Case Study: Ford Model e – $900m Early EV Loss and the Risks of Scaling Too Fast

Sector: Automotive • Electric Vehicles • Supply Chain & Commodity Risk • Strategic / Market Risk

Core themes: Supply-chain readiness, raw-material cost exposure, demand mis-forecasting, and risk governance when scaling into a new technology market.

Ford EV Supply Chain Risk Background: Ford’s big EV pivot

From 2021 onwards, Ford restructured into distinct business units:

• Ford Blue – ICE & hybrids
• Ford Pro – commercial vehicles & services
• Ford Model e – electric vehicles and related software/services

Model e is responsible for:

• Mustang Mach-E
• F-150 Lightning
• E-Transit and future EV platforms
• New battery plants and EV-specific manufacturing capacity

The ambition: build 600,000 EVs/year in the near term and up to 2 million/year by the end of 2026, with an 8% pre-tax margin on EVs in the medium term.

What happened in Ford EV Supply Chain Risk: The $900m loss and escalating EV red ink

2.1 The $900 million loss (2021)

In a 2023 “teach-in” to investors, Ford broke out historical results by business unit. It revealed that:

• Model e recorded a pre-tax loss of about $900 million in 2021
• The loss widened to $2.1 billion in 2022
• Cumulative 2021–2023 Model e losses were projected around $6 billion, with $3 billion expected in 2023 alone.

Ford explained these losses as driven by:

• Heavy investment in four new battery plants and a new EV assembly plant
• High upfront spending to secure raw materials for batteries
• Early-stage EV economics (low volumes, high fixed costs).

CFO John Lawler asked investors to view Model e as a “startup inside Ford”, noting that such early losses were typical while building capability and volume.

2.2 Losses keep growing – billions more in 2024–2025

The red ink did not stop at $900m:

• Ford projected Model e would lose $5–5.5 billion in 2025, after an EBIT loss of about $5.1 billion in 2024.
• Q2 2025 alone saw a $1.3 billion EV EBIT loss, despite a 105% YoY revenue increase – pressure from tariffs, high input costs and ramp-up of a new battery plant.
• Analysts reported Model e losing up to $50,000 on some EVs sold in H1 2024, with segment losses of around $2.5 billion in that half alone.

By late 2025, Ford had:

• Delayed or scaled back some EV investments, including a full-size electric truck and next-gen van, and pushed certain launches into 2027–2028.
• Paused F-150 Lightning production more than once and shifted workers back to profitable ICE/hybrid F-series trucks.

The $900m 2021 loss is therefore best seen as the first visible number in a much larger multi-year EV loss curve due to Ford EV supply chain risk.

What drove the losses in Ford EV Supply Chain Risk?

3.1 High raw-material and battery costs

Ford has repeatedly highlighted battery and commodity costs as a key EV profitability drag:

• Massive spending on lithium, nickel and other battery materials and long-term contracts to secure supply.
• S&P Global and Reuters coverage note that even as volumes rise, industry-wide pricing pressure and elevated costs mean Ford’s “Gen 1” EVs remain unprofitable.

The CFO’s own roadmap to reach 8% EV margins allocates:

• 10 percentage points of improvement to battery cost reductions
• Additional gains from design/engineering optimization and economies of scale.

From a risk viewpoint, Ford underestimated volatility and structural cost risk in battery materials when it committed to aggressive EV volume and margin targets.

3.2 Production ramp-up and supply chain readiness

Ford’s supply chain is huge: 37 plants, 17 billion parts/year, up to ten supplier tiers from raw materials to final assembly.

EV ramp-up introduced several stress points:

• New battery and EV lines at the Rouge Electric Vehicle Center and other facilities had to scale quickly, with new suppliers and processes.
• Automotive manufacturing research and industry commentary emphasize that any delays or inefficiencies in these new EV supply chains quickly translate into lost volume and higher unit costs.

Separately (though more directly affecting trucks than EVs), Ford’s 2025 aluminum-supply disruption – a fire at Novelis’ plant – shows how a single upstream incident can destroy up to $1.5–$2 billion in profit and 100,000 units of output, forcing reprioritization of product lines.

Put together, these show supply-chain fragility at a time when Ford needed flawless execution to scale Model e.

3.3 Demand mis-forecasting and policy risk

Ford (like many Western OEMs) evidently over-estimated the near-term size and profitability of the EV market:

• Reuters and LinkedIn coverage of Ford’s 2025 outlook note CEO Jim Farley saying the EV market will be “way smaller” than previously expected, as costs rise and tax breaks expire.
• After the U.S. federal EV tax credit was eliminated in mid-2025, Ford’s US EV sales in November 2025 fell 61% year-on-year, with EVs dropping to <3% of sales vs 6.5% a year earlier.

At the same time:

• Competition from Chinese EV manufacturers intensified, especially in Europe, with cheaper EVs pressuring Ford’s pricing power.

This combination suggests scenario planning and demand forecasting shortcomings:

• Ford ramped capacity and committed to high fixed costs assuming sustained subsidies and stronger demand than actually materialised.
• When credits were cut and competition increased, EV pricing collapsed faster than Ford’s cost base, deepening losses.

