Quiver Quantitative

Risk Factors Dashboard

Once a year, publicly traded companies issue a comprehensive report of their business, called a 10-K. A component mandated in the 10-K is the ‘Risk Factors’ section, where companies disclose any major potential risks that they may face. This dashboard highlights all major changes and additions in new 10K reports, allowing investors to quickly identify new potential risks and opportunities.

View risk factors by ticker

Search filings by term

Risk Factors - F

-New additions in green
-Changes in blue
-Hover to see similar sentence in last filing

Item 1A. Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks associated with a shortage of components or raw materials, supplier disruptions, and inflationary pressures, the “Key Trends and Economic Factors Affecting Ford and the Automotive Industry” section of Item 7 for a discussion of commodity and energy price changes, and “Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk” (“Item 7A”) for a discussion of commodity price risks.

Intellectual Property. We own or hold licenses to use numerous patents, trade secrets, copyrights, and trademarks on a global basis. We expect to continue building this portfolio as we actively pursue innovation in every part of our business. We also own numerous trademarks and service marks that contribute to the identity and recognition of our Company and its products and services globally. While our intellectual property rights in the aggregate are important to the operation of each of our businesses, we do not believe that our business would be materially affected by the expiration of any particular intellectual property right or termination of any particular intellectual property agreement.

Warranty Coverage, Field Service Actions, and Customer Satisfaction Actions. We provide warranties on vehicles we sell. Warranties are offered for specific periods of time and/or mileage and vary depending upon the type of product and the geographic location of its sale. Pursuant to these warranties, we will repair, replace, or adjust parts on a vehicle that are defective in factory-supplied materials or workmanship during the specified warranty period. In addition to the costs associated with this warranty coverage provided on our vehicles, we also incur costs as a result of field service actions (i.e., safety recalls, emission recalls, and other product campaigns) and for customer satisfaction actions. Software updates are increasingly a component of vehicle service and may be performed during warranty coverage repairs, through field service actions, or through over-the-air updates.

For additional information regarding warranty and related costs, see “Critical Accounting Estimates” in Item 7 and Note 24 of the Notes to the Financial Statements.

Wholesales

Wholesales consist primarily of vehicles sold to dealerships. For the majority of such sales, we recognize revenue when we ship the vehicles to our dealerships from our manufacturing facilities. See Item 7 for additional discussion of revenue recognition practices. Wholesales in certain key markets during the past three years were as follows:

__________

(a)Wholesale unit volumes include sales of medium and heavy trucks. Wholesale unit volumes also include all Ford and Lincoln badged units (whether produced by Ford or by an unconsolidated affiliate) that are sold to dealerships or others, units manufactured by Ford that are sold to other manufacturers, units distributed by Ford for other manufacturers, local brand units produced by our unconsolidated Chinese joint venture Jiangling Motors Corporation, Ltd. (“JMC”) that are sold to dealerships or others, and Ford badged vehicles produced in Taiwan by Lio Ho Group. Vehicles sold to daily rental car companies that are subject to a guaranteed repurchase option (i.e., rental repurchase), as well as other sales of finished vehicles for which the recognition of revenue is deferred (e.g., consignments), also are included in wholesale unit volumes. Revenue from certain vehicles in wholesale unit volumes (specifically, Ford badged vehicles produced and distributed by our unconsolidated affiliates, as well as JMC brand vehicles) are not included in our revenue.

(b)China includes Taiwan.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

Sales, Industry Volume, and Market Share

Sales, industry volume, and market share in certain key markets during the past three years were as follows:

__________

(a)Represents primarily sales by dealers, sales to the government, and leases to Ford management, and is based, in part, on estimated vehicle registrations; includes medium and heavy trucks.

(b)Industry volume is an internal estimate based on publicly available data collected from various government, private, and public sources around the globe; includes medium and heavy trucks.

(c)Market share represents reported retail sales of our brands as a percent of total industry volume in the relevant market or region.

(d)China includes Taiwan; China market share includes Ford and Lincoln brand and JMC brand vehicles produced and sold by our unconsolidated affiliates.

U.S. Sales by Type

The following table shows U.S. sales volume and U.S. wholesales (consisting primarily of vehicles sold to dealerships) segregated by electric, hybrid, and internal combustion vehicles. U.S. sales volume represents primarily sales by dealers, sales to the government, and leases to Ford management, and is based, in part, on estimated vehicle registrations and includes medium and heavy trucks.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

FORD CREDIT SEGMENT

The Ford Credit segment is comprised of the Ford Credit business on a consolidated basis, which is primarily vehicle-related financing and leasing activities.

Ford Credit offers a wide variety of automotive financing products to and through automotive dealers throughout the world. The predominant share of Ford Credit’s business consists of financing our vehicles and supporting our dealers. Ford Credit earns its revenue primarily from payments made under retail installment sale and finance lease (retail financing) and operating lease contracts that it originates and purchases; interest rate supplements and other support payments from us and our affiliates; and payments made under dealer financing programs.

As a result of these financing activities, Ford Credit has a large portfolio of finance receivables and operating leases which it classifies into two portfolios — “consumer” and “non-consumer.” Finance receivables and operating leases in the consumer portfolio include products offered to individuals and businesses that finance the acquisition of our vehicles from dealers for personal and commercial use. Retail financing includes retail installment sale contracts for new and used vehicles and finance leases (comprised of sales-type and direct financing leases) for new vehicles to retail and commercial customers, including leasing companies, government entities, daily rental companies, and fleet customers. Finance receivables in the non-consumer portfolio include products offered to automotive dealers. Ford Credit makes wholesale loans to dealers to finance the purchase of vehicle inventory, also known as floorplan financing, as well as loans to dealers to finance working capital and improvements to dealership facilities, finance the purchase of dealership real estate, and finance other dealer vehicle programs. Ford Credit also purchases receivables generated by us and our affiliates, primarily related to the sale of parts and accessories to dealers and certain used vehicles from daily rental fleet companies. Ford Credit also provides financing to us for vehicles that we lease to our employees.

The majority of Ford Credit’s business is in the United States and Canada. Outside of the United States, Europe is Ford Credit’s largest operation. Ford Credit’s European operations are managed primarily through its United Kingdom-based subsidiary, FCE Bank plc (“FCE”), and a Germany-based subsidiary, Ford Bank GmbH (“Ford Bank”). Within Europe, Ford Credit’s largest markets are the United Kingdom and Germany.

See Item 7 and Notes 10 and 12 of the Notes to the Financial Statements for a detailed discussion of Ford Credit’s receivables, credit losses, allowance for credit losses, loss-to-receivables ratios, funding sources, and funding strategies. See Item 7A for a discussion of how Ford Credit manages its financial market risks.

We routinely sponsor special retail financing and lease incentives to dealers’ customers who choose to finance or lease our vehicles from Ford Credit. In order to compensate Ford Credit for the lower interest or lease payments offered to the retail customer, we pay the discounted value of the incentive directly to Ford Credit when it originates the retail finance or lease contract with the dealer’s customer. These programs increase Ford Credit’s financing volume and share. See Note 2 of the Notes to the Financial Statements for information about our accounting for these programs.

We have a Third Amended and Restated Relationship Agreement with Ford Credit, pursuant to which, if Ford Credit’s financial statement leverage for a calendar quarter were to be higher than 12.5:1 (as reported in its most recent periodic report), Ford Credit could require us to make or cause to be made a capital contribution to it in an amount sufficient to have caused such financial statement leverage to have been 12.5:1. No capital contributions have been made pursuant to this agreement. In a separate agreement with FCE, Ford Credit has agreed to maintain FCE’s net worth in excess of $500 million. No payments have been made pursuant to that agreement.

Ford Credit files periodic reports with the SEC that contain additional information regarding Ford Credit. The reports are available through Ford Credit’s website located at www.ford.com/finance/investor-center and can also be found on the SEC’s website located at www.sec.gov.

The foregoing information regarding Ford Credit’s website and its content is for convenience only and not deemed to be incorporated by reference into this Report nor filed with the SEC.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

CORPORATE OTHER

Corporate Other primarily includes corporate governance expenses, past service pension and other postretirement employee benefits (“OPEB”) income and expense, interest income (excluding Ford Credit interest income and interest earned on our extended service contract portfolio) and gains and losses from our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities, and foreign exchange derivatives gains and losses associated with intercompany lending. Corporate governance expenses are primarily administrative, delivering benefit on behalf of the global enterprise, that are not allocated to operating segments. These include expenses related to setting and directing global policy, providing oversight and stewardship, and promoting the Company’s interests. Corporate Other assets include: cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, tax related assets, defined benefit pension plan net assets, and other assets managed centrally.

INTEREST ON DEBT

Interest on Debt consists of interest expense on Company debt excluding Ford Credit.

GOVERNMENTAL STANDARDS

Many governmental standards and regulations relating to safety, fuel economy, air pollution emissions control, noise control, vehicle and component recycling, substances of concern, vehicle damage, and theft prevention are applicable to new motor vehicles, engines, and equipment. In addition, manufacturing and other automotive assembly facilities are subject to stringent standards regulating air emissions, water discharges, and the handling and disposal of hazardous substances. The most significant of the standards and regulations affecting us are discussed below:

U.S. Vehicle Emissions Standards and Fuel Economy

Federal and California Emissions Standards. Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) have generally maintained motor vehicle tailpipe and evaporative emissions standards that become increasingly stringent over time. In addition to regulating emissions of certain pollutants—known as “criteria pollutants”—for which EPA has adopted ambient health-based standards (e.g.g., carbon dioxide). EPA and CARB also require: that vehicles and engines are durable enough to meet emissions standards for prescribed amounts of time; that vehicles and engines be equipped with on-board diagnostic (“OBD”) systems that monitor emissions-related systems and components; and that manufacturers offer and honor warranties on certain emissions-related components. Vehicles and engines must be certified by EPA prior to sale in the United States and by CARB prior to sale in California and those states that have adopted California’s standards.

Manufacturers generally demonstrate compliance with emissions standards on a fleet-wide, production-volume-weighted basis, and over time through a system based on credits. Manufacturers may generate credits insofar as their products emit less than the emissions standards, and may incur and carry credit deficits for a limited amount of time insofar as their products emit more than the emissions standards. Under certain circumstances, manufacturers may sell credits to other manufacturers, who may then use the purchased credits to cure a deficit. If a manufacturer fails to comply with applicable emissions standards, even after considering its ability to carry deficits and use credits, then EPA and CARB may take various actions, including withholding approvals to sell new vehicles and engines and/or enforcement actions for civil penalties and injunctive relief.

As of December 31, 2025, EPA has promulgated emissions standards through the 2032 model year. In 2025, EPA proposed to stop regulating GHGs for all model years, and publicly announced an intention to revisit existing emissions standards for criteria pollutants. However, in 2025, federal legislation—which is currently subject to legal challenge—eliminated the authority of California and other states to implement and enforce most of their emissions standards (and zero-emission vehicles (“ZEV”) sales requirements, which are discussed below). These EPA and CARB standards also include updates to durability, warranty, and OBD requirements.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

Approximately seventeen states (referenced as “opt-in” states) have adopted CARB’s light-duty emissions standards, and nine opt-in states have adopted California’s heavy-duty emissions standards.

California ZEV Requirements. California regulations state that manufacturers must produce and deliver for sale ZEVs, which include EVs. This is in addition to the emissions standards outlined above. In 2025, federal legislation—which is currently subject to legal challenge—eliminated the authority of California and other states to implement and enforce these ZEV sales requirements. California’s regulations, which use a system based on credits (whether generated by us or purchased from another manufacturer) that can be banked and carried forward, require annual percentage increases in the production and sale of ZEVs. For light-duty vehicles, in the 2025 model year, CARB regulations required that approximately 22% of a manufacturer’s California light-duty vehicle sales volume be ZEVs. In the 2026 model year, this grows to 35%, and the requirements continue to grow each year, rising to 100% by the 2035 model year. For heavy-duty vehicles, CARB regulations likewise required year-over-year increases in the percentage of a manufacturer’s California sales volume that must be ZEVs, with current percentages in the single digits growing to well over 50% by 2035.

