Anyone else following the recent financial/stock situation with them? Talk about borrow-happy.

Yep, I bet on them for the long term at these price levels..........but...........apparently, I may be in for a rougher ride than I figured.........

Yup. Same here. I played the game with GM and dumped it about 2 days before KK did. Felt like I was a genius or something. Problem is I took the loot and bought F with it. Thought I was in for another nice ride - long term. Then they start this crap with putting up the only things that MAKE them money to secure debt for the things that DONT make them money.

Betting big on the Boeing guy, and soon his HR buddy. We'll see I guess. At this point it's all profit money -- but that don't mean I want to pee it all away. Today, with the jerk-off-loud-mouth Cramer (or Kramer... whatever) -- saying it's a $6.50 stock. A-Hole. He's STILL pumping up Ruth's gimmie a break. But people just love him. I played his silly game with SIRI and XMSR, he's a hype and dump scammer. But I know a bunch of people, like people often are, that won't admit he isn't worth listening too. All that yelling and screaming is nothing more than a stupid gimmick.

Oh well, better step off my soap-box before I fall.

Cheers, and here's to F making some dough.

Pete

Every single newsletter and every single commentator must be used strictly for ideas. Not a single one of them can reliably beat the S&P 500 over a ten year period. The stock market is simply too fickle for that.

I listen to Cramer on occasion........may make a bet on one of his suggestions.........but, usually not.

The fundamentals and the growth prospects have to rule the day.

We'll see where Ford goes.......but........I won't be keeping it if it drops much below 7.

Sell it now then... Hell, I may even throw a little more INTO it. The way I'm thinking is that the HR move suggests that they understand the problem is with the PEOPLE. Look at Ford JR. A moron -- on a good day. The guy has more money than brains. And 80% of those below him were just like him.

He's my thought.

They're going to clean-house. Old-school and heavy. Then, use the money they are getting via debt to try and re-invent. Sort of like what Chrysler did back way-when.

Similar companies -- and both smaller and SHOULD be agile enough to pull it off. They took care of the union issue well (30K tit-suckers bye-bye)... and now Mgt. needs to away next. I like what I'm reading about the Boeing guy, and how he handled Airbus - what he does works.

Oh well... I think in the low-mid $6 I'll match my current position... we're not talking a lot of money, but it's fun.

Upon further investigation, they've got another two years of heavy losses where they expect to burn through $18B.

There is no way this stock is headed anywhere to the upside anytime soon.

The downside is zero.

I'm not riding it down there.

Amen, brother, amen. You are preaching to the choir.

Everyone wants to beat the market. Investores routinely buy and sell individual stocks in the hope of beating the market. Unfortunately it’s more difficult than you think, especially over the long term.

Investing is a zero sum game. Investors as a whole make up the market, so as a group, investors can do no better than the market itself. If one investor outperforms the market, another one must underperform it by a like amount.
Trading costs diminish returns. If investing had no costs, investors as a whole would match the market’s returns. But after costs (sales loads, operating expenses, trading fees and so on), investors do less well than the market, or specific market index, because the market, or index, doesn’t have costs.

Financial markets are efficient. Information is so readily available, especially about large U.S. companies, that it’s tough for any investor or fund manager to sustain a performance edge over the long term. Some markets are less efficient (international and U.S. small capitalization companies), but they tend to have higher costs, which diminish their returns.

That is why I preach over and over again that nearly everyone would be better off pursuing an indexing strategy, either through index funds or through spiders, which trade like individual stocks.

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

I've got to get back to the Rydex funds that I had owned in the past.

2X the return of the S&P500.......up........or down.

They have a Nasdaq fund that does the same thing.

Investors don't hold onto dogs, looks like a good time to bail out. Or short it all the way down!

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

I don't like to use the term "investors" who buy and sell stocks frequently, looking for a short-term gain.

The activties of these kind of traders is better described as gambling.

Investors are better described as though who purchase investments for long-term gains.

Take a look at Warren Buffet's philosophy. Warren Buffet is without a doubt America’s most successful investment manager. The turnover in his portfolio is not only low, it is nearly non-existent. His philosophy is best explained in this 1996 Annual Report of Berkshire Hathaway:

“Inactivity strikes us as intelligent behavior. Neither we nor most business managers would dream of feverishly trading highly-profitable subsidiaries because a small move in the Federal Reserve’s discount rate was predicated or because some wall street pundit had reversed his view on the market. Why, then, should we behave differently with our minority positions in wonderful businesses?”

“…we keep most of our major holdings regardless of how they are priced relative to (current) intrinsic business value…a ‘til death do us part attitude… As investors, our reaction to money managers who trade stocks daily is much like our attitude toward space exploration. We applaud the endeavor but prefer to skip the ride. …Indeed ‘institutional investor’ is becoming one of those self-contradictions called an oxymoron, like ‘jumbo shrimp’, lady mud-wrestler’, and ‘inexpensive lawyer.’ ”

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

See this is were my ignorance of the market shows. I say the same thing in regards to RE about flippers and speculators that call themselves investors. In reality many of them are gamblers. These people are the ones currantly screaming on the RE forums because all of a sudden its a bit harder to ply there trade.

This is one reason I don't really like the stock market. To me it looks like gambling unless you can buy enough shares to have a say in the way the company is run.

I guess one day I'll learn about it and give it a go.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

$6.88... I'm thinking $6.50 and then ride it back to the 8-9 Range.

I read about that story a little while ago and thought it was bad news. One place to check for interesting car news and an interesting take on it is autoextremist.com. I don't know very much about big business finance, but was talking about it with a friend of mine who does and he explained it like this. I'll try to remember basically what he said. If Ford needs to borrow money, and thier credit is not as good as it could be given the value at which they are traded, then they pay business prime interest plus, which is high. If they use real estate as collateral, even though it may have limited appeal to anyone other than an automaker, they can lower the interest on the huge loans they take. So, given that, it could be a wise move for Ford right now. Sad that it is necessary. Like I said, feel free to correct me on tis very basic shceme as I don't know business. I guess bottom line is Ford needs to start selling some cars.

__________________
1984 300D turbo, 250K
1971 MGBGT, 101K
2007 VW Jetta, 4K