3.4 Product and portfolio strategy risk

Farley has since acknowledged that large, expensive EVs are a tough business case:

• He called the economics of big retail EV trucks and SUVs “unresolvable” because they need very large, costly batteries while customers refuse to pay a premium over ICE equivalents.

Ford has:

• Pivoted toward hybrids and smaller EVs, and
• Partnered with Renault in Europe to co-develop smaller EVs on a shared platform.

In hindsight, the early Model e strategy put too much weight on high-priced, high-battery-mass models that amplify commodity and demand risk.

Ford EV Supply Chain Risk Impact: financial, strategic and reputational

4.1 Financial impact

• $900m pre-tax loss in 2021 is the starting point; by 2023, cumulative Model e losses for 2021–2023 were estimated at $6 billion.
• $5.1 billion EV EBIT loss in 2024, with a further $5–5.5 billion projected for 2025.
• Analysts report per-vehicle losses of around $50,000 on some EV models in early 2024.

This is a clear capital allocation and risk-return issue: huge sums tied up in an asset base that is not yet generating positive returns.

4.2 Strategic impact

Ford has had to:

• Delay US$12 billion of EV investment, push key products to 2027–2028, and pause F-150 Lightning output while shifting resources back to hybrids and ICE trucks.
• Publicly reposition its EV ambitions and emphasize hybrids, undermining the original high-growth EV narrative.

This weakens Ford’s strategic signaling, especially versus competitors that appear more confident or profitable in EVs.

Ford EV Supply Chain Risk management analysis: where did it fail?

From a pure risk-management lens, several failure modes are visible:

5.1 Supply-chain and raw-material risk

• Exposure: Ford committed early to large-scale EV and battery production, locking in capex and long-term material contracts.
• Gaps:
  • Insufficient hedging or flexible sourcing to manage battery metal price swings.
  • Limited structural flexibility if tariff regimes and trade rules changed (tariffs and politics are now explicitly cited as EV headwinds).

Lesson: EV transitions require commodity risk frameworks as sophisticated as those in mining or energy – including scenario analysis, hedging and dynamic sourcing.

5.2 Demand and policy-scenario forecasting

• Assumption: Strong, sustained EV demand supported by incentives and early-adopter enthusiasm.
• Reality:
  • EV demand slowed sharply once tax credits disappeared.
  • Consumers showed greater appetite for hybrids and affordable small EVs than for large, premium EV trucks and SUVs at scale.

Lesson: When entering a new market shaped by subsidies and regulation, risk functions must treat policy and consumer sentiment as core risk drivers, not background noise.

5.3 Portfolio and product-mix risk

Ford’s early EV line-up was skewed toward:

• High-battery-mass, high-price segments (Lightning, Mach-E)
• With cost structures that were highly sensitive to raw material prices and tariffs.

Lesson: In emerging tech markets, portfolio risk needs formal scrutiny:
what share of your “new bet” is robust across scenarios vs extremely vulnerable to cost/demand shocks?

5.4 Operational and supply-chain resilience

The Novelis aluminum fire (though mainly affecting trucks) illustrates how single-point supplier failures can wipe out billions in profit and tens of thousands of units of output.

Combine that with:

• New EV lines
• Complex, multi-tier global supply chains

and Ford’s risk exposure to operational disruption becomes clear.

Lesson: A proactive supply-chain risk register (tier-1 and beyond), with stress tests for key commodities and facilities, is essential during major product transitions.

Ford EV Supply Chain Risk: Mapping to risk frameworks

Framework	Relevance to Ford EV case
COSO ERM	Strategic risk (EV bet), market risk (demand & subsidies), operational & supply-chain risk, commodity risk all needed integrated view.
ISO 31000	Structured risk identification, evaluation, and treatment for new EV business line.
ISO 55000 (Asset Management)	Capital allocation, lifecycle planning for EV plants and battery factories.
Scenario planning / stress testing	Needed for policy shocks (tax credits removed), commodity price spikes, and competitive attacks from Chinese OEMs.

Ford EV Supply Chain Risk: Practical takeaways for boards and CROs

1. Early-stage loss is not automatically “strategic” – quantify it. A “startup inside a large company” should still have clear risk appetite, milestones, and stop-loss triggers, not open-ended billions.
2. EV transitions are as much a supply-chain and commodity bet as a technology bet. Build risk models for battery metals, tariffs, and supplier failures early.
3. Don’t ignore policy and incentive risk. Treat tax credit removal and regulatory shifts as high-impact scenarios — not edge cases.
4. Align product strategy with realistic demand and cost curves. Large, expensive EVs may not be the right first bet; hybrids and smaller EVs can be a risk-mitigating bridge.
5. Continuously revisit the EV business case. As Ford is now doing — pivoting to hybrids, partnering for small EVs — but ideally, some of that re-thinking should happen before billions are locked in.

Explore AI Risk Management courses offered by  Smart Online Course in association with RMAI and build your expertise in preventing and handling AI Deepfake Banking Scams.

Related Course: Online Certificate in Supply Chain Risk Management