities in the year incurred. To the extent actual results are less favorable than our assumptions, we may recognize a substantial remeasurement loss in our results. For discussion of our assumptions, see “Critical Accounting Estimates” in Item 7 and Note 13 of the Notes to the Financial Statements. Restriction on use of tax attributes from tax law “ownership change.” Section 382 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code restricts the ability of a corporation that undergoes an ownership change to use its tax attributes, including net operating losses and tax credits (“Tax Attributes”). For these purposes, an ownership change occurs if 5 percent shareholders of an issuer’s outstanding common stock, collectively, increase their ownership percentage by more than 50 percentage points over a rolling three-year period. At December 31, 2016, we had Tax Attributes that would offset more than $15 billion of taxable income. In 2015, we renewed for an additional three-year period our tax benefit preservation plan (the “Plan”) to reduce the risk of an ownership change under Section 382. Under the Plan, shares held by any person who acquires, without the approval of our Board of Directors, beneficial ownership of 4.99% or more of our outstanding Common Stock could be subject to significant dilution. Our shareholders approved the renewal at our annual meeting in May 2016. Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued) The discovery of defects in vehicles resulting in delays in new model launches, recall campaigns, or increased warranty costs. Government safety standards require manufacturers to remedy defects related to vehicle safety through safety recall campaigns, and a manufacturer is obligated to recall vehicles if it determines that the vehicles do not comply with a safety standard. NHTSA’s enforcement strategy has shifted to a significant increase in civil penalties levied and the use of consent orders requiring direct oversight by NHTSA of certain manufacturers’ safety processes, a trend that could continue. Should we or government safety regulators determine that a safety or other defect or a noncompliance exists with respect to certain of our vehicles prior to the start of production, the launch of such vehicle could be delayed until such defect is remedied. The costs associated with any protracted delay in new model launches necessary to remedy such defects, or the cost of recall campaigns or warranty costs to remedy such defects in vehicles that have been sold, could be substantial. Such recall and customer satisfaction actions may relate to defective components we receive from suppliers. The cost to complete a recall or customer satisfaction action could be exacerbated to the extent such action relates to a global platform. Furthermore, launch delays or recall actions could adversely affect our reputation or market acceptance of our products as discussed above under “Lower-than-anticipated market acceptance of Ford’s new or existing products or services, or failure to achieve expected growth.” Increased safety, emissions, fuel economy, or other regulations resulting in higher costs, cash expenditures, and/or sales restrictions. The worldwide automotive industry is governed by a substantial amount of government regulation, which often differs by state, region, and country. Government regulation has arisen, and proposals for additional regulation are advanced, primarily out of concern for the environment (including concerns about the possibility of global climate change and its impact), vehicle safety, and energy independence. For example, as discussed above under “Item 1. Business - Governmental Standards,” in the United States the CAFE standards for light duty vehicles increase sharply to 51.4 mpg by the 2025 model year; EPA’s parallel CO2 emission regulations impose similar standards. California’s ZEV rules also mandate steep increases in the sale of electric vehicles and other advanced technology vehicles beginning in the 2018 model year. In addition, many governments regulate local product content and/or impose import requirements as a means of creating jobs, protecting domestic producers, and influencing the balance of payments. In recent years, we have made significant changes to our product cycle plan to improve the overall fuel economy of vehicles we produce, thereby reducing their GHG emissions. There are limits on our ability to achieve fuel economy improvements over a given time frame, however, primarily relating to the cost and effectiveness of available technologies, consumer acceptance of new technologies and changes in vehicle mix, willingness of consumers to absorb the additional costs of new technologies, the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of certain technologies for use in particular vehicles, the widespread availability (or lack thereof) of supporting infrastructure for new technologies, and the human, engineering, and financial resources necessary to deploy new technologies across a wide range of products and powertrains in a short time. The current fuel economy, CO2, and ZEV standards will be difficult to meet if fuel prices remain relatively low and market conditions do not drive consumers to purchase electric vehicles and other highly fuel-efficient vehicles in large numbers. The U.S. government has pursued an enforcement action against a major competitor in connection with its alleged use of “defeat devices” in hundreds of thousands of light duty diesel vehicles, collecting billions of dollars for environmental remediation projects and civil penalties. Several of the competitor’s employees have been indicted on charges of committing federal crimes. The competitor also faces various class action suits, as well as numerous claims and investigations by various U.S. states and other nations. The emergence of this issue has led to increased scrutiny of automaker emission testing by regulators around the world, which in turn has triggered investigations of other manufacturers. These events may lead to new regulations, more stringent enforcement programs, requests for field actions, and/or delays in regulatory approvals. The cost to comply with existing government regulations is substantial and additional regulations or changes in consumer preferences that affect vehicle mix could have a substantial adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations. For more discussion of the impact of such standards on our global business, see the “Governmental Standards” discussion in “Item 1. Business” above. In addition, a number of governments, as well as non-governmental organizations, publicly assess vehicles to their own protocols. The protocols could change aggressively, and any negative perception regarding the performance of our vehicles subjected to such tests could reduce future sales. Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued) Unusual or significant litigation, governmental investigations, or adverse publicity arising out of alleged defects in products, perceived environmental impacts, or otherwise. We spend substantial resources ensuring that we comply with governmental safety regulations, mobile and stationary source emissions regulations, and other standards. Compliance with governmental standards, however, does not necessarily prevent individual or class actions, which can entail significant cost and risk. In certain circumstances, courts may permit tort claims even where our vehicles comply with federal and/or other applicable law. Furthermore, simply responding to actual or threatened litigation or government investigations of our compliance with regulatory standards, whether related to our products or business or commercial relationships, may require significant expenditures of time and other resources. Litigation also is inherently uncertain, and we could experience significant adverse results. In addition, adverse publicity surrounding an allegation may cause significant reputational harm that could have a significant adverse effect on our sales. Adverse effects on results from a decrease in or cessation or clawback of government incentives related to investments. We receive economic benefits from national, state, and local governments in various regions of the world in the form of incentives designed to encourage manufacturers to establish, maintain, or increase investment, workforce, or production. These incentives may take various forms, including grants, loan subsidies, and tax abatements or credits. The impact of these incentives can be significant in a particular market during a reporting period. For example, most of our manufacturing facilities in South America are located in Brazil, where the state or federal governments have historically offered, and continue to offer, significant incentives to manufacturers to encourage capital investment, increase manufacturing production, and create jobs. As a result, the performance of our South American operations has been impacted favorably by government incentives to a substantial extent. In Brazil, however, the federal government has levied assessments against us concerning our calculation of federal incentives we received, and certain states have challenged the grant to us of tax incentives by the state of Bahia, including a constitutional challenge of state incentives that is pending in Brazil’s Supreme Court. A decrease in, expiration without renewal of, or other cessation or clawback of government incentives for any of our business units, as a result of administrative decision or otherwise, could have a substantial adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations. See Note 2 of the Notes to the Financial Statements for discussion of our accounting for government incentives, and “Item 3. Legal Proceedings” for a discussion of tax proceedings in Brazil and the potential requirement for us to post collateral. Cybersecurity risks to operational systems, security systems, or infrastructure owned by Ford, Ford Credit, or a third-party vendor or supplier. We are at risk for interruptions, outages, and breaches of: (i) operational systems (including business, financial, accounting, product development, consumer receivables, data processing, or manufacturing processes); (ii) facility security systems; and/or (iii) in-vehicle systems or mobile devices. Such cyber incidents could materially disrupt operational systems; result in loss of trade secrets or other proprietary or competitively sensitive information; compromise personally identifiable information of customers, employees, or others; jeopardize the security of our facilities; and/or affect the performance of in-vehicle systems. A cyber incident could be caused by malicious third parties using sophisticated, targeted methods to circumvent firewalls, encryption, and other security defenses, including hacking, fraud, trickery, or other forms of deception. The techniques used by third parties change frequently and may be difficult to detect for long periods of time. A significant cyber incident could impact production capability, harm our reputation and/or subject us to regulatory actions or litigation. Failure of financial institutions to fulfill commitments under committed credit and liquidity facilities. Under our corporate credit facility), we are able to borrow, repay, and then re-borrow up to $13.4 billion. Certain of our subsidiaries have standby or revolving credit facilities on which they depend for liquidity. If the financial institutions that provide commitments under the corporate credit facility, our subsidiaries’ standby or revolving credit facilities, or other committed credit facilities were to default on their obligation to fund the commitments, these facilities would not be available to us, which could substantially adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition. For discussion of our Credit Agreement, see “Liquidity and Capital Resources” in Item 7 and Note 14 of the Notes to the Financial Statements. Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued) Inability of Ford Credit to access debt, securitization, or derivative markets around the world at competitive rates or in sufficient amounts, due to credit rating downgrades, market volatility, market disruption, regulatory requirements, or other factors. Ford Credit’s ability to obtain unsecured funding at a reasonable cost is dependent on its credit ratings or its perceived creditworthiness. Ford Credit’s ability to obtain securitized funding under its committed asset-backed liquidity programs and certain other asset-backed securitization transactions is subject to having a sufficient amount of assets eligible for these programs, as well as Ford Credit’s ability to obtain appropriate credit ratings and, for certain committed programs, derivatives to manage the interest rate risk. Over time, and particularly in the event of any credit rating downgrades, market volatility, market disruption, or other factors, Ford Credit may reduce the amount of receivables it purchases or originates because of funding constraints. In addition, Ford Credit may be limited in the amount of receivables it purchases or originates in certain countries or regions if the local capital markets, particularly in developing countries, do not exist or are not adequately developed. Similarly, Ford Credit may reduce the amount of receivables it purchases or originates if there is a significant decline in the demand for the types of securities it offers or Ford Credit is unable to obtain derivatives to manage the interest rate risk associated with its securitization transactions. A significant reduction in the amount of receivables Ford Credit purchases or originates would significantly reduce its ongoing profits and could adversely affect its ability to support the sale of Ford vehicles. Higher-than-expected credit losses, lower-than-anticipated residual values, or higher-than-expected return volumes for leased vehicles. Credit risk is the possibility of loss from a customer’s or dealer’s failure to make payments according to contract terms. Credit risk (which is heavily dependent upon economic factors including unemployment, consumer debt service burden, personal income growth, dealer profitability, and used car prices) has a significant impact on Ford Credit’s business. The level of credit losses Ford Credit may experience could exceed its expectations and adversely affect its financial condition and results of operations. In addition, Ford Credit projects expected residual values (including residual value support payments from Ford) and return volumes for the vehicles it leases. Actual proceeds realized by Ford Credit upon the sale of returned leased vehicles at lease termination may be lower than the amount projected, which would reduce the profitability of the lease transaction. Among the factors that can affect the value of returned lease vehicles are the volume of vehicles returned, economic conditions, and quality or perceived quality, safety, fuel efficiency, or reliability of the vehicles. Actual return volumes may be higher than expected and can be influenced by contractual lease-end values relative to auction values, marketing programs for new vehicles, and general economic conditions. Each of these factors, alone or in combination, has the potential to adversely affect Ford Credit’s profitability if actual results were to differ significantly from Ford Credit’s projections. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” in Item 7 for additional discussion. Increased competition from banks, financial institutions, or other third parties seeking to increase their share of financing Ford vehicles. No single company is a dominant force in the automotive finance industry. Most of Ford Credit’s competitors in the United States use credit aggregation systems that permit dealers to send, through standardized systems, retail credit applications to multiple finance sources to evaluate financing options offered by these sources. Also, direct on-line or large dealer group financing options provide consumers with alternative finance sources and/or increased pricing transparency. All of these financing alternatives drive greater competition based on financing rates and terms. Competition from such institutions and alternative finance sources could adversely affect Ford Credit’s profitability and the volume of its retail business. In addition, Ford Credit may face increased competition on wholesale financing for Ford dealers. New or increased credit regulations, consumer or data protection regulations, or other regulations resulting in higher costs and/or additional financing restrictions. As a finance company, Ford Credit is highly regulated by governmental authorities in the locations in which it operates, which can impose significant additional costs and/or restrictions on its business. In the United States, for example, Ford Credit’s operations are subject to regulation, supervision, and licensing under various federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including the federal Truth-in-Lending Act, Consumer Leasing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Dodd-Frank Act directs federal agencies to adopt rules to regulate the consumer finance industry and the capital markets and gives the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) broad rule-making and enforcement authority for a wide range of consumer financial protection laws that regulate consumer finance businesses, such as Ford Credit’s retail automotive financing business. Exercise of these powers by the CFPB may increase the costs of, impose additional restrictions on, or otherwise adversely affect companies in the automotive finance business. The CFPB has authority to supervise and examine the largest nonbank automotive finance companies, such as Ford Credit, for compliance with consumer financial protection laws. Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued) In some countries outside the United States, some of Ford Credit’s subsidiaries are regulated banking institutions and are required, among other things, to maintain minimum capital and liquidity. In many other locations, governmental authorities require companies to have licenses in order to conduct financing businesses. Compliance with these laws and regulations imposes additional costs on Ford Credit and affects the conduct of its business. Additional regulation could add significant cost or operational constraints that might impair Ford Credit’s profitability. ITEM 1B.