Ford (NYSE: F) was on a roll, briefly. It dropped out of the expensive EV race after pledging $30 billion in investment. Ford Energy, a battery storage business, was a solution for energy needs for installations like AI data centers.

Even Jim Cramer liked it. He gushed, “We know that demand for these big backup batteries is growing like crazy because all the new data centers really can’t afford to go offline.”

Not long ago, Ford CEO Jim Farley said that if Chinese EVs were in the US market, it could ruin Ford. Recently, it has formed an alliance with some Chinese companies, which some people believe will hurt the US labor market.

A reprimand from U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy hit Farley like a truck. The reaction to Ford’s deals with Chinese battery maker CATL and Chinese automaker Geely was one of “profound concern.” Duffy’s letter to Farley was even harsher. Duffy wrote, “When a company intentionally chooses to deepen operational dependencies on strategic competitors, it fails to act as the reliable partner the American public and this DOT require.”

Among the other things Ford missed was that both Republicans and Democrats have stated Chinese technology is a threat to US security. And, just as bad, many Chinese EV and battery companies exist only because their government has underwritten their founding and ongoing financing. Farley should have considered that his own fear of Chinese EVs is fundamentally what the Administration is using against him.

Farley is widely known for strategic blunders. EVs are at the top of that list. Years of product recalls are also something he did not fix quickly and which has continued to dog Ford.

Farley’s response to Duffy was that Duffy’s letter was based on a “misunderstanding,” Farley told the WSJ. He commented to the paper, “These are basic misunderstandings, mistruths, whatever words you want to use, that could be cleared up in a simple five-minute call.” It is just short of an insult to Duffy. And that call should have been made much earlier.

The post Ford CEO Farley Does More To Wreck The Company appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Shares of UiPath (NYSE:PATH) are down 3% to $13.55 midday Wednesday, sliding even after Citi initiated coverage with a fresh Buy rating and a $23 price target. The move extends a rough stretch for the automation software vendor, which has struggled to hold gains around its most recent quarterly report.

The SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (NYSEARCA:SPY) is down 0.44% in the same session. Meanwhile, the iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF (CBOE:IGV) is down 0.3%. Today’s price action in UiPath stock appears to be company-specific rather than a broad rotation out of enterprise software.

Citi Buy Call Meets a Guidance Hangover

Citi’s Yitchuin Wong initiated coverage of UiPath stock with a Buy rating and a $23 price target, framing the post-earnings weakness as an attractive entry for long-term holders and pointing to UiPath’s role as an orchestration layer for corporate AI deployment. It’s an initiation of coverage rather than an upgrade, so the vote of confidence is arriving from a firm that hadn’t previously carried the name.

The selling that preceded today’s move followed UiPath’s third-quarter revenue guide of $442.5 million, issued earlier this month, which landed below Wall Street expectations. Management on the September 3 call posted revenue of $410 million, up 13% year over year, with annual recurring revenue (ARR) reaching $1.938 billion and non-GAAP operating margin expanding to 22%.

CEO Daniel Dines told analysts that customers are turning to UiPath “not just to automate individual tasks, but to orchestrate complex, long-running, and exception-heavy business processes.” Retail sentiment has split between those treating the reaction as overdone at a profitable, debt-free company and those focused on decelerating ARR growth and stiffer competition in automation software.

UiPath ended its quarter with roughly 10,350 customers, and its largest cohort keeps expanding. Customers spending $1 million or more in ARR grew 21% to 387, and dollar-based net retention held at 109%. Those figures underpin Citi’s argument that the underlying franchise looks stronger than the guide alone suggests.

Enterprise Automation Peers Also Under Pressure

Pegasystems (NASDAQ:PEGA) stock is down 2% to $34.99. The workflow vendor’s second-quarter results in July showed total annual contract value (ACV) growth of just 7%, with CEO Alan Trefler citing customer purchasing delays tied to “unprecedented change in the software market” and highly variable token costs.

Also down is C3.ai (NYSE:AI) stock, which is off by 2% to $10.33. The enterprise AI vendor beat estimates last week with revenue of $52.38 million and bookings up 73% quarter over quarter, though its top line was still down sharply from $70.26 million a year ago as founder Thomas Siebel’s turnaround plays out.

The sector’s shift is visible across results. Pegasystems has pushed its Pega Infinity 26 release, saying it doesn’t charge per token. C3.ai closed 22 agreements last quarter with counterparties including Ford Motor (NYSE:F), Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNF), and U.S. federal agencies.

The group’s common thread is investor caution around AI-era monetization. Pegasystems has leaned into design-time AI with predictable pricing, C3.ai is rebuilding around its agentic platform, and UiPath is pitching model-agnostic orchestration. Today’s action suggests the market wants demonstrated results before rewarding pitch decks.

What to Watch Next

UiPath’s investor day on September 22, followed by its Fusion user conference from September 23 to 25 in Las Vegas, is the next scheduled catalyst that could reset the narrative around ARR quality and agent orchestration. Investors can watch for whether management uses those events to reframe the third-quarter guide.

The bull case rests on a profitable operator with $1.4 billion in cash and no debt, trading well below Citi’s target. The bear case leans on slowing ARR growth, a crowded automation field, and the same customer hesitation that hit Pegasystems in July.

