No bailout: Ford earns $1.7b in 3Q, pays down health care debt
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
yes. it. is.
You should explain how it is, then. Because the links & articles you provided don't say what you claim they said.
Ford was not in as bad a shape, and could survive without a bailout.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
whatever onceler....you haven't provided a single link
if i told you the sky looks blue, you would say i am insane and wrong and if i provided a link to back it up, you would say the link said it was more of a purple color, hence, onceler is always right
Like I said, your links don't say what you claimed they said. I think you realize at this point that you've started another dumb, unsupportable thread.
Just for starters - where you aware that Ford had secured a credit line of over $20 billion prior to the crash that neither GM or Chrysler had?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29304253/
since onceler is in above his head....the situation is simple:
1. ford was in the same boat as the others, eg, in serious financial straights. while they borrowed a couple of years prior and restructured, the reality is, had they kept spending, they would have likely had a liquidity problem.
2. gm and chrysler could have done the same thing. they did not. ford stopped spending and slashed costs, NOT as onceler claims "before" the economic downturn, because as we can see from the link, they were spending billions of borrowed money trying to restructure....then they stopped, slashed costs and negotiated with the unions for lower pay/benefits. gm and chrysler did not.
seriously, why do you have make everything so complicated onceler? do you just enjoy looking like an idiot?
ROFLMAO
I love it Yurt. From your link (I'm sure you grabbed anything you could find without really reading it):
"A little more than two years ago, Ford secured a $23 billion line of credit to fund its now-scrambled turnaround, then called "The Way Forward." Arranged by Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Securities, and Citigroup, the massive deal securitized and then hocked almost all of the company's North American assets, including the Ford logo. Even at the peak of the credit bubble, Ford's double-down strategy was viewed as reckless. All three major rating agencies downgraded Ford's debt after the deal was announced.
.In hindsight, however, Ford appears to have gotten while the getting was good. The deal gave the company access to a cash pile that has set it apart from its rivals: At the beginning of February, Ford withdrew more than $10 billion to bankroll its capital-destroying manufacturing operations. Under the terms of the deal, its lenders couldn't say no. The main reason that Ford doesn't need a government bailout now is that it already received the private-sector equivalent. "
What do you know - the same line of credit I asked you about in the previous post.
LOL - tff, as some say....
I love it Yurt. From your link (I'm sure you grabbed anything you could find without really reading it):
"A little more than two years ago, Ford secured a $23 billion line of credit to fund its now-scrambled turnaround, then called "The Way Forward." Arranged by Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Securities, and Citigroup, the massive deal securitized and then hocked almost all of the company's North American assets, including the Ford logo. Even at the peak of the credit bubble, Ford's double-down strategy was viewed as reckless. All three major rating agencies downgraded Ford's debt after the deal was announced.
.In hindsight, however, Ford appears to have gotten while the getting was good. The deal gave the company access to a cash pile that has set it apart from its rivals: At the beginning of February, Ford withdrew more than $10 billion to bankroll its capital-destroying manufacturing operations. Under the terms of the deal, its lenders couldn't say no. The main reason that Ford doesn't need a government bailout now is that it already received the private-sector equivalent. "
What do you know - the same line of credit I asked you about in the previous post.
LOL - tff, as some say....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
wow...i talk about the loans in my post and onceler thinks he is "showing" me something....
the loans are not the same as a bailout, not even close, but only a liberal nut like onceler would believe that...its clear you have zero understanding of business
bailouts are when you have little to zero chance of surviving, IOW...no sane person would give you a loan
must i explain every little simple concept to you onceler?
the loans are not the same as a bailout, not even close, but only a liberal nut like onceler would believe that...its clear you have zero understanding of business
bailouts are when you have little to zero chance of surviving, IOW...no sane person would give you a loan
must i explain every little simple concept to you onceler?
I have enough understanding of business to realize that Ford was financially in better shape than GM & Chrysler, which is why the did NOT need the bailout, and GM & Chrysler DID...which you just admitted, btw.