Approximately sixteen opt-in states have adopted California’s ZEV requirements for light-duty vehicles, and 10 opt-in states have adopted California’s ZEV requirements for heavy-duty vehicles.

California Waivers of Clean Air Act Preemption.

For decades, California has requested, and EPA has granted, waivers to allow California to implement emissions standards (and, likewise, allow opt-in states to implement those same standards within their borders). In some cases, EPA withheld approval of waivers. These actions reflect policy differences between subsequent presidential administrations and remain the subject of ongoing legal challenges. Such rescissions and reinstatements, and pending and future legal challenges concerning California’s authority, create significant uncertainty for regulated manufacturers about the need to comply with California and opt-in state requirements.

Federal Fuel Economy Requirements. For CAFE standards, NHTSA establishes separate standards applicable to three subsets of manufacturers’ products: domestic passenger cars, imported passenger cars, and light-duty trucks. NHTSA has promulgated fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles through the 2031 model year, and for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans through the 2035 model year. In 2025, NHTSA proposed to significantly relax the stringency of the fuel economy standards for model year 2022 through 2031 light-duty vehicles. Manufacturers are subject to pre-determined civil penalties if they fail to meet fuel economy standards in any model year, after taking into account all available credits for the preceding five model years and expected credits for the three succeeding model years. In 2025, federal legislation effectively eliminated civil penalties under the light-duty vehicle CAFE program by setting the civil penalty amount at $0.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

Alignment and Misalignment of Standards. Because the vast majority of GHGs emitted by a vehicle are the result of fuel combustion, GHG emissions correspond closely with fuel economy. Before approximately the 2020 model year, NHTSA and EPA aligned their standards, and California agreed that compliance with the federal program would satisfy compliance with its own GHG requirements, thereby avoiding a patchwork of federal and state standards. Since approximately the 2021 model year, EPA and NHTSA have independently promulgated GHG and fuel economy standards, and while they generally avoided material inconsistencies between the standards, they nonetheless created complexity and redundancy for manufacturers that must meet both sets of standards. Recent proposals from EPA and NHTSA and federal legislation passed in 2025 may alleviate the misalignment, but these proposals and new legislation are subject to legal challenge.

Implications for Ford. The requirements for light-duty vehicles outlined above apply to most cars, sport utility vehicles, and light-duty pickup trucks that Ford sells in the United States. The requirements for heavy-duty vehicles and engines outlined above apply to most heavy-duty pickup trucks, vans, cab-chassis products, and vocational vehicles that Ford sells in the United States. Ford is subject to each separate regulatory regime, and in general, this means separate compliance measures for each regulator and for each regulated pollutant and performance standard. EPA, NHTSA, and CARB have requirements that govern the same aspects of the same products at the same time, as outlined above. Different standards pose additional compliance burdens, including complexity and costs, and these burdens are heightened when these various requirements are misaligned or change, e.g., when there is a change in administration or as a result of a legal challenge.

Compliance with emissions standards, ZEV requirements, fuel economy standards, OBD requirements, emissions warranty requirements, and related regulations can be challenging and can drive increased product development costs, production costs, higher retail prices, warranty costs, and vehicle recalls. Compliance depends in part on the widespread availability of high-quality and consistent automotive fuels that internal combustion vehicles are designed to use. This is directly required by California’s ZEV requirements, insofar as those requirements are not preempted by the 2025 federal legislation described above, but is also required to comply with the emissions and fuel economy standards promulgated in recent years, which are not achievable solely through sales of internal combustion engines with today’s technology. There are factors limiting faster and future growth of EV sales, including: supportive public policy; consumer acceptance and understanding of EVs; upfront costs; technology cost and readiness; battery raw material availability and cost; and the availability of adequate infrastructure to support vehicle charging.

Stringent requirements that are misaligned with market conditions could force Ford to take various product-led actions that could have substantial adverse effects on its sales volumes and operations. Such actions could include: restricting offerings of certain products and popular options; taking actions to increase sales of Ford’s lowest-emitting and most fuel-efficient vehicles; and curtailing the production and sale of certain internal combustion vehicles.

To some extent, Ford can manage and is managing these risks in the United States and elsewhere by purchasing emissions credits from other vehicle manufacturers when the cost of those credits is less than the financial impact of the product-led actions listed above. Such credits are available only from other manufacturers and only to the extent those manufacturers exceed compliance requirements. Accordingly, we have made a strategic decision to enter into agreements to purchase regulatory compliance credits for current and future model years in various regions. Our obligations under these agreements are dependent on the continued existence of an underlying regulatory compliance requirement in the applicable jurisdiction. For example, in 2025, Ford terminated some of its obligations to purchase credits as a result of the reduction in stringency of, or elimination of, compliance requirements. As of December 31, 2025, our outstanding purchase obligations under our compliance credit purchase agreements totaled about $1.6 billion. During 2025, we recorded about $700 million of expense for our estimated utilization of regulatory compliance credits related to current compliance period volumes (e.g., model year, calendar year), which was allocated to Ford Blue and Ford Pro results.

Such changes can include reinstatements and rescissions of Clean Air Act waivers for California, court decisions that change applicable regulatory requirements, and significant changes to the stringency of federal requirements with each subsequent administration.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

Global Vehicle Emissions Standards and Fuel Economy

European Emissions Standards. EU and U.K. regulations, directives, and related legislation limit the amount of regulated pollutants that may be emitted by new motor vehicles and engines sold in the European Union and the United Kingdom. Regulatory stringency has increased significantly with the application of Stage VI emission standards (first introduced in 2014) and the implementation of a laboratory test cycle for CO2 and emissions and the introduction of on-road emission testing using portable emission analyzers (Real Driving Emission or “RDE”). These on-road emission tests are in addition to the laboratory-based tests (first introduced in 2017). The divergence between the regulatory limit that is tested in laboratory conditions and the allowed values measured in RDE tests will ultimately be reduced to zero as the regulatory demands increase. In addition, new requirements for tailpipe and non-tailpipe emissions will be included in the upcoming Euro 7 regulation and will be phased in beginning in November 2026 for new vehicle types and for all vehicles in November 2027. The costs associated with complying with all of these requirements are significant, and following the EU Commission’s indication of its intent to accelerate emissions rules in its road map publication “EU Green Deal” as well as the EU sustainable mobility action plan, these challenges will continue in European markets, including the United Kingdom. In addition, the Whole Vehicle Type Approval (“WVTA”) regulation has been updated to increase the stringency of in-market surveillance. Moreover, following the U.K.

There continues to be an increasing trend of city access restrictions for internal combustion engine powered vehicles. These access rules are developed by individual cities based on their specific concerns, resulting in rapid deployment of access rules that differ greatly among cities. The speed of implementation of access rules may directly influence customer vehicle residual values and choice of next purchase. In an effort to support the Paris Accord, some countries are adopting yearly increases in CO2 taxes, where such a system is in place, and publishing dates by when internal combustion powered vehicles may no longer be registered, e.g., Netherlands in 2030.

Other National Emissions Control Requirements. Many countries, in an effort to address air quality and climate change concerns, have adopted previous versions of European or United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (“UN-ECE”) mobile source emission regulations. Some countries have adopted more advanced regulations based on the most recent version of European or U.S. regulations. For example, the China Stage VI light-duty vehicle emission standards, based on European Stage VI emission standards for light-duty vehicles, U.S. evaporative and refueling emissions standards, and CARB OBD II requirements, incorporate two levels of stringency for tailpipe emissions. Under the level one (VI(a)) standard, the emissions limits are comparable to the EU Stage VI limits, except for carbon monoxide, which is 30% lower than the EU Stage VI limit. The more stringent level two (VI(b)) standard’s emissions limits, which are currently in place nationwide in China, are approximately 30-50% lower than the EU Stage VI limits, depending on the pollutants. China Stage VII emission standards are in development, a draft of which is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2026, while the official standard is expected to be published at the end of 2026 and implemented in January 2029. The Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicles Test Cycle remains the testing standard, some pollutant standards remain the same and other pollutants will become newly regulated, and fuel evaporation and OBD monitoring requirements will refer to relevant U.S. emission standards. Mexico and most countries in Central America, the Caribbean, and South America continue to evolve and implement more stringent requirements accepting Europe and U.S. regulations, except Brazil, which has a unique local process called PROCONVE based on U.S. regulations for light-duty vehicles, including RDE-unique requirements with targets starting in 2025, and European regulations for heavy-duty vehicles. Other countries across Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Australasia (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, UAE) have introduced or expect to introduce regulations based on EU Stage VI standards in the near term. Canadian criteria emissions regulations are largely aligned with U.S. requirements, and Canada accepts U.S. EPA certifications of vehicles and engines prior to their sale or importation into Canada.

Elsewhere, there is a mix of regulations and processes based on U.S. and EU standards. Not all countries have adopted appropriate fuel quality standards to accompany the stringent emission standards adopted. This could lead to compliance problems, particularly if OBD or in-use surveillance requirements are implemented.

Global Developments. Vehicle emissions regulators continue to focus on the use of “defeat devices.” Defeat devices are elements of design (typically embedded in software) that improperly cause the emission control system to function less effectively during normal on-road driving than during an official laboratory emissions test, without justification. They are prohibited by law in many jurisdictions, and we do not use defeat devices in our vehicles.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

Regulators around the world continue to scrutinize automakers’ emission testing, which has led to a number of defeat device settlements by various manufacturers. EPA is carrying out additional non-standard tests as part of its vehicle certification program. CARB has also been conducting extensive non-standard emission tests, which in some cases have resulted in certification delays for diesel vehicles. In the past, several European countries have conducted non-standard emission tests and published the results, and, in some cases, this supplemental testing has triggered investigations of manufacturers for possible defeat devices. Testing is expected to continue on an ongoing basis, with new testing methods continually under development. In addition, plaintiffs’ attorneys are pursuing consumer class action lawsuits based on alleged excessive emissions from cars and trucks, which could, in turn, prompt further investigations by regulators.

European GHG Requirements. The European Union regulates passenger car and light commercial vehicle CO2 emissions using sliding scales with different CO2 targets for each manufacturer based on the respective average vehicle weight for its fleet of vehicles first registered in a calendar year, with separate targets for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. A penalty system applies to manufacturers failing to meet the individual CO2 targets. Pooling agreements between manufacturers to utilize credits are possible under certain conditions, and Ford has entered into such pooling agreements in order to comply with fuel economy regulations without paying a penalty and to enable other manufacturers to benefit from our positive CO2 performance. For “multi-stage vehicles” (e.g., Ford’s Transit chassis cabs), the base manufacturer (e.g., Ford) is fully responsible for the CO2 performance of the final up-fitted vehicles. The initial target levels get significantly more stringent every five years (2025, 2030, and 2035), after which all new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles must be zero emission, requiring significant investments in alternative propulsion technologies and extensive fleet management to enable low CO2 emissions for our fleet. EU heavy-duty CO2 regulations are being finalized and will also limit CO2 fleet performance, with slightly different requirements. In December 2025, the EU Commission proposed revised CO2 emission standards for cars and vans through 2035 and decarbonizing corporate fleets with binding national targets for zero- and low-emission vehicles. Both proposals are expected to be adopted by the fourth quarter of 2026.

The United Kingdom has introduced the Vehicle Emission Trading Schemes (“VETS”), which is applicable to manufacturers and establishes ZEV mandates of 80% for cars and 70% for light commercial vehicles by 2030, with a ban on ICE passenger vehicles beginning in 2030 and light commercial vehicles beginning in 2035.

