actually outperforms what Wallstreet analysts had predicted (actually earned 62 cents per share, when analysts had predicted 38 cents)............. and the headline from Reuters reads:

Sales Drop, Higher Costs hit Ford Profit.

The entire article was very negative, and is a perfect example of the bias in the media today. I swear to god, Ford and GM sales could be up 500% with all models but one gaving gains. Yet, the headlines would read "GM/Ford _________ (insert model) sees a 30% drop for 2nd quarter."

It has gotten to the point that it doesn't matter what the big 2 do, the media will find the one thing they didn't do, and slam them for it............ while giving little to no credit for the good that has been done. I do honestly think that the media would be jumping for joy if either Ford or GM failed, or had to declare BK.

Remember, good news sells, but bad news sells real good.

Paint me disgusted in Payson.

Url for the article:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=8236282

 

From Fox News:

"Ford's Profit Down 38%, Expects Q2 Loss"


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154014,00.html

 

did you not read the article?

they went from $1.95 billion to $1.21 billion and you want them to write an article about how perfect FORD is doing?

 

"Earnings were substantially higher than Wall Street had expected, but the No. 2 U.S. automaker Ford affirmed its full-year outlook for earnings of $1.25 to $1.50 per share."

When sales are down across the board because of inflation, higher fuel costs, higher material costs, and a slowing economy, yet a company STILL manages to exceed Wall Street Estimates by a "substantially higher" amount, I think it warrants a little pat on the back. My personal opinion only.

I swear, you MUST be a media member that writes for some consumer rag...
Come out... see the brighter side Luke... the Dark Side is evil... use the Force Luke...

 

so you want a magazine to tell its readers that a $.74 billion reduction in profits is a good thing and all is peaches and cream?

i guess you expect for news articles to say "GM surging back!" when GM's bonds hit junk status, right?

 

Well, I can see the entire jest of my post went completely over your head.

This isn't just about Ford. This is about media bias. What part of "this is old news that has been reported over and over" do you not get??? What part of "Ford did substantially better than wallstreet ALREADY expected them to do" do you not get???

BTW, every article written has had the same slant on it............... every single one. No headline has been anything but scathing.

Remember that part of sales are about perception. With the way that the media reports on Ford and GM, how can anybody not in the "know" form a good opinion about either of these two companies??? They are slapped upside the head with so much negative, that they probably think that both are on the edge of extinction.

This is not responsible reporting. It is not accurate reporting. It is sensationalism at its worst.

I don't care if you are a GM, or a Ford fan.......... you should be outraged by the blatant bias in the media. Where are the HUGE front page headlines about Honda's sales being down by double digits??? Where are all of the doom and gloom estimates there???

If we do not demand more accurate reporting on the part of the media.......... and demand that they show the same courtesy, or lack thereof, to all manufacturers equally.............. then we deserve exactly what we get.............. Glorified National Enquirers.

 

 

The point is not how well Ford did with respect to Wall Street estimates. That's an essentially meaningless comparison for all practical purposes. What matters is how much profit they made in absolute terms, and to a lesser extent how that compares with their past performance. In both cases, they did not do well and the media reported it appropriately.

 

but thats "media bias" ...

 

Yup.

Funny how the Ford fans ignore the fact that Ford has significantly downgraded its earnings expectations for the rest of the year.

The market is forward looking. Guidance is more important than earnings results. Ford has guided downward for the remainder of the year.

 

This IS something to celebrate! Ford did a damn fine job!

It's sort of like when you were a kid and you brought your report card home and showed your parents you got all Ds.

They would say "Lil johnny you used to get all Bs!"

And you would reply "Yea, mum, but, I was expecting to get all Fs!"

Mum would then jump up and down "Oh, happy happy joy joy!" And she would take you out for ice creme!

Failing less than you expected is a victory and a job well done.

Yea sure.

 

So does this mean I shouldn't consult the WSJ for my horse racing betting?

 

The thing is, most financial journals and institutions base their estimates on guidance from the companies themselves. I guess that saves them the effort of actually doing real research on their own. So these numbers are very susceptible to manipulation. Microsoft used to be the expert at this: every quarter they'd whine and moan about how things are getting tough, and the competition is heating up, so hey, don't expect much profit out of us! Then surprise, they'd beat all "estimates" and then hope for glowing headlines and maybe a temporary spike in their stock price. Maybe Ford is taking a page from Microsoft's book.

 

As bad as the rest of them...

Gloria nor I are saying that Ford deserves a pat on the back, a golden halo, or even the Congressional Medal OF Honor.

READ THIS - I DO NOT THINK REDUCED SALES IS A GOOD THING!!!

My issue is with how the media chooses to headline the article, and then to dole out 99% negative comments and issues and slide in a single one-liner about "exceeding expectations". It's the ETERNAL NEGATIVITY THAT PEEVES ME!!!

I could have just as easily clicked on an article with the headline,"Ford profits still off despite exceeding Wallstreet expectations" or "Ford exceed analysts expectations, but profits still suffering".

Nevermind. Forget it. I can see this is like trying to teach worms to walk upright.
I guess it boils down to peoples' fundamentalism - some people are optimistic, and some are pessimistic.
Suffice it to say that media-types are predominantly PESSIMISTIC when it comes to reporting on domestic car companies and their products, OK?

 

The media almost always shows things in a negative light... that's true.

But at the same time... How exactly is it that Ford deserved a positively written article just because it didn't suck as bad as experts expected them to?

Don't blame inflation, gas prices, a 'slowing economy', etc, etc unless it's affecting everyone like this. But its not. Toyota broke it's 1st quarter sales records and profits yet again this year. So are their US sales immune to these affects simply because their main HQ is based in Japan? I don't think so.

And FWIW you guys talking about the media having an anti big-2 bias need to realize that your bias is probably FAAAAR greater than theirs. And that in turn makes any slight bias that they might have or even if they have none - it makes them look like they have one afterall. (I'm not going to argue this point because I'm by no means an expert in journalism)