Nice of you to finally come around. A little late, as usual.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Ok, yea, you got that right!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Wekk Kudo to Ford for having the vision to make hard decisions that cost them in the short term but saved them from going belly up and having to ask the government for a bail out, but I still fail to see Yurts point. What Ford did was completely irrelevent to the GM/Chrysler bail out.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
You don't know what you're talking about. Ford wasn't even remotely close or I wouldn't have bought their stock. They had poor earning for a while but had made some tough decisions that paid off in the long run. GM and Chrysler sunk all their eggs in the SUV market, failed to keep up with the market and had to pony up for a bail out but again, what is your point?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
odd...the experts say you're wrong and the facts detail how close ford was
i mean really....because you bought stock means my point is not understandable....lmao...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
I have enough understanding of business to realize that Ford was financially in better shape than GM & Chrysler, which is why the did NOT need the bailout, and GM & Chrysler DID...which you just admitted, btw.
Nice of you to finally come around. A little late, as usual.
and here we end up....
onceler, you're right, you're never wrong
too bad for you reality does not comport with your view
Actually, on this thread, as w/ the previous one Nigel linked, you're the only one arguing that Ford was in the exact same boat, and stubbornly ignoring reality to declare you're "right" and that my business understanding is "appalling."
Even your own link from MSNBC supports the reality of Ford's superior financial position at that time, and lays waste to your claim that they were in the same situation as GM & Chrysler.
Too bad....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
really onceler? lets see it again:
1. there is no reason for confidence
2. they are hemorraging as bad as gm and chrysler as we can see by the major losses listed above
3. if they keep spending they likely will face a liquidity problem
4. unlike your dishonest claim i "admitted" they are different, the FACT is they took a loan YEARS before that current situation and could no longer get loans, hence why they considered taking bailout money. so, we can see in fact that they were in virtually the same situation as the other two. same boat with sales and outlook, and they could no longer get any loans, but, instead of taking the bailout money, they slashed costs and negotiated with the unions.
gm and chrysler had every opportunity to do the same thing ford did...they did not negotiate with unions or cut costs, they took the bailout money instead
i'm truly surprised how difficult this simple concept is for you to understand
Such a cherrypicker.
Again, from the link you posted:
"At the beginning of February, Ford withdrew more than $10 billion to bankroll its capital-destroying manufacturing operations. Under the terms of the deal, its lenders couldn't say no. The main reason that Ford doesn't need a government bailout now is that it already received the private-sector equivalent. "
That's the whole deal, Yurt. Ford wasn't on the brink, as GM was; they had money to draw on.
Duh.
Again, from the link you posted:
"At the beginning of February, Ford withdrew more than $10 billion to bankroll its capital-destroying manufacturing operations. Under the terms of the deal, its lenders couldn't say no. The main reason that Ford doesn't need a government bailout now is that it already received the private-sector equivalent. "
That's the whole deal, Yurt. Ford wasn't on the brink, as GM was; they had money to draw on.
Duh.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
and you're cherry picking and ignoring that they were in the same boat...you have completely and repeatedly ignored the fact that that arrangement was made two years prior, that had ford continued spending it would need the bailout
unlike gm and chrysler, ford looked ahead and slashed spending...while gm and chrysler were acting like idiots...they deserve to fail, period
it really is that simple onceler...
They were not in the "same boat" on AVAILABLE FUNDS. And that's really the key part here, Yurt.
It's completely irrelevant that they made the arrangement 2 years prior, or that they WOULD have needed a bailout if they continued spending badly. The entire point is they had the money they needed to keep going, and GM didn't.
Appalling business understanding there, Yurt - simply appalling....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
gm could have slashed costs, gm could have gotten financing two years prior
gm did not
simple concept really....ford was in teh same sales and inventory boat, and had they not slashed spending, they were going to take the bailout....they made better business decisions and hence did not need to take the bailout...i really don't understand how you can't grasp this simple fact....
i hope you never have to make business decisions, i would hate to see you go broke
Um, yeah; which is why I said that Ford was a better run company up until the time of the bailout.
This is getting silly. It's actually hard to watch you try to still spin this into something it's not....