The EU Commission has introduced mandatory requirements for national authorities to conduct in-service verification testing on vehicles to measure their actual CO2 emissions in the field. It is also investigating the introduction of Real Driving CO2 and Life Cycle Assessment elements, and heavy-duty vehicles are addressed in separate regulations with analogous requirements and challenges. As discussed above, the EU Commission has announced a “Green Deal” with more stringent requirements for CO2 emissions (including stricter CO2 fleet regulations) and other regulated emissions and include recycling and substance restrictions. The EU Commission targets net climate neutrality by 2050 and an ambitious 2030 interim target (a 55% CO2 reduction across all industries compared to 1990). In December 2025, the EU Commission set a legally-binding target of 90% reduction in net GHG emissions for 2040, with the possibility to use high-quality international credits toward the 2040 target, starting in 2036. This amount can be up to 5% of 1990 EU net GHG emissions, corresponding to a domestic reduction of net GHG emissions by 85% compared to 1990 levels by 2040.

Ford also faces the risk of additional compliance-related costs for both passenger cars and light commercial vehicles in all European markets due to, for example, unexpected market fluctuations and shorter lead times impacting average fleet performance.

The United Nations developed a technical regulation for passenger car emissions and CO2. This world light-duty test procedure (“WLTP”) is focused primarily on better aligning laboratory CO2 and fuel consumption figures with customer-reported figures. The introduction of WLTP in Europe started in September 2017 and requires updates to CO2 labeling, thereby impacting taxes in countries with a CO2 tax scheme as well as CO2 fleet regulations for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. Costs associated with new or incremental testing for WLTP are significant.

Some European countries have implemented or are considering other initiatives for reducing CO2 vehicle emissions, including fiscal measures and CO2 labeling to address country specific targets associated with the Paris Accord. For example, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands, among others, have introduced taxation based on CO2 emissions. The EU CO2 requirements have led to further measures, and we expect that trend to continue. In addition, delayed vehicle launches and supply shortages, as well as an insufficient charging infrastructure and lower demand for ZEV and low CO2 emission vehicles as certain EV incentives are reduced or eliminated or for other reasons, can trigger compliance risks in all European markets.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

European regulators are also starting to look beyond tailpipe CO2 emissions with new requirements for battery EVs and life cycle assessments. Maximum carbon footprint thresholds are expected to be set in 2028. The passage of secondary legislation under the EU Battery Regulation, referred to as the Battery Carbon Footprint Delegated Act, has faced significant delays due to technical issues relating to carbon footprint methodology. Compliance with regulations like these will require manufacturers to navigate complex data collection, calculation, and reporting processes.

Although these rules originate in European jurisdictions, they often apply to global corporations across markets and can require costly adjustments to corporate processes, policies, and strategies. This trend is also emerging beyond Europe, with country-specific sustainability reporting requirements in place in Australia and others forthcoming. For example, the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and Australia’s Sustainability Reporting Standard both require expanded sustainability-related disclosures, including how companies manage climate risks and align their strategies with global climate goals. Noncompliance can result in monetary penalties and reputational harm.

In 2023, the EU adopted the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (“CBAM”), which will subject certain imported materials (such as iron, steel, and aluminum) to a carbon levy linked to the carbon price payable on domestic goods under the European Trading Scheme. A similar CBAM is expected to be introduced in the United Kingdom in 2027.

Other National GHG and Fuel Economy Requirements. The Canadian federal government regulates vehicle GHG emissions under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. A majority of the U.S. EPA light-duty vehicle standards are automatically adopted in Canada by reference to the United States Code of Federal Regulations, with a few standalone administrative elements. Similarly, heavy-duty vehicle and engine GHG emissions regulations in Canada also incorporate U.S. EPA rules by reference; however, while currently aligned, model year emission targets are standalone in Canada’s heavy-duty vehicle and engine regulations and, therefore, are not automatically updated with any updates to U.S. law. Due to the anticipated changes to U.S. EPA GHG standards, the Canadian federal government will end its longstanding regulatory alignment with the United States on GHG requirements, and in February 2026, Canada announced its intention to introduce GHG emission standards for light-duty vehicles to achieve a goal of 75% EV sales by 2035 and 90% by 2040. With such GHG standards, Canada also announced it will repeal the light-duty ZEV sales requirements that would have commenced in the 2027 model year under the Electric Vehicle Availability Standard.

Simultaneously, Quebec and British Columbia are reviewing their provincial regulations, which currently mandate 100% ZEV sales by 2035. While both provinces began developing heavy-duty ZEV mandates, there were no new developments in 2025. Additionally, Quebec announced plans in September 2025 to repeal its regulation banning the sale of light-duty internal combustion engine vehicles as of 2035. Ultimately, compliance with these shifting ZEV and emissions requirements depends heavily on market conditions that drive consumer demand for EVs, including technology readiness, purchase incentives, affordability, and the availability and reliability of a charging infrastructure. The prospect of maintaining stringent Canada-specific federal GHG requirements and provincial ZEV sales mandates presents significant challenges.

Regional governments across the globe have adopted or are considering implementing, and in some cases introducing, emissions regulations that align with CAFE standards. For example, China’s Corporate Average Fuel Consumption and New Energy Vehicle (“NEV”) Credits Administrative Rules contain fuel consumption requirements as well as credit mandates for NEV passenger vehicles, i.e. The fuel consumption requirement, which is based on the WLTP, uses a weight-based approach to establish targets, with year-over-year target reductions. The credit mandates require OEMs to generate a specific amount of NEV credits each year based on a percentage of the OEM’s annual ICE vehicle production or import volume, with the percentage increasing year over year. China also imposes a national standard governing fuel consumption limits for passenger vehicles that are produced and to be sold domestically in China. An updated version of this national standard, which will impose more stringent fuel consumption limits, was implemented in January 2026. China is developing a new mandatory national standard to impose limits on fuel consumption and electric energy consumption by PHEVs, detailed proposals of which are expected to be available in the second quarter of 2026. China also released a new mandatory national standard to regulate the limits of electric energy consumption by battery EVs that was implemented in January 2026.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

Australia implemented a unique fleet CO2 standard in 2025 for light-duty and mid-size cars, SUVs, pickups, and vans, which is expected to remain in effect until 2029. Governmental reviews of national standards in Australia, New Zealand, and Saudi Arabia are expected to occur in 2026.

South American countries are implementing stricter standards for vehicle energy efficiency and sustainability as well. In addition to setting stricter fuel economy targets starting in 2027, MOVER mandates new requirements, applicable to all commercial vehicles, for recyclability and reporting for each vehicle’s carbon footprint over its full lifecycle.

Risk Factors under “Ford may need to substantially modify its product plans and facilities to comply with safety, emissions, fuel economy, autonomous driving technology, environmental, and other regulations,” in addition to the rates of EV growth, production disruptions, stop ships, supply chain limitations, lower-than-planned market acceptance of our vehicles, and/or other circumstances may cause us to modify product plans or, in some cases, purchase credits in order to comply with emissions standards, fuel economy standards, or ZEV requirements.

Vehicle Safety

U.S. Requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the “Safety Act”) regulates vehicles and vehicle equipment in two primary ways. First, the Safety Act prohibits the sale in the United States of any new vehicle or equipment that does not conform to applicable vehicle safety standards established by NHTSA. Meeting or exceeding many safety standards is costly and has continued to evolve as global compliance requirements and public domain (e.g., New Car Assessment Programs (“NCAPs”), Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (“IIHS”), and the China Insurance Auto Safety Index) ratings and assessments continue to evolve, are increasing in demands, and lack harmonization globally. As we expand our business priorities to include autonomous vehicle technologies and broader mobility products and services, our financial exposure has increased. Autonomous vehicle and driver assist technologies continue to be scrutinized by the government, and actual or perceived failures or misuse of these technologies and features have led to government investigations and inquiries, including of Ford, which has responded to information requests from NHTSA and the National Transportation Safety Board about our hands-free highway driving system, BlueCruise. Ford and other OEMs are required to report to NHTSA any crashes that meet NHTSA-defined criteria and occur when certain advanced driver assistance system features are in use. Second, the Safety Act requires that defects related to motor vehicle safety be remedied through safety recall campaigns. A manufacturer is obligated to recall vehicles if it or NHTSA determines the vehicles contain a non-compliance or a defect resulting in an unreasonable risk to safety. Should we or NHTSA determine that either a safety defect or noncompliance issue exists with respect to any of our vehicles, the cost of such recall campaigns could be substantial. Ford is also subject to a consent order we entered into with NHTSA in 2024, pursuant to which we have retained an independent third party selected by NHTSA to assess the Company’s adherence to the consent order and Safety Act over the term of the consent order and to report on Ford’s progress to NHTSA.

European Requirements. The EU has established vehicle safety standards and regulations and is likely to adopt additional or more stringent requirements in the future, especially in the areas of access to in-vehicle data, artificial intelligence, and autonomous vehicle technologies.

The European General Safety Regulation (“GSR”) introduced UN-ECE regulations, which are required for the European Type Approval process. The GSR includes the mandatory introduction of multiple active and passive safety features, including cybersecurity requirements for all registrations, which began in 2024. EU regulators are focusing on active safety features, such as lane departure warning systems, electronic stability control, and automatic brake assist. 100 establishing safety requirements for EVs and mandating certain testing of electrical powertrains. Furthermore, mobile network providers in certain EU Member States have begun shutting down their 2G and 3G networks, which form the basis for e-Call system functionality in existing vehicles. The e-Call systems in existing vehicles may need to be updated as these systems are phased out. It is also possible that the EU may mandate Member States to maintain these networks to allow for the continued functionality of existing e-Call systems.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

Other National Requirements. Globally, governments generally have been adopting UN-ECE based regulations with minor variations to address local concerns. Any difference between North American and UN-ECE based regulations can add complexity and costs to the development of global platform vehicles, and we continue to support efforts to harmonize regulations to reduce vehicle design complexity while providing a common level of safety performance; we are seeking new opportunities in bilateral negotiations that can potentially contribute to this goal.

Brazil has set mandatory fleet safety targets and penalties are applied if these levels are not maintained, while a tax reduction may be available for over-performance. In Canada, regulatory requirements are mostly aligned with U.S. regulations; however, under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Minister of Transport has broad powers to order manufacturers to submit a notice of defect or non-compliance when the Minister considers it to be in the interest of safety. In 2021, Canada started preliminary consultations on several new proposed regulations. In China, new standards for AECS (Accident Emergency Call System) related to electronic architecture and devices are expected to take effect in July 2027. Additionally, mandatory national standards for intelligent connected vehicles governing vehicle cybersecurity, software updates, and autonomous driving data recording systems are currently under development in China and will take effect in July 2026. New mandatory national standards with an accident-driven focus, including safety requirements for driver assistance systems, are under development and are expected to take effect in January 2027. Similarly, in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, legislators are focusing on regulating driver assistance and autonomous driving technologies, as well as cyber and data security for connected vehicles. In Malaysia and South Korea, mandatory e-Call requirements are being drafted. E-Call is mandatory in the UAE for new vehicles, and, following an update to its next generation e-Call regulations, will be required in Saudi Arabia beginning with the 2027 model year. The next generation of e-Call regulations are expected to be expanded across the GCC region in the near future with efforts to draft a regional e-Call regulation commenced in 2025.

