Ford Should Drive Away From Wall Street

Several of the world's most successful automotive companies are closely held. They include Germany's BMW Ag, the manufacturer of premium, high-performance vehicles; Robert Bosch GmbH of Stuttgart, one of the world's leading automotive parts suppliers; and France's Michelin Group, the world's largest and arguably most innovative supplier of tires.

What all of those companies have in common is that they spend more time serving customers and little or no time serving the markets. As a result, both their customers and their respective bottom lines win, because happy customers usually are more willing to support the companies that consistently make them happy, even at the cost of paying more for that happiness.

At closely held companies, where dedication to customers takes precedence over pandering to stock market analysts, there is no interloper in the corporate-consumer relationship. There is an intimacy, a trust.

More important, on the part of the corporation, there is a willingness to take potentially money-losing risks without worrying about what Wall Street will think. Wall Street creates nothing. It innovates nothing. It simply cashes in if the gamble pays off and cashes out if it fails. Wall Street is loyal to nothing except the illusion of uninterrupted profits and constant economic growth in a finite world.

If the people at Michelin had to worry about Wall Street's mindset, they probably never would have invested the time and money to develop the radial tire. Bosch probably never would have considered venturing forth into the premium end of the home appliance world, where it is beginning to experience as much success as it has had in the automotive industry. And BMW, maker of some of the world's finest and most sought-after motorcars, long ago would have jettisoned the premium quality of its products in favor of a premium image with its bankers and investors, who tend to be more interested in a high return on investment than they are in keeping consumers happy.

Why am I in such an anti-Wall Street snit? It's simple. I've watched the money changers over the years, witnessed the actual harm they've done to good-but-struggling companies they've deemed "underperforming" and have repeatedly witnessed the death of innovative ideas that might have paid off in the long run had they not been aborted by the short-term thinking and expectations of Wall Street.

Besides, I find it difficult to embrace an institution that sees increased unemployment as a good thing, especially if the jobless numbers have no negative effect on productivity.

I am also emboldened in this rant by industry rumors that the financially battered executives of Ford Motor Co., which dropped $1.4 billion in the first half of 2006, are considering dropping out of Wall Street and taking the company private. I hereby urge them to turn that rumor into decisive action.

What have they got to lose?

Wall Street disrespects Ford in particular and the automotive industry in general. Automotive stocks, as a group, are not hot. They are viewed as "mature," and we all know that "maturity" has little appeal to people in pursuit of a hot, thrilling quickie -- be it financial, or anything else.

Wall Street believes Ford is "junk," as evidenced by the so-named ratings it has given to Ford's bonds. Imagine that -- a corporation filled with talented, hard-working people, people trying to overcome errors, people with families and all of those sentimental relationships that Wall Street regards as worthless -- now relegated to "junk" status by other people who make nothing except money.

So, here's hoping that Ford follows through and junks Wall Street. Ford needs to be bold. It needs to take risks. It has to get wild, swing for the fences, let it all hang out, do whatever it takes, do or die -- and if it dies, at least die proudly fighting.

What it doesn't need is Wall Street looking over its shoulder telling it what and what not to do. It most assuredly will die listening to that advice.