Is probably one of the previous and devious naked shorts. Nothing more than a cheat from the street, and now he gets on TV to scare everyone into selling. So that his buddies can pick up cheap shares and steal your money. For those of you that own Ford this stock is on a definite upward trend and day to day means nothing. It's a strong company with good product and will be making large profits going forward. Of course this is just my humble opinion.
He can't be a total idiot and he at least has provided a couple of good reasons for not liking Ford.
I think he needs a feeble, at best, economic recovery to be proven right.
On the other hand, I take pleasure in the fact that he shorted at 9 in December and the stock is now 12.
If Ford starts making enough to pay a dividend, his pain will increase.
Momma alway said to stay away from operators.
Good thread-- Chanos wants to save face, that's on the nose (joke).
Wonder how many of his clients have left him? The $9 vs. $12 contrast where he mis-judged Ford is a great example of a too-big error.
Shanghai is not all of China, but just one of several city-ports along their Pacific-facing coast, this particular one being the posh replacement to an old wheeler-dealer, "wild west", frontier kind of place. If their modern real estate went up too much, yes, some Shanghai stocks went down. But China is way bigger than Shanghai, and Chanos was not merely shorting Shaghai.
JB, Shaggy's mom
Did you notice that DKL and F-PS are up nicely today?
Chanos says that the auto industry is too bloated, and conveniently doesn't mention how Ford has leaned down, scaled back, and put themselves into a position where they can produce only the amount of product they need now. They can adjust production fairly quickly now.
I understand he's way short and isn't going to mention that, but I can't believe none of the talking heads went remotely near that construct - one that's been mentioned several times and is no secret.
They can lead the sheep to slaughter, I'll continue to shepard my position.
Didn't see CNBC this morning but I assume he said something negative about Ford. I did see him on there several months back when he said he was short Ford and his main reason was the union contract renewal and that they(the union)have ownership stakes in GM and Chrysler so they were likely to be tougher on Ford. Doesn't seem like the unions have quite the leverage they once did since Ford appears to be able to build cars elsewhere and I don't think it would hurt their image in America if the union is obviously unfairly treating them(Ford).
As far as this analyst today, didn't Mulally say last week that they were likely to hit investment grade much sooner than expected? How was this analyst able to square those remarks with his downgrade? Mulally also said they would be solidly profitable in 2011 and this was before he knew they were going to be solidly profitable in 2010, so again why would Mulally think that and this analyst somehow come up with the opposite conclusion.
IMO, chanos and his hedge fund holds a very large short position in ford. It seems he is using his "bully pulpit" to drive down ford shares, which will enable to cover his shorts and try to save his face---I personnally do NOT think he will be successful.
Good points, muffin.
A guest writer (Shaun Rein) at Forbes, who has expertise on China, ripped into Chanos last Jan for his ignorance in deciding to short China stuff:
A sample, showing Rein's attention to hugely important details that Chanos misses:
"There are, however, fundamental differences between China's real estate and consumer finance markets and those of the U.S. and Dubai, which Chanos compares them to. First, when buying residential properties, consumers in China have to put down 30% before taking out a mortgage. For a second home, they have to put down 50%, no matter what their net worth. Therefore, China doesn't have the reckless consumer behavior that occurred in the U.S., where people with bad credit were taking out huge loans from Countrywide with no money down, or were buying 10 homes without deposits in the hope of flipping them in a few months. People who buy homes can afford it.
Also, mortgages are not being spliced up and packaged and securitized by the likes of Citigroup ( C - news - people ) and Bank of America ( BAC - news - people ). Instead mortgages are held by the original lenders, the way they were in the U.S. before financial innovation and lack of regulation broke down the old rules. "
muffin-- you are too humble, you get a lot of things right
ret4ever, thanks for not posting politics
JB, Shaggy's mom
Chanos was right, the guest writer was wrong.
On January 11, 2010 the date of the article, the Shanghai index was at 3212.
Today it is at 2591.
He's right about Ford, too.