New Car Assessment Programs. Organizations around the world rate and compare motor vehicles in NCAPs to provide consumers and businesses with additional information about the safety of new vehicles. NCAPs use crash tests and other evaluations that are different and often more stringent than what is required by applicable regulations. Vehicle safety is rated using stars, with five stars awarded for the highest safety rating and one for the lowest. Achieving high NCAP ratings, which may vary by country or region, can add complexity and cost to vehicles. Similarly, environmental rating systems exist in various regions, e.g., Green NCAP in Europe. In China, updated NCAP protocols were implemented in 2024, requiring more stringent assessment methods for both passive and active safety technologies and expanding the scope of such assessments to pick-up trucks and commercial vans. In Southeast Asia and Latin America, an updated NCAP test and rating protocol is similarly forecast to be effective beginning in 2026 and is expected to put greater emphasis on assessment of driver assistance technologies. In Australia and New Zealand, the Australasian NCAP published protocols that are expected to be effective from 2026 to 2028 and harmonize with other protocols adopted in the EU, but with distinct local e-Call and child restraint specifications. These protocols impose additional requirements relating to testing, evaluation, and mandatory safety features, and compliance with them (or any subsequent updates to them) may be costly.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

HUMAN CAPITAL RESOURCES

People Strategy and Governance

We strive to create an employee experience that enables an inclusive environment of excellence, focus, and collaboration among team members, allowing us to deliver short- and long-term business success. Ford maintains an Executive People Forum consisting of the CEO and top leadership team that meets monthly with a specific focus on people and organizational topics that will enable and accelerate delivery of our Ford+ plan. Key topic areas include Compensation & Retention; Organization Design; Talent Planning & Development; and Inclusion and Culture.

Our Board of Directors and Board committees provide important oversight on human capital matters, including items discussed at the Executive People Forum. The Compensation, Talent and Culture Committee maintains responsibility to review, discuss, and set strategic direction for various people-related business strategies, including: compensation and benefit programs, leadership succession planning, inclusive culture, and talent development programs. The Sustainability, Innovation and Policy Committee is responsible for discussing and advising management on maintaining and improving sustainability strategies, the implementation of which creates value consistent with the long-term preservation and enhancement of shareholder value and social wellbeing, including human rights, working conditions, and responsible sourcing. Collective recommendations to the Board and its committees are an important part of how we proactively manage our human capital and create an employee experience that allows employees and our organization to thrive.

Employee Health and Safety

Nothing is more important than the health, safety, and wellbeing of our employees, and we consistently strive to achieve world-class levels of safety through the application of sound policies and best practices. We maintain a robust safety culture designed to reduce workplace injuries, supported by effective communication, reporting, and external benchmarking.

We verify compliance with regulatory requirements as well as our internal safety standards. To prevent recurrence of workplace injuries, regular updates are provided to Company management on key safety issues, including safety key performance indicators, significant incidents, and high potential near misses. As a Company, we participate in multi-industry benchmarking groups, within and outside the automotive sector, to share safety best practices and collaborate on common health and safety concerns.

In 2025, there were zero employee fatality incidents globally. Proactive initiatives and leading safety metrics have been implemented as we strive to prevent workplace injuries and reduce risk to our employees and contractors.

Building a Diverse and Inclusive Workplace

At Ford, we are committed to supporting and sustaining a respectful, inclusive, and safe workplace for all employees. We believe this empowers every person to do their best work and ultimately achieve the Ford+ plan. We actively recruit and hire the best talent and are proud that our workforce is made up of people with different backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences so we can deliver the best products and services for our customers around the world.

Ford offers 10 global Employee Resource Groups (“ERGs”) that represent various dimensions of our employee population, including race, ethnicity, gender, religion, LGBTQ+, disability, veterans, and generation with chapters throughout the world.

We work to strengthen collaboration across the organization by embedding inclusion in the leadership behaviors that support the Ford operating system. We also leverage the benefit of diversity by listening to the voices of our employees and stakeholders, which strengthens our workplace, systems, and offerings and ultimately drives value for the business.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

Talent Attraction, Growth, and Capability Assessment

Talent attraction at Ford is evolving with the transformation of our business. We are sourcing and attracting candidates from multiple industries and regions of the world. We continue to recruit talent from traditional industries, such as manufacturing and consulting, and have been successful in attracting talent from non-traditional industries, specifically the technology industry.

From a capability perspective, we leverage best practices in assessments and talent management to strengthen our current capabilities and future pipeline while reinforcing a culture of excellence, focus, and collaboration. The performance management process is reviewed regularly to ensure we set clear expectations, measure individual performance, and reward appropriately. Our process includes a semi-annual review of each individual’s performance to objectives and demonstration of expected behaviors of excellence, focus, and collaboration.

Our leadership strategy equips our leaders with the capabilities to deliver business results and grow the talent needed to meet our organizational needs.

Competitive Benefit Programs

We provide employees with a competitive, comprehensive, and flexible set of benefits and resources to support their financial, social, mental/emotional, physical, and professional health. Our comprehensive global benefits programs are designed to attract and retain top talent worldwide. These programs include a wide range of resources and solutions to educate, empower, and support individual and organizational goals while being tailored to local regulations and employee needs across our diverse global workforce. This comprehensive approach is integral to our total rewards strategy, addressing business and employee challenges through a multi-channel approach that provides diverse populations and global regions with flexible options to meet their specific goals.

We use data-driven insights gathered through surveys, focus groups, and claims data to understand employee challenges and prioritize our programs and resources. Our benefits are regularly reviewed and adjusted to remain competitive within our respective markets and reflect evolving employee expectations.

Employee Sentiment Strategy

We gather feedback from our employees through a variety of channels throughout the year. Our approach is designed to capture sentiment and make it actionable for managers, leadership, and for the teams designing the tools, processes, and policies that impact the employee experience. We use a mix of annual and real-time surveys designed to understand employee sentiment in areas such as people leader effectiveness, job satisfaction, inclusion, wellbeing, overall satisfaction, strategy and execution, and Ford Operating System behaviors.

A critical element of measuring sentiment is ensuring the data gets to those who are best positioned to use it to drive improvements in the employee experience. We design dashboards and tools for managers to view the results from their teams, help them to generate meaningful insights, and convert those insights into guided actions. We share the results with senior executives to identify broader trends and themes and to inform larger strategic decisions across the Company.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

Employment Data

The approximate number of individuals employed by us and entities that we consolidated as of December 31 was as follows (in thousands):

In the United States, approximately 99% of our unionized hourly employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements and represented by the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“UAW” or “United Auto Workers”). At December 31, 2025, approximately 56,300 hourly employees in the United States were represented by the UAW.

ITEM 1A. Risk Factors.

We have listed below the material risk factors applicable to us grouped into the following categories: Operational Risks; Macroeconomic, Market, and Strategic Risks; Financial Risks; and Legal and Regulatory Risks. Some of the risks and contingencies discussed herein may have previously occurred. We have a global business, and conditions in our industry and the regions where we operate and sell our products and services may change quickly. Accordingly, institutional stability is crucial to businesses like Ford as we make hiring and investment decisions, as well as to the smooth functioning of financial markets on which we depend. Rapid policy change in our home market, the United States, is creating uncertainty in our operations and business outlook, and may remain a source of volatility in the future.

Operational Risks

Ford’s long-term success depends on delivering the Ford+ plan, including improving cost competitiveness. We previously announced our plan for growth and value creation – Ford+. Ford+ is our plan to thrive at the intersection of great vehicles, iconic brands, and innovative software and service, building Ford into a higher growth, higher margin, more capital efficient, and more durable company. Our Ford+ plan is designed to leverage our foundational strengths with enhanced capabilities – enriching customer experiences and deepening loyalty. To facilitate this transformation, we are making substantial investments, recruiting new talent, and modernizing and optimizing our business model, management and IT systems, and organization. Our strategy involves providing customers freedom of choice to select the powertrain that best suits their needs and maintaining manufacturing flexibility at Ford to meet shifting customer demand. Accordingly, maintaining discipline in our capital allocation continues to be important, as a strong core business and a balance sheet that provides the flexibility to invest in these opportunities are critical to the success of our Ford+ plan. If we are unable to optimize our capital allocation among vehicles (and propulsion systems among our vehicles), services, technology, and other calls on capital, make sufficient and timely progress to become competitive on cost and quality and ensure that progress is sustainable, or we are otherwise not successful in executing Ford+ (or are delayed for reasons outside of our control), we may not be able to realize the full benefits of our plan, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. Furthermore, if we fail to make progress on our plan at the pace that shareholders expect, it may lead to an increase in shareholder activism, which may disrupt the conduct of our business and divert management’s attention and resources. As described elsewhere herein, global political instability and volatility in government regulations and unpredictable trade policy (including tariffs) in the United States and around the world limit our ability to conduct effective long-term planning and make capital allocation decisions.

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. We may also be obligated to remedy defects or potentially recall our products due to defective components provided to us by our suppliers, arising from their quality issues or otherwise.

For example, as part of a consent order we entered into with NHTSA in 2024, we have retained an independent third party selected by NHTSA to assess the Company’s adherence to the consent order and Safety Act over the term of the consent order and to report on Ford’s progress to NHTSA. The cost of recall and customer satisfaction actions to remedy defects in vehicles that have been sold could be substantial, particularly if the actions relate to global platforms or involve defects that are identified years after production. For example, NHTSA and the automotive industry are currently engaged in a study of the safety of approximately 56 million Takata desiccated airbag inflators in the United States. In addition, NHTSA is considering action related to 52 million vehicles containing inflators from ARC Automotive and Delphi Automotive in the United States. Ford has 2.5 million vehicles within this population. Should NHTSA determine that these inflators contain a safety defect, Ford and other manufacturers could potentially face significant incremental recall costs. Further, to the extent recall and customer satisfaction actions relate to defective components we receive from suppliers, our ability to recover from the suppliers may be limited by the suppliers’ financial condition.

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

Ford is also subject to environmental regulatory compliance requirements, and in many jurisdictions (including the United States), we are required to report on and correct certain emissions-related defects. Similarly, where required by regulation, we are obligated to honor certain warranties on emissions-related components, which can impose additional obligations beyond our standard warranties and increase our costs.

In addition, from time to time, we issue extended warranties at our expense, the estimated cost of which is accrued at the time of issuance. For additional information regarding warranty and field service action costs, including our process for establishing our reserves, see “Critical Accounting Estimates” in Item 7 and Note 24 of the Notes to the Financial Statements.

Furthermore, launch delays, recall actions, and increased warranty costs have generated negative publicity and adversely affected and could continue to adversely affect our reputation or the public perception and market acceptance of our products and services as discussed elsewhere herein. In an effort to improve quality, we have slowed down and may continue to slow down launches, which may result in lost sales, revenue, and profits and could have an adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. From time to time, our inventory levels may be higher due to a number of different factors, including as a result of vehicles on hold for quality control, which may cause us to incur additional costs associated with those vehicles, e.g., repair costs for weather-related damage.

If there is a shortage of a key component in our supply chain or a supplier is unable to deliver a component to us in accordance with our specifications and at the cost contracted for, because of a production issue, a disruption at a supplier’s facility (e.g. For example, in 2025, our production was disrupted by fires at one of our major aluminum suppliers, the effects of which are ongoing.

g., lithium, cobalt, and nickel) used by our suppliers to produce those batteries. Some of these resources are limited, and, as a result, we may be unable to acquire raw materials needed for our products in sufficient amounts that are responsibly sourced or at reasonable prices. As described in the Liquidity and Capital Resources section in Item 7 below, and elsewhere herein, we have entered into and we may, in the future, enter into offtake agreements and other long-term purchase contracts that obligate us, subject to certain conditions such as quality or minimum output, to purchase a certain percentage or minimum amount of output from certain raw materials suppliers. In the event the supplier under those agreements or any of our or our suppliers’ raw material supply contracts is unable to deliver sufficient quantities of raw materials needed for our or our suppliers’ production operations, e.g. Further, suppliers who fail to comply with our requirements for ethical business practices could lead us to seek alternative suppliers, which may result in delayed deliveries or increased costs.

A shortage of, or our inability to acquire or find adequate suppliers of, key components or raw materials as a result of disruptions in the supply chain, import and export bans or tariffs imposed by the U.S. or foreign governments, capacity constraints, limited availability, competition for those items within the automotive industry and other sectors, or otherwise can cause a significant disruption to our production schedule and have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. For example, China’s restriction on the export of rare earth minerals, which we and our suppliers utilize for a number of components, has impacted (e.g., rescheduling production, changing operating patterns)

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

and caused disruptions in our production operations, increases the risk of future production disruptions, and has increased and may further increase costs (e.g., premium freight and expedited shipping costs to make up for delays in component availability).

