what's the upshot?While I do not disagree that Ford will be reluctant to go out of pocket substantial amounts to accommodate affected customers, it is not correct to say that unanticipated expenditures won't be made because of prior market projections. When Ford provides its financial outlook each quarter, it supplies nearly a page and a half of disclaimers to the basic effect of, projections are just projections and may not be achieved, and all sorts of things (they give a long list) may happen that cause projections to be incorrect.
Ford will assess the situation on an ongoing basis and should, if it is doing its job for shareholders, make the decision that it expects to have the best return for shareholders. If it expects that most customers will put up with delays without defecting, as you say Ford will likely do little or nothing in the way of accommodation.
If it expects that alienation of customers will have a substantial cost, it has an incentive to take corrective actions to ameliorate that problem as long as the expected cost of the actions is less than the expected cost of the status quo. The expected cost of the actions need not be zero. And it will not have any securities law liability for doing that, even if it causes projections not to be achieved, unless a shareholder can prove that Ford knew those projections were wrong or unreasonable at the time they were published (its not enough to show that they became wrong later because of unanticipated developments).
That being said, you are probably right that Ford will take at most token actions to address unhappy buyers. But that's because they know that the worst that can happen is that order cancellations grow substantially, and they probably believe they have alternate buyers for a lot of vehicles if that happens.
Sponsored