No help or wrong help for Detroit?

Well, one is safer in a typical SUV because they are bigger and heavier.
Pure physics there. If I ever have an accident, I hope it's in my
Navigator.

 

Not so, the only time the money goes to the company is when the stock is
originally issued. What you see on the NYSE is trades among speculators. I
guess you missed economics 101 class.

mike hunt

 

Not so, stock in a company is a share of the ownership of the company. The
value of that share, after the original issue can be bought and sold among
speculators or repurchased by the company that issued the stock. I guess
you missed that class in economics 101 as well.




mike hunt

 

If that is what you believe you must have missed many of your classes


mike hunt

 

I don't know about him but you obviously haven't, if you did your professor
must have been a dummy. The company only gets the money from the original
issue. Look at what has happened with some recent high tech company
stocks. The company got the money from the original issue only to see the
stock traded at a much higher figure. The company got none of that premium



mike hunt

 

Great post. Also check various car magazines. For example, I subscribe to
Car and Driver. They compare various cars similar cars--eg Honda Accord
vs Toyota Camry. You can learn a lot from those articles.

 

The handling advantages most SUVs have over the FWD vans is that they
operate in RWD most of the time. The front is activated only when needed.
Even AWD systems are biased to the rear, for handling purposes when traction
is limited. Although some are 50/50 they shift to 60/40 or even 80/20 as
needed.


mike hunt

 

What makes you think CRs testing ONE vehicle among all that a manufactures
may sell of that model that year, which can be up to nearly a million a year
in the case of the number one selling vehicle Ford F150 or 400,000 as in the
case of the Camry the number one selling car, possibly be indicative of ALL
of the others?

How can they possible suggest all the others will be good, or bad, as the
case may be based on the ONE they bought and tested? Particularly when the
J D Powers reports have consistently indicated ALL manufactures have a
failure rate of around 2% in the first five years, which shows 98% of all
manufactures vehicles will actually be trouble free over the same time
period?



mike hunt

 

I've taken several. Have you? You obviously don't know the difference
between loaning money to someone and buying an ownership position.

Matt

 

So, if you buy a new car from Chrysler and pay cash for it, then by your
definition you made a loan to Chrysler.


Matt

 

So why do you make a loan to the car maker when you buy a car?

Matt

 

No, that's a quid pro quo. The former could be thought in a very
general sense as a form of a loan (bond) with the great expectation of some
possible future benefit which may or may not manifest. However,
while it has been held to have numerous meanings, in the broadest
sense of the term it (stock) does represent an ownership interest in the
business and that includes all corporate wealth and resources,
subject to all corporate liabilities and obligations.

There are different types of stock (preferred, general, bank, etc., etc.)

Since stock is the goods and wares of a merchant, kept for sale
and traffic, it includes the entire property of the business to include
its credits and/or debits. So as a part owner you have all that goes
with ownership (or partial).

I can see the points you are both making and in a sense both are
correct, somewhat. But you are mixing up "stocks" with "bonds".
Many people do that same thing with assault and battery. You
can have an assault without a battery, but you cannot have a battery
without an assault.

Stock is different from "bonds". And it seems to me that therein
lies the confusion. A bond is evidence of a debt. Thus perhaps
for its stock a bond is issued, in which case the idea about it being
a loan comes into play. Bottom line: stock is part ownership in
the assets/liabilites of the corporation whereas bond is evidence
of indebtedness. Both of these terms can be used in a broad sense
and are often uttered together, thereby engendering confusion.

Given a choice which to take: a stock or a bond? I'll take the former.

Helen

 

Helen, Helen, Helen, I was being saracastic. Read the entire thread
above for context. I know full well the difference between a stock and
a loan.


Matt

 

That demonstrates one of the limitations with the written word as a
form of communication. Sarcasm is not readily detected unless
one is familar with the writer and/or his posts.

Regards,
Helen

 

Heck no. You are BUYING an OWNERSHIP stake in Chrysler.

What were your economics professors all ex-Soviets?

Charles of Schaumburg

 

It never has to be repaid, full stop. What you've just described is a
corporate bond.

Companies are not required to declare dividends, and many never do.
Further, the increase in the value of the stock is not repayment from
the company. There's no loan involved.

 

Semantics is meaning.

And owing to the steep depreciation of a new car and the fact that a
loan pays off faster at the end than the beginning, many people with perfectly
reasonable loans will be upside-down shortly after purchase. It's not
a moral or even fiscal failure, just an unfortunate fact.

Hot Wheels, right?

 

I guess you haven't followed the thread for context either. I was being
sarastic. I mentioned several messages ago the difference between
stocks and loans, but wolfpuppy just doesn't get it. Try understanding
the thread at hand before replying blindly.

Matt

 

Understanding the thread is not a requirement of usenet posts...

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

 

Think this concept was covered in the High School course. Its not a
college level concept.