Ford’s production, as well as Ford’s suppliers’ production, and/or the ability to deliver products to consumers could be disrupted by labor issues, public health issues, natural or man-made disasters, adverse effects of climate change, financial distress, production difficulties, capacity limitations, or other factors. A work stoppage or other limitation on production has occurred, and could in the future occur, at Ford’s facilities, at a facility in its supply chain, or at one of its logistics providers for any number of reasons, including as a result of labor issues, such as shortages of available employees, disputes under existing collective bargaining agreements with labor unions or in connection with negotiation of new collective bargaining agreements, absenteeism, public health issues (e.g., COVID), stay-at-home orders, or in response to potential restructuring actions (e.g., plant closures); as a result of supplier financial distress or other production constraints, such as limited quantities of components or raw materials, quality issues, capacity limitations, or other difficulties; as a result of a natural disaster (including climate-related physical risk); social unrest; cybersecurity incidents; or for other reasons. The duration of a suspension of manufacturing operations and a return to our full production schedule will vary. Our Ford Blue, Ford Model e, and Ford Pro operations generally do not realize revenue while our manufacturing operations are suspended, but we continue to incur operating and non-operating expenses, resulting in a deterioration of our cash flow. Accordingly, any significant future disruption to our production schedule, regionally or globally, whether as a result of our own or a supplier’s suspension of operations, could have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations. Moreover, our supply and distribution chains may be disrupted by supplier or dealer bankruptcies or their permanent discontinuation of operations. In addition, broader changes in the supplier landscape, including supplier consolidation and suppliers’ decisions to no longer participate in a particular line of business, pose a risk of supply shortages and/or price increases.

The limited availability of components, labor shortages, public health emergencies, and supplier operating issues have led to intermittent interruptions in our supply chain and an inconsistent production schedule at our facilities. This has exacerbated the disruption to our suppliers’ operations, which, in turn, has led to higher costs and production shortfalls. As a result of this disrupted production schedule, we have received and continue to receive claims from our supply base for reimbursement of costs beyond our original agreed terms. Upon receipt, we evaluate those claims, and, in certain circumstances, we have made payments to our suppliers, and this trend may continue.

). Such suppliers also could threaten to disrupt our production as leverage in negotiations. In addition, when we undertake a model changeover, significant downtime at one or more of our production facilities may be required, and our ability to return to full production may be delayed if we experience production difficulties at one of our facilities or a supplier’s facility. Moreover, as vehicles, components, and their integration become more complex, we may face an increased risk of a delay in production of new vehicles. Regardless of the cause, our ability to recoup lost production volume may be limited.

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

Ford may not realize the anticipated benefits of existing or pending strategic alliances, joint ventures, acquisitions, divestitures, commercial relationships, or business strategies or the benefits may take longer than expected to materialize. These initiatives typically involve enormous complexity, may require a significant amount of capital, and may involve a lengthy regulatory approval process. As a result, we may not be able to complete anticipated transactions, the anticipated benefits of these transactions may not be realized, or the benefits may be delayed. For example, we may not successfully integrate an alliance or joint venture with our operations, including the implementation of our controls, systems, procedures, and policies, we may be unable to retain key employees, or unforeseen expenses or liabilities may arise that were not discovered during due diligence prior to an investment or entry into a strategic alliance, or a misalignment of interests may develop between us and the other party. Further, to the extent we share ownership, control, or management with another party in a joint venture, our ability to influence the joint venture may be limited, and we may be unable to prevent misconduct or implement our compliance or internal control systems.

For example, the new battery energy storage business we announced in the fourth quarter of 2025 or our efforts to evaluate and implement alternative distribution models and channels for our products and services from those we have traditionally used may be challenged or may not succeed or be as successful as our historical arrangements. External factors may also impact the success of our initiatives. For example, our business and strategy are susceptible to tensions in U.S.-China relations and the rapid development of the Chinese electrified vehicle industry, with domestic Chinese producers exporting to some key markets in which we operate. Further, as our strategy evolves in an area, we may be unable to utilize or redeploy our existing assets or investments in that or other areas, which may lead to impairments and other cash and non-cash charges. For example, in December 2025, we announced our updated EV strategy, the expected disposition of our investment in BlueOval SK, LLC, and the charges we expected to record related to those items. Failure to successfully and timely realize the anticipated benefits of the transactions or strategies described herein could have an adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Ford may not realize the anticipated benefits of restructuring actions and such actions may cause Ford to incur significant charges, disrupt our operations, or harm our reputation. We continually review and evaluate our business to find opportunities to make our operations more efficient and reduce costs. Our plans for implementing such actions may be accelerated by shifting industry dynamics and new entrants to our industries with which we must compete. These actions may include employee separations, a reduced footprint (e.g., plant closures or smaller operations at existing plants or plants that are not yet on-line), operating our plants at less than full capacity (e.g., reducing shifts), cancelling products or programs, or shifting our strategy for the deployment of technologies. Such restructuring actions have caused us and may in the future cause us to incur significant costs; record impairments or other charges; subject us to potential claims from employees, suppliers, dealers, other counterparties, or governmental authorities (including a reduction or clawback of

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

incentives); disrupt our operations; distract management from current operations; or harm our reputation. Further, we may not realize the expected benefits of such restructuring actions (e.g., anticipated cost savings), such benefits may be delayed, or market dynamics or other factors may have evolved such that we cannot obtain the original intended results of an action.

Failure to develop and deploy secure digital services that appeal to customers, retain existing subscribers, and grow our subscription rates could have a negative impact on Ford’s business. Further, we have announced our plans and expectations for integrated services to become a larger portion of our revenue and earnings by offering new and differentiated products, retaining existing subscribers, and growing subscription rates with new customers. Shifting public policy regarding data privacy and the effects of artificial intelligence has caused and may in the future cause us to incur substantial costs to modify our operations or business practices, reduce consumers’ willingness to engage with our offerings, or cause delays or lapses in the availability of our products or services in various jurisdictions. We must convince prospective users of the benefits of our subscription services and our existing users of the continued value thereof. This depends in large part on our ability to offer exceptional services, competitive pricing, integrated functionality, and a satisfying user experience. Further discussion of risks associated with market acceptance of our services and the evolving regulatory landscape is provided elsewhere herein.

We contract with third parties to offer digital content to customers and license technologies for use in our software and digital services. This includes the right to sell, or offer subscriptions to, third-party content, as well as the right to incorporate specific content into our own services; however, continuation of these third-party licensing and other arrangements, or their renewal on commercially reasonable terms, is not guaranteed or may be unavailable. Moreover, while we seek to grow our share of this business, third parties may be less inclined to continue developing or licensing software for Ford’s products or permit the Company to distribute their content, or such providers may offer competing products and services to the detriment of our business. If we are unable to offer integrated software applications and digital services on competitive terms, it may reduce customer demand or increase our costs to provide such applications and services, which we may be unable to pass on to customers. Alternatively, we may have to develop or license new content or technology to provide digital services, and there can be no assurance we would be able to develop or license such content or technology at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner, either of which could have a negative impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or reputation.

In addition, the services we offer can have quality issues and may, from time to time, experience outages, service slowdowns, or errors. Moreover, the reliance of our services on cloud-based systems and other digital infrastructure owned by third parties creates particular risk. Any outage, misconfiguration, or loss of data within the systems or infrastructure of these third parties could impair the performance of our services from time to time. As a result, these services may not always perform as anticipated and may not meet customer expectations. There can be no assurance we will be able to detect and remedy all issues and defects in the hardware, software, and services we offer, or successfully deliver over-the-air (“OTA”) updates. Failure to do so on a timely basis could result in widespread technical and performance issues affecting our products and services. Further discussion of the risks associated with product defects, quality issues, or delays in product launches and availability is provided elsewhere herein.

We continue to increase the number of BlueCruise (our hands-free highway driving system) enabled vehicles on the road and its growth and expansion remains an important part of our strategy. We also face substantial competition in that area. In addition, autonomous vehicle and driver assist technologies, including BlueCruise, continue to be scrutinized by government regulators and consumers, and actual or perceived failures or misuse of these technologies and features have led to government investigations and inquiries, including of Ford. Such negative publicity of our products or those of our competitors could undermine consumer trust and negatively impact our subscription rates. If we are unable to successfully develop and grow BlueCruise and other subscription services or build and maintain consumer trust in those offerings, we may be unable to recoup the investments we have made in those technologies and it could negatively impact our reputation, financial condition, and results of operations.

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

While we continue to invest in direct-to-consumer sales methods for our connectivity, digital and physical services, and integrated software services offerings, we are dependent on the efforts of third-party dealers for the majority of our sales in this space. We have invested and will continue to invest in programs to enhance sales through dealers, including education programs for dealership employees on the benefits of our services offerings and developing and making available digital marketing assets to dealers. These efforts may require a substantial investment of time and capital while providing no assurance of incremental sales.

These include unauthorized use of accounts through stolen credentials, failure to pay for services accessed, or other activities that violate our terms of service. While we have implemented security measures intended to prevent unauthorized access to our digital services and related information systems, malicious entities have and will continue to attempt to gain unauthorized access to them. If our efforts to detect such violations or our actions to control these types of fraud and abuse are not effective or timely, it may have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or reputation. Further discussion of the risks associated with operational information systems and our cybersecurity posture is provided elsewhere herein.

Ford’s ability to maintain a competitive cost structure could be affected by labor or other constraints. The vast majority of the hourly employees in our manufacturing 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. Our recent labor contracts, including those with the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“UAW”) in the United States and Unifor in Canada, have resulted in significant cost increases. If we are unable to offset these costs, it could have a significant adverse effect on our business. Some of our competitors do not have such collective bargaining agreements and are not subject to the same constraints. Further, 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 or increase the cost of doing so. These agreements in the United States, Canada, Europe, and other regions may restrict our ability to close plants and divest businesses. In addition, to the extent companies in our global supply chain that are not currently parties to collective bargaining agreements enter into such agreements or otherwise increase their employees’ wages and benefits, any increased costs incurred by those suppliers may, in turn, increase our costs.

Ford’s ability to attract, develop, grow, support, and reward talent is critical to its success and competitiveness. Our success depends on our ability to continue to attract, develop, grow, support, and reward talented and diverse employees with domain expertise in engineering, software, technology, integrated services, supply chain, marketing, and finance, among other areas. While we have been successful in attracting talent in recent years, as with any company, the ability to continue to attract talent is important, particularly in growth areas vital to our success such as software, electrification and adjacent technologies, and integrated services. Competition for such talent is intense, which has led to an increase in compensation throughout a tight labor market, and, accordingly, may increase costs for companies. In addition to attracting talent, we must also retain the talent needed to deliver our business objectives. If we lose existing employees, are unable to attract talent with needed skills, or we are unable to develop existing employees, particularly with the introduction of new technologies and our focus on operational efficiency and quality, it could have a substantial adverse effect on our business.

Operational information systems, security systems, products, and services could be affected by cybersecurity incidents, ransomware attacks, and other disruptions and impact Ford, Ford Credit, their suppliers, and dealers. We rely on information technology networks and information systems, including in-vehicle systems and mobile devices, some of which are managed by suppliers, some of which are provided by third-party service providers, and some of which ultimately rely on other services provided to these third parties by unaffiliated service providers, to process, transmit, and store electronic information that is important to the operation of our business, our vehicles, and the services we offer. Despite devoting significant resources to our cybersecurity program, we are at risk for interruptions, outages, and compromises of: (i) operational information 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, whether caused by a ransomware or other cybersecurity incident, security breach, or other reason (e.g., a natural disaster, fire, acts of terrorism or war, or an overburdened infrastructure system). Additionally, any outage, security breach, misconfiguration, or loss of data within networks and systems managed by or reliant on the products and services of unaffiliated third parties could lead to similar compromises. Such incidents could materially disrupt operational information systems; result in loss or unwilling publication of trade secrets or other proprietary or competitively sensitive information; compromise the privacy of personal information of consumers, employees, or others; jeopardize the security of our facilities; disrupt or degrade service or our operations; affect the

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

performance of in-vehicle systems or services we offer; and/or impact the safety of our vehicles. This risk exposure rises as we continue to develop and produce vehicles with increased connectivity. Moreover, we, our suppliers, service providers, and dealers have been the target of cybersecurity incidents and such threats are continuing and evolving, which may cause cybersecurity incidents to be more difficult to detect for periods of time. Our networks and in-vehicle systems, sharing similar architectures, could also be impacted by, or a cybersecurity incident may result from, the negligence or misconduct of insiders or third parties who have access to our networks and systems. We employ capabilities, processes, and other security measures we believe are reasonably designed to detect, reduce, and mitigate the risk of cybersecurity incidents, and have requirements for our suppliers and service providers to do the same; however, we may not be aware of all vulnerabilities or might not accurately assess the risks of incidents, and such preventative measures cannot provide absolute security and may not be sufficient in all circumstances or mitigate all potential risks, including potential production disruption or the loss or disclosure of sensitive information. Moreover, a cybersecurity incident could harm our reputation, cause customers to lose trust in our security measures, and/or subject us to regulatory actions or litigation, which may result in fines, penalties, judgments, or injunctions, and a cybersecurity incident involving us or one of our suppliers or service providers could impact our production, internal operations, business strategy, results of operations, financial condition, or our ability to deliver products and services to our customers.

Our ability to manufacture electrified products is dependent upon the availability of raw materials and other components necessary for the production of batteries, e.g. As described in the Liquidity and Capital Resources section in Item 7 below, and elsewhere herein, to facilitate our access to such raw materials, we have entered into and we may, in the future, enter into offtake agreements and other long-term purchase contracts. Such agreements obligate us, subject to certain conditions such as quality or minimum output, to purchase a certain percentage or minimum amount of output from raw material suppliers over an agreed upon period of time pursuant to agreed upon purchase price mechanisms that are typically based on the market price of the material at the time of delivery.

In the event we do not purchase the materials or components pursuant to the terms of these agreements, we may nevertheless be obligated to pay the purchase price or otherwise compensate the supplier in an amount determined by the contract or reimburse the supplier for costs or losses it incurs. We have incurred and we may continue to incur such charges. This may be the case even if the supplier finds another purchaser, as we may be responsible for the costs of finding the new purchaser as well as any lost revenue attributable to the replacement purchaser paying a lower price than required under the pricing mechanism in our agreement.

Accordingly, we may be subject to increases in the prices we pay for those raw materials, and our ability to recoup such costs through increased pricing to our customers may be limited. As a result, our margins, results of operations, financial condition, and reputation may be adversely impacted by commitments we make pursuant to offtake agreements and other long-term purchase contracts.

Macroeconomic, Market, and Strategic Risks

With a global footprint and supply chain, Ford’s results and operations have been and could continue to be adversely affected by economic or geopolitical developments, including protectionist trade policies such as tariffs, or other events. Because of the interconnectedness of the global economy, financial crises, economic downturns or recessions (including reduced consumer spending), pandemics, natural disasters, wars, social unrest, geopolitical crises, or other significant events in one market can have an immediate and material adverse impact on other markets where Ford operates. Unprecedented trade policy (including tariffs) in the United States and foreign governments’ reactions limit our ability to conduct effective long-term planning and make capital allocation decisions. The continued strain in U.S.-China relations presents unique risks to U.S. automakers, as does China’s unique regulatory landscape, the level of integration with key components in our global supply chain, the limited availability of various components and materials (including certain rare earth minerals and related products from China), and the rapid development of the Chinese EV industry, with Chinese electrified vehicle manufacturers exporting their products to some key markets in which we operate.

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

Changes in international trade policy can also have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or our business in general. To the extent governments in various regions implement or intensify restrictions or barriers to trade, such as tariff or non-tariff barriers, export controls, currency manipulation, or policies that otherwise favor domestic companies, there can be a significant negative impact on manufacturers based in other markets. Tariffs implemented to date in the United States and elsewhere have caused significant disruption, increased costs, and uncertainty in the automotive industry, including for Ford, other OEMs, suppliers, and dealers, as well as customers. Moreover, tariffs implemented or increased in the United States and elsewhere in the future may exacerbate these impacts. The U.S. government has implemented limited tariff relief for qualifying parties based on certain criteria, which could include prospective avoidance and retroactive relief through refunds. This relief is subject to periodic approval by the U.S. Department of Commerce and may be revised based on factors such as U.S. production and import content levels. Although we may be entitled to relief under these programs, and we may carry a receivable on our balance sheet reflecting tariffs paid but for which we expect, but have not yet received, refunds, the timing of our receipt of these amounts (and whether we will ultimately receive a refund) is uncertain and is subject to changes in trade policy. Accordingly, any delay in receiving the refunds could have a negative impact on our cash flow, and in the event we do not ultimately receive a refund, it could have an adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations.

In addition, instability in the supply chain exacerbated by tariffs and other industry concerns, such as China’s restriction on the export of rare earth minerals and various components, has resulted in production disruptions and increased costs and heightens the risk of future production disruptions and further cost increases. Although there is uncertainty regarding the application, scope, and duration of tariffs, those that have been implemented have had a significant adverse effect, both operationally and financially, on the overall automotive industry, Ford, and our supply chain. Any additional tariffs or other measures that are implemented in the United States and any retaliatory tariffs or other measures or restrictions that are implemented by other governments, and the potential related market impacts, should they be sustained for an extended period of time, may have a significant adverse effect.

With operations in various markets with volatile economic or political environments and our global supply chain and utilization of transportation routes and logistics providers around the world, we are exposed to heightened risks as a result of economic, geopolitical, or other events. This could include governmental takeover (i.e., nationalization) of our manufacturing facilities or intellectual property, restrictive exchange or import controls, changes to international trade agreements, disruption of operations as a result of systemic political or economic instability, social unrest, outbreak of war or expansion of hostilities, and acts of terrorism, each of which could impact our supply chain as well as our operations. These events could also have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or our business in general. Changes in trade policy may also restrict or limit the ability of logistics providers and customs brokers to process imports timely, which may delay or disrupt our operations and increase our costs. Further, the U.S. government, other governments, and international organizations could impose additional sanctions or export controls that could restrict us from doing business directly or indirectly in or with certain countries or parties, which could include affiliates, disrupt our supply chain and production, and potentially impact the repatriation of earnings.

Ford’s new and existing products and digital, software, and physical services are subject to market acceptance and face significant competition from existing and new entrants in the automotive and digital and software services industries, and Ford’s reputation may be harmed based on positions it takes or if it is unable to achieve the initiatives it has announced. Although we conduct extensive market research before launching new or refreshed products 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, and we may not be able to accurately predict or identify emerging trends or preferences or the success of new products or services in the market. It takes years to design and develop a new vehicle or change an existing vehicle. Because customers’ preferences may change quickly, our new and existing products may not generate sales in sufficient quantities and at costs low enough to be profitable and recoup investment costs. Offering products and services that customers want and value can mitigate the risks of increasing price competition, price sensitive customers, 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. For example, if we are unable to differentiate our products and services from those of our competitors in a manner that appeals to customers, develop innovative new products and services, or sufficiently tailor our products and services to customers in other markets, there could be insufficient demand for our products and services, which could have an adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations. Insufficient demand for our products may also result in higher inventory levels, which may lead to downward pricing pressure, or reduced

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

manufacturing efficiencies, which may reduce margins. In the event of a shortage of available products, customers may elect to purchase from our competitors and may not return to Ford in the future.

g., new or revised government mandates and incentives), infrastructure development (e.g. The automotive, software, and digital service businesses are very competitive and change rapidly. Traditional competitors are expanding their offerings, and new types of competitors (particularly in our areas of strength, e.g. This level of competition necessitates that we invest in and integrate emerging technologies into our business and increases the importance of our ability to anticipate, develop, and deliver products and services that customers desire on a timely basis, in quantities in line with demand, with the quality they expect, and at costs low enough to be profitable. Moreover, if we do not meet customer expectations for quickly and effectively addressing and remedying issues that may develop with or that improve our products and services, e.g., successfully delivering OTA updates, it would have an adverse effect on our business.

Although we recently scaled back our EV investments to redeploy that capital to other areas of the business, we intend to continue making significant investments in electrification and software services. Low EV adoption rates may persist, including as a result of the regulatory framework in various markets shifting away from supporting the adoption of electrified vehicles (as was the case in the United States in 2025); any negative perception of our electrified vehicles or EVs in general; an inability to or delay in developing or embracing new technologies or processes; or shifts in consumer preference. As a result, there has been, and could in the future be, an adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations. Further, as discussed elsewhere herein, lower than planned market acceptance of our vehicles may impact our strategy to comply with fuel economy standards in certain markets.

We have announced interim emissions targets approved by the Science Based Targets initiative (“SBTi”) and made other statements about similar initiatives. As we navigate a complex global environment and align with the normal SBTi five-year target review process, we are reassessing our near-term decarbonization strategy and putting great emphasis on public choice. Achievement of these initiatives will require significant investments and the implementation of new processes; however, there is no assurance that the desired outcomes will be achieved. For example, we are exposed to reputational risk if we do not reduce vehicle CO2 emissions in line with our targets or in compliance with applicable regulations. Further, our customers, investors, and other stakeholders evaluate how well we are progressing on our announced climate goals and aspirations, and if we are not on track to achieve those goals and aspirations on a timely basis, or if the expectations of our customers and investors change and we do not adequately address their expectations, our reputation could be impacted, and customers may choose to purchase the products and services of, investors may choose to invest in, and suppliers and vendors may choose to do business with other companies.

In addition, since new technologies are subject to market acceptance, a malfunction involving any

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

manufacturer’s vehicle using autonomous or driver assist technologies may negatively impact the perception of such technologies and erode customer trust.

The global automotive industry is intensely competitive, with installed manufacturing capacity generally exceeding current demand. Historically, 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 reductions, and other incentives. As a result, we are not necessarily able to set our prices to offset higher marketing incentives, commodity or other cost increases, tariffs, or the impact of adverse currency fluctuations. This risk includes cost advantages foreign competitors may have because of their weaker home market currencies, which may, in turn, enable those competitors to offer their products at lower prices. Further, higher inventory levels put downward pressure on pricing, which may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Although we are investing in our EV strategy, we anticipate that the EV market will continue to evolve. To date, we have observed lower-than-anticipated industrywide EV adoption rates due to changes in consumer sentiment, competitive dynamics, legal and policy changes, and significant developments in vehicle pricing dynamics, among other factors that we continue to monitor. This environment has led us, and may in the future lead us, to adjust our investments, spending, production, and product and future technology launches to better match the pace of EV adoption. Significant unexpected changes in the EV demand environment have led, and may in the future lead, to incremental competitive pricing actions.

Conversely, should EV adoption rates increase again in the future, the risk of excess capacity, particularly for internal combustion engine trucks and utilities, may be exacerbated. This excess capacity may further increase price competition in that segment of the market, which could have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Inflationary pressure and fluctuations in commodity and energy prices, foreign currency exchange rates, interest rates, and market value of Ford or Ford Credit’s investments, including marketable securities, can have a significant effect on results. We and our suppliers are exposed to inflationary pressure and a variety of market risks, including the effects of changes in commodity and energy prices, foreign currency exchange rates, and interest rates. We monitor and attempt to 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. Changes in commodity and energy prices (from tariffs, geopolitical developments, or otherwise), currency exchange rates, and interest rates cannot always be predicted, hedged, or offset with price increases to eliminate earnings volatility. As a result, significant changes in commodity and energy prices, foreign currency exchange rates, or interest rates as well as increased material, freight, logistics, and similar costs could have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. See Item 7 and Item 7A for additional discussion of currency, commodity and energy price, and interest rate risks. These market forces have caused us to incur higher material costs, which may continue, and our warranty costs have increased, in part, due to inflationary cost pressures at our dealers. Moreover, due to inflationary pressure, some of our suppliers have submitted claims to us for reimbursement of costs beyond our original agreed terms. Upon receipt, we evaluate those claims, and, in certain circumstances, we have made payments to our suppliers, and this trend may continue. At the same time, government deficits and debt remain at high levels in many global markets. At Ford Credit, a high interest rate environment may impact Ford Credit’s ability to source funding and offer financing at competitive rates, which could reduce its financing margin. In addition, our results are impacted by fluctuations in the market value of our investments, with unrealized gains and losses that could be material in any period.

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

Ford’s results are dependent on sales of larger, more profitable vehicles, particularly in the United States.g., accelerated depreciation) associated with the production of internal combustion vehicles, may result. In addition, government regulations aimed at reducing emissions and increasing fuel efficiency (e.g. Moreover, governmental restrictions on the sale, purchase, or use of internal combustion engine vehicles (e.g., city access restrictions) may limit our ability to sell some of our more profitable vehicles in various markets.

While a suspension or disruption of our manufacturing operations at any facility could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flow, such an occurrence at one of our facilities where our larger, more profitable vehicles are produced, or in the event a launch is delayed or a stop ship is initiated for those vehicles, the impact may be particularly significant.

Because we, like other manufacturers, have a higher proportion of fixed structural costs, relatively small changes in industry sales volume can have a substantial effect on our cash flow and results of operations. Vehicle sales are affected by overall economic and market conditions (e.g., the level of interest rates and tariffs; the impact of higher-than-anticipated inflation on vehicle affordability), consumer sentiment and behavior, and other trends such as shared vehicle ownership and ridesharing services. If industry vehicle sales were to decline to levels significantly below our planning assumption, the decline could have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flow. For a discussion of economic trends, see Item 7.

Financial Risks

The impact of government incentives on Ford’s business has been and could continue to be significant, and Ford’s receipt of government incentives could be subject to reduction, termination, or clawback. 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, forgivable loans and loan subsidies, or tax abatements or credits. The impact of these incentives can be significant in a particular market during a reporting period.g., the termination of U.S. tax credits intended to incentivize the purchase of EVs), as a result of administrative decision or otherwise, has had and could in the future have a substantial adverse impact on the operation of our business, financial condition, or results of operations. Further, we may lose or be required to repay incentives or forgivable loans as a result of a change we make to our business strategy, e.g., if we elect not to proceed with a previously planned program or project or do not create as many jobs as initially anticipated.

For example, until 2021, most of our manufacturing facilities in South America were located in Brazil, where the state or federal governments historically offered significant incentives to manufacturers to encourage capital investment, increase manufacturing production, and create jobs. As a result, the performance of our South American operations had been impacted favorably by government incentives to a substantial extent. The federal government in Brazil has levied assessments against us concerning the federal incentives we previously received, and the State of São Paulo has challenged the grant to us of tax incentives by the State of Bahia.

Additionally, as noted above, U.S. federal tax incentives for purchasers of plug-in vehicles have changed in recent years. In 2022, Congress established these incentives and many retail and commercial vehicle purchasers were eligible for a tax credit of up to $7,500 per vehicle, increasing market demand for plug-in vehicles. Further, to make vehicles eligible for the tax incentive for retail purchasers, Ford and other manufacturers structured battery supply chains to comply with the “foreign entity of concern” criteria, which were aimed at reducing dependence on China and companies based in or operating in China. In 2025, Congress eliminated these credits, ending the incentives for purchasers and likewise changing the business rationale to use and create battery supply chains with less control by China.

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

The 2025 legislation preserved the advanced manufacturing production tax credit for the domestic manufacture of batteries and battery components (first established in the 2022 legislation), but restricted the eligibility criteria going forward, most notably by imposing criteria for “prohibited foreign entities,” which concern China and other countries. Such decisions involve substantial lead time, and it may take years before Ford can satisfy any new or changed eligibility criteria. Accordingly, the termination of or a change to such incentives could have a significant impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or the operation of our business.

Ford and Ford Credit’s ability to obtain unsecured funding at a reasonable cost is dependent on their credit ratings or their perceived creditworthiness. Further, 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 for those transactions and, for certain committed programs, derivatives to manage the interest rate risk. Over time, and particularly in the event of 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 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 results of operations and could adversely affect its ability to support the sale of Ford 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 or 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 Ford Credit’s return on the lease transaction. Among the factors that can affect the value of returned lease vehicles are the volume and mix of vehicles returned industrywide, economic conditions, marketing programs, and quality or perceived quality, safety, fuel efficiency, or reliability of the vehicles, or changes in propulsion technology and related legislative or regulatory changes. Actual return volumes may be influenced by these factors, as well as by contractual lease-end values relative to auction values. If auction values decrease significantly in the future, return volumes could exceed Ford Credit’s expectations. Each of these factors, alone or in combination, has the potential to adversely affect Ford Credit’s results of operations if actual results were to differ significantly from Ford Credit’s projections. See “Critical Accounting Estimates” in Item 7 for additional discussion.

Economic and demographic experience for pension and OPEB plans (e.g., discount rates or investment returns) could be worse than Ford has assumed. The measurement of our obligations, costs, and liabilities associated with benefits pursuant to our pension and OPEB 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 remeasurement loss in our results, which could be substantial. For additional information regarding our assumptions, see “Critical Accounting Estimates” in Item 7 and Note 16 of the Notes to the Financial Statements.

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

Pension and other postretirement liabilities could adversely affect Ford’s liquidity and 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 sponsor plans to provide OPEB for retired employees (primarily health care and life insurance benefits). See Note 16 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 are 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.

Legal and Regulatory Risks

Ford and Ford Credit have experienced and could continue to experience unusual or significant litigation, governmental investigations, or adverse publicity arising out of alleged defects in products, services, perceived environmental impacts, or otherwise. We spend substantial resources to comply with governmental safety regulations, environmental regulatory obligations concerning our products and operations, consumer and automotive financial regulations, labor and employment regulations and practices, and other standards, but we have experienced employees, contractors, agents, and other individuals affiliated with us violating such laws or regulations from time to time, which at times has resulted in civil or criminal liability, and we cannot ensure that any such violations have not occurred or will not occur in the future, which may further result in civil or criminal liability. In addition, as discussed more fully elsewhere herein, the adoption of new regulations or executive orders, modifications to existing regulations, changes to interpretations of those regulations, and changes to enforcement priorities and directives of various governmental agencies, sometimes on short notice, may impact our compliance status.

Moreover, compliance with governmental standards does not necessarily prevent individual or class action lawsuits, which can entail significant cost and risk, in addition to defending litigation and claims concerning instances of alleged non-compliance. Litigation also is inherently uncertain, and we have in the past experienced, and could in the future experience, significant adverse results, including compensatory and punitive damage awards, a disgorgement of profits or revenue, or injunctive relief, any of which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or our business in general, particularly with larger jury verdicts becoming more prevalent. We may decide to settle a matter in anticipation of or during litigation, which may require a monetary or non-monetary payment, a change to our business practices (e.g., to undertake or cease a particular activity), or other remedies. However, a settlement on acceptable terms may not always be feasible. Furthermore, regulatory investigations and litigation, including class actions, are becoming more prevalent in some international markets, potentially leading to increasing fines, damage awards, and settlement costs. While we have an insurance program that provides coverage for certain claims, it may not be sufficient to cover the losses incurred. In addition, adverse publicity surrounding an allegation, litigation, or investigation, even if there is no merit to the matter, may cause significant reputational harm or create a negative public perception of our products and services, which could have a significant adverse effect on our sales.

Ford may need to substantially modify its product plans and facilities to respond to shifting consumer sentiment and competitive dynamics as a result of policy changes affecting, or otherwise to comply with, safety, emissions, fuel economy, autonomous driving technology, environmental, and other regulations. The automotive industry is subject to regulations worldwide that govern product characteristics and that differ by global region, country, and sometimes within national boundaries. Regulators have enacted and are proposing standards to address concerns regarding the environment (including concerns about global climate change and air quality), vehicle safety, and energy independence, and the regulatory landscape can change on short notice. These regulations vary, but generally require that over time motor vehicles and engines emit less air pollution, including GHG emissions, oxides of nitrogen,

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter, and there are associated increased reporting requirements. Similarly, we are making substantial investments in our facilities and revising our processes to not only comply with applicable regulations but also to make our operations more efficient and sustainable. As our suppliers make similar investments, any higher costs may be passed on to us. However, different federal administrations have either sought to make standards more strict or to make them less strict, with one administration often replacing the regulations enacted by the last. Various third parties routinely seek judicial review of these federal regulatory and deregulatory efforts. In parallel, California continues to enact increasingly strict emissions standards and requirements for ZEVs (standards that some other states are adopting), and those actions are also the subject of legal challenges. In 2025, federal legislation, which is currently subject to challenge, eliminated the authority of California and other states to implement and enforce most of their standards and ZEV sales requirements. Court rulings regarding regulatory actions by federal, California, and other state regulators create uncertainty and the potential for applicable regulatory standards to change quickly. Volatility in government regulations regarding emissions and safety creates an environment where companies such as Ford must focus on near-term issues, which challenges our ability to develop and implement long-term plans for compliance and our business in general. In addition, many governments regulate local product content or impose import requirements with the aim of creating jobs, protecting domestic producers, and influencing the balance of payments.

We regularly refine our product cycle plan to improve the fuel economy of our internal combustion vehicles and to offer more propulsion choices, such as hybrid and electrified vehicles, that generate lower GHG emissions. Electrification, including hybrids, plug-in hybrids, EREVs, and battery electric vehicles, is core to our global strategy to comply with current and anticipated environmental laws and regulations in major markets. However, there are limits to our ability to reduce emissions and increase fuel economy over given time frames and many factors that could delay or impede our plans. Those factors primarily relate to the cost and effectiveness of available technologies; consumer acceptance of new technologies and their costs; changes in industrial policy, including incentives for electrified vehicles and battery manufacturing and requirements for battery supply chains; changes in trade policy, which may affect the profitability of certain products; changes in vehicle mix (as described in more detail elsewhere herein); 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, including charging for electrified vehicles; the availability (or lack thereof) of the raw materials and component supply to make affordable batteries and other elements of electrified vehicles; and the human, engineering, and financial resources necessary to deploy new technologies across a wide range of products and powertrains in a short time. Our obligations under the regulatory compliance credit purchase agreements we have entered into, including the ultimate number of credits we may purchase under those agreements, are dependent on the sellers’ delivery of the credits. If the seller under a credit purchase agreement does not deliver the credits contracted for, it may cause us to be out of compliance with emissions standards or other requirements. Such noncompliance may result in fines, penalties, or other costs, and/or we may need to modify our product plans and be unable to sell certain products. In the event we are obligated to purchase credits under those agreements, the cash impact of such purchases may be significant. In addition, we have written off, and may in the future write off, compliance credits we are no longer able to use as a result of legal and policy changes.

Moreover, the rates of EV growth, production disruptions, stop ships, supply chain limitations, lower-than-planned market acceptance of our vehicles, and/or other circumstances may cause us to modify product plans, or, in some cases, purchase credits, which we have done, in order to comply with emissions standards, fuel economy standards, or ZEV requirements, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations and cause reputational harm.

The cost to comply with government regulations concerning new vehicle standards and in-use vehicle requirements, including field service actions, is substantial. New, additional, and changing regulations, regulatory interpretations, legislation, executive orders, directives, and enforcement priorities, or changes in consumer preferences that affect vehicle mix, as well as any non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which, in some jurisdictions, may include criminal liability due to the absence of civil or administrative enforcement regimes, could have a substantial adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations, operations, or reputation. In addition, a number of governments, as well as non-governmental organizations, publicly assess vehicles to their own protocols. Any negative perception regarding the performance of our vehicles subjected to such tests could reduce future sales. Court decisions arising out of consumer

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

and investor litigation could give rise to de facto changes in the interpretation of existing emission laws and regulations, thereby imposing new burdens on manufacturers. For more discussion of the impact of standards on our global business, see the “Governmental Standards” discussion in “Item 1. Business” above.

We and other companies continue to develop autonomous vehicle and driver assist technologies, and the U.S. and foreign governments are continuing to develop the regulatory framework that will govern autonomous vehicles and related technologies. Governmental restrictions on such technologies may limit our ability to provide these features to consumers, and manufacturers are facing increased scrutiny from regulators at the state and federal level on system misuse by customers, feature capabilities, and whether advertising for this technology contains false or misleading information. Some states are developing their own regulations that impact the testing and design of autonomous vehicles. This patchwork approach without federal guidance may subject Ford to additional compliance costs. Further, autonomous vehicle and driver assist technologies continue to be scrutinized by the government and consumers, and actual or perceived failures or misuse of these technologies and features have led to government investigations and inquiries, including of Ford, which has responded to information requests from NHTSA and the National Transportation Safety Board about our BlueCruise system. We and other OEMs are required to report to NHTSA crashes that meet NHTSA-defined criteria and occur when certain advanced driver assistance system features are in use. Such events involving our vehicles and technologies could require safety recalls and/or subject us to fines, penalties, damages, investigations, and reputational harm. In addition, the demand for these services by consumers is fluctuating as the technology is rolled out in various stages and with mixed industry results.

Ford and Ford Credit could be affected by the continued development of more stringent privacy, data use, data protection, data access, and artificial intelligence laws and regulations as well as consumers’ heightened expectations to safeguard their personal information. We are subject to laws, rules, guidelines from privacy and other regulators, and regulations in the United States and other countries relating to the collection, use, transfer, and security of data and the personal information of consumers, employees, or others, including laws that may require us to notify regulators and affected individuals of a data security incident. Such laws, rules, and regulations, also apply to our vendors and/or may hold us liable for any violations by our vendors. Existing and newly developed laws and regulations may apply broadly to our operations within the relevant jurisdiction, are subject to change and uncertain interpretations by courts and regulators, and may be inconsistent across jurisdictions. Accordingly, complying with such laws and regulations may lead to a decline in consumer engagement or cause us to incur substantial costs to modify our operations or business practices. Moreover, regulatory actions seeking to impose significant financial penalties for noncompliance and/or legal actions (including pursuant to laws providing for private rights of action by consumers) could be brought against us in the event of a data compromise, misuse of consumer information, or perceived or actual non-compliance with data protection, data access, privacy, or artificial intelligence requirements. The rapid evolution and increased adoption of artificial intelligence technologies may intensify these risks. Further, any unauthorized release of personal information could harm our reputation, disrupt our business, cause us to expend significant resources, and lead to a loss of consumer confidence resulting in an adverse impact on our business and/or consumers deciding to withhold or withdraw consent for our collection or use of data.

Ford Credit could be subject to new or increased credit regulations, consumer protection regulations, or other regulations. 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 and supervision under various federal, state, and local laws, including the federal Truth-in-Lending Act, Consumer Leasing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and Fair Credit Reporting Act.

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.

Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations could subject Ford Credit to regulatory enforcement actions, including consent orders or similar orders where Ford Credit may be required to revise practices, remunerate customers, or pay fines. An enforcement action against Ford Credit or publicity around even an allegation that Ford Credit has not complied with applicable laws or regulations could harm Ford Credit’s reputation or lead to further litigation. Moreover, in response to audits, inspections, or investigations conducted by regulatory authorities, Ford Credit has in the past modified and may in the future modify its operations or take other actions, such as remunerating customers.

ITEM 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity Strategy and Risk Management

We devote significant resources to our cybersecurity program that we believe is reasonably designed to mitigate our cybersecurity and information technology risks. We employ capabilities, processes, and other security measures we believe are reasonably designed to reduce and mitigate these risks, and have requirements for our suppliers and service providers to do the same. Despite having thorough due diligence, onboarding, and cybersecurity assessment processes in place for our suppliers and service providers, the responsibility ultimately rests with those parties to establish and maintain their respective cybersecurity programs. Our ability to monitor the cybersecurity practices of third parties is limited and there can be no assurance that we can prevent or mitigate the risk of any compromise or failure in the information systems, software, networks, and other assets owned or controlled by each of them. When we become aware that a supplier or service provider’s cybersecurity has been compromised, we attempt to mitigate the risk to the Company, including, if appropriate and feasible, by terminating the supplier’s connection to our information systems.

In an effort to effectively prevent, detect, and respond to cybersecurity threats, we employ a multi-layered cybersecurity risk management program supervised by our Chief Information Security Officer, whose team is responsible for leading enterprise-wide cybersecurity strategy, policy, architecture, and processes. This responsibility includes identifying, considering, and assessing potentially material cybersecurity incidents on an ongoing basis, establishing processes designed to prevent and monitor potential cybersecurity risks, implementing mitigation and remedial measures, and maintaining our cybersecurity program. Our program is informed by and designed to comply with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF). Our program leverages both internal and external techniques and expertise. Internally, we perform penetration tests, internal tests/code reviews, and red team exercises, among other things, to evaluate aspects of our cybersecurity program. We also perform phishing and social engineering simulations with, and provide cybersecurity training for, personnel with Company email and access to Company assets, and regularly circulate security awareness newsletters to employees. Externally, we monitor notifications from the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (“CERT”) and various Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (each an “ISAC”); review customer, media, and third-party cybersecurity reports; and operate a bug bounty program. Our cybersecurity program also includes disaster recovery and incident response plans, including a ransomware response plan which is regularly tested and evaluated in tabletop simulations.

The Company’s global cybersecurity incident response is also overseen by our Chief Information Security Officer. Our Chief Information Security Officer has served in that role for over 8 years and has over a decade of engineering and operations expertise with cybersecurity technologies and services. Our Chief Information Security Officer reports to our Chief Enterprise Technology Officer who has spent over two decades managing cybersecurity risks as a leader at enterprise software and Fortune 50 companies. Our Chief Enterprise Technology Officer reports directly to our Chief Executive Officer.

When a cybersecurity threat or incident is identified, our policy is to review and triage the threat or incident, and to then manage it to conclusion in accordance with our cybersecurity incident response processes. When a cybersecurity incident is determined to be significant, it is addressed by management committees using processes that leverage subject-matter expertise from across the Company. Further, we have in the past and may in the future engage with third-party advisors and government and law enforcement agencies as part of our incident management processes.

Cybersecurity (Continued)

Cybersecurity Governance and Oversight

Cybersecurity risk identification, assessment, and management are integrated into our overall enterprise risk management program. As part of its enterprise risk management efforts, the Board meets with senior management, including the executive leadership team, to assess and respond to critical business risks. These critical enterprise risks are assessed by senior management annually and discussed with the Board. Then each of the top risks are validated, prioritized, and assigned risk owners who are responsible to oversee risk assessment, develop and implement mitigation plans, and provide regular updates to the Board (and/or Board committee assigned to the risk). In this way, critical business risks, including cybersecurity risk, benefit from both top-down and bottom-up risk management efforts that we believe are reasonably designed to escalate key risk and control issues to senior management and the Board.

As a result of this enterprise risk management process, cybersecurity threats have been and continue to be identified as one of the Company’s critical business risks, with our Chief Enterprise Technology Officer and Chief Information Security Officer assigned as the executive risk owners. The Chief Enterprise Technology Officer and Chief Information Security Officer monitor the prevention, mitigation, detection, and remediation of cybersecurity incidents through their management of, and participation in, the cybersecurity risk management and strategy processes described above, including through the operation of the Company’s global cybersecurity incident response plans, which include provisions for escalation to the Chief Policy Officer and General Counsel, as well as the Board and its committees, as appropriate. As discussed below, the executive risk owners for cybersecurity risk report out to the Audit Committee and, in some cases, the Board, on a regular basis as part of our enterprise risk management process.

The Board has delegated primary responsibility for the oversight of cybersecurity and information technology risks, and the Company’s preparedness for these risks, to the Audit Committee. As part of its oversight responsibilities, the Audit Committee receives regular updates on our cybersecurity practices as well as cybersecurity and information technology risks from our Chief Information Security Officer. These updates include topics related to cybersecurity practices, cyber risks, and risk management processes, such as updates to our cybersecurity programs and mitigation strategies, and other cybersecurity developments. In addition to these regular updates, as part of our incident response processes, the Chief Enterprise Technology Officer, in collaboration with the Chief Information Security Officer and Chief Policy Officer and General Counsel, provides updates on certain cybersecurity incidents to the Audit Committee and, in some cases, the Board. The Audit Committee reviews and provides input into and oversight of our cybersecurity processes, and in the event Ford determines it has experienced a material cybersecurity incident, the Audit Committee is notified about the incident in advance of filing a Current Report on Form 8-K.

In 2025, we did not identify any cybersecurity threats that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect our business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. For a discussion of whether and how cybersecurity incidents, ransomware attacks, and other disruptions to our operational information systems, security systems, vehicles, and services could reasonably be expected to affect the Company, including its business strategy, results of operations or financial condition, see our risk factors above in Item 1A. generally and, in particular, “Operational information systems, security systems, products, and services could be affected by cybersecurity incidents, ransomware attacks, and other disruptions and impact Ford, Ford Credit, their suppliers, and dealers” on page 23.

Recently Filed

Click on a ticker to see risk factors

Ticker *	File Date
AVTR	17 minutes ago
LEU	25 minutes ago
FNMA	40 minutes ago
SHOP	48 minutes ago
U	48 minutes ago
UE	49 minutes ago
BXMT	an hour ago
NI	an hour ago
PSN	an hour ago
ZG	an hour ago
REXR	9 hours ago
KRC	12 hours ago
F	12 hours ago
ENTG	13 hours ago
NSP	13 hours ago
LYFT	14 hours ago
DAL	14 hours ago
ARW	14 hours ago
SPGI	14 hours ago
DIOD	14 hours ago
LEGT	14 hours ago
NTST	15 hours ago
AOS	15 hours ago
EXEL	15 hours ago
HCA	15 hours ago
PEGA	15 hours ago
MOH	15 hours ago
GPRE	15 hours ago
PTEN	15 hours ago
PECO	15 hours ago
ARI	15 hours ago
HIW	15 hours ago
SLAB	15 hours ago
KVYO	15 hours ago
UPST	15 hours ago
TCBI	15 hours ago
ADC	15 hours ago
MEDP	15 hours ago
INCY	15 hours ago
CMI	16 hours ago
CNX	17 hours ago
MAR	18 hours ago
GT	20 hours ago
CMS	20 hours ago
L	23 hours ago
CNA	23 hours ago
MAS	1 day ago
CURB	1 day ago
CVS	1 day, 1 hour ago
ACRE	1 day, 10 hours ago

OTHER DATASETS

House Trading

Dashboard

Corporate Flights

Dashboard

App Ratings

Dashboard

Strategies

Alerts

Browse Data

Risk Factors Dashboard

View risk factors by ticker

Search filings by term

Risk Factors - F

-New additions in green
-Changes in blue
-Hover to see similar sentence in last filing

Recently Filed

OTHER DATASETS

House Trading

Corporate Flights

App Ratings

TRADE SMARTER

TRADE SMARTER

Strategies

Alerts

Browse Data

Risk Factors Dashboard

View risk factors by ticker

Search filings by term

Risk Factors - F

-New additions in green-Changes in blue-Hover to see similar sentence in last filing

Recently Filed

OTHER DATASETS

House Trading

Corporate Flights

App Ratings

TRADE SMARTER

TRADE SMARTER

-New additions in green
-Changes in blue
-Hover to see similar sentence in last filing