Readers weighing their exposure may want to keep an eye on whether today’s Buy initiation attracts additional coverage before the investor day. Position sizing should reflect that UiPath stock has been volatile through the recent earnings cycle, and between now and Q3 FY2027 results, investor day framing plus any follow-on analyst notes could drive the short-term trade.

The post UiPath Slips 3% Despite Citi Buy Initiation and $23 Target, Pegasystems and C3.ai Lag appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford’s (NYSE: F) first attempt to conquer the EV world was supposed to cost $30 billion. By the end of the decade, a huge share of its new-car sales would be EVs. They would sell hundreds of thousands a year. They even used two of their iconic brands for EV launches. The F-150 Lightning was named after America’s best-selling vehicle for decades. The Mustang Mach-E was named after one of the best-selling cars in Ford history.

Ford has finally run out of EVs just as it tries to enter the sector again

In July, Ford sold only 141 Lightning units, down 95% from the year before. That is less than five a day across the entire US. Ford sold 1,863 Mach-Es, down 64.9%. Inventory for both must be near zero.

Ford has made an odd decision about re-entering the EV segment. It will build and sell just one vehicle. It will cost a fortune to get it off the assembly line, and Ford has not said what it will introduce behind it. The Fathom is a small EV pickup, which will sell for under $30,000. Its feature list is close to what you would get on a Tesla. But Tesla had them years ago.

Ford will build the Fathom using the Universal EV Production System. It is, says Ford, the largest advance in assembly lines since the one Henry Ford created to make the Model T. Here is the most astonishing thing. Of all the huge car companies in the world, all the new Chinese EV companies, and the EV segment led by Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), no other car company has been able to create a similar, wildly advanced assembly line. Ford, and only Ford, has figured this out. Impossible? No. Very improbable? Yes

The sun has finally set on what was to be the worst decision in Ford’s history. It is rising on one that is meager, with one small vehicle to be sold into a US market that does not want EVs.

The post Ford Finally Runs Out Of EVs appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

On the September 3 episode of The Ramsey Show, a 25-year-old caller from Tampa named Hernan asked whether to pour his savings into launching an online fitness-coaching brand. Dave Ramsey’s answer was blunt: “People trade money for time and value. It’s all they trade it for. And so when you start actually getting money on your theory, now it’s not a theory anymore, it’s a business. But you haven’t got a business yet.”

The caller’s numbers frame the stakes. He earns $2,000 a month across three jobs, holds $3,000 in savings, and plans to charge $1,000 to $2,000 per coaching client, though he has zero paying clients. If he spends the $3,000 on courses, funnels, and branding before a stranger pays him, he converts his entire cash cushion into sunk cost on an unvalidated idea.

Why Ramsey’s Ruling Is Right

The verdict is correct. A business exists when a customer voluntarily exchanges money for the value you deliver. Everything before that first paid transaction is a hypothesis. Contrast this with an established operator like Ford (NYSE:F), which produced $43.25 billion in Q1 2026 revenue and pays a $0.15 quarterly dividend. Ford’s preferred series throw off cash because trucks leave the lot for money. A landing page generates nothing until a stranger pays.

Suppose the caller spends the full $3,000 on a course, ads, and a website, then lands one client at $1,500. His gross is $1,500 against $3,000 spent. To break even on the cash outlay alone he needs two paying clients. To justify the opportunity cost of 200 hours spent building the funnel instead of working, he needs several more, because those 200 hours at even a modest $15 gym-trainer wage would have generated $3,000 in guaranteed income.

Now run Ramsey’s version. The caller keeps his phone, films workouts on Instagram for free, and applies to gyms as a personal trainer. His cash outlay is zero. His break-even on client one is immediate. Every dollar collected is validation that strangers will pay for his coaching. This is what Ramsey means by “pull the boat really close to the dock so I’m not taking a leap of faith. Get your business to six or seven grand a month first, cut hours on the day job, then you just step into the boat.”

One Variable Flips the Answer

The single factor that decides whether spending is smart or stupid is whether you already have paying customers. With zero paid clients, every dollar spent on tooling is a bet placed before you know if the game is rigged. With ten paid clients on a waiting list, $3,000 spent on scheduling software and better video gear is a rational reinvestment because you have proof the revenue exists.

Coach A spends $3,000 on a course-building course before landing a client. If demand never materializes, the loss is 100% of savings. Coach B lands three clients at $1,500 each through free Instagram content, banks $4,500, then spends $3,000 to scale. Coach B’s downside is capped at reinvested profit, not personal savings.

Rachel Cruze flagged the trap directly on the same call. She warned about the “buy my course on how to build a course” economy and told the caller to “move at the speed of cash” and “don’t go into debt for any of this.” Speed of cash means your growth rate is capped by revenue you have already collected, not credit you have available.

What to Do Before You Spend a Dollar

1. Get paid once, in cash, from a stranger. Exclude friend discounts and trades. The bar is a stranger who found you and paid your asking price. Until that happens, treat the idea as R&D, not a company.
2. Take the adjacent job. The caller applied to a gym once, got no callback, and quit applying. Ramsey’s instruction to get hired as a trainer solves two problems: it stabilizes income above the current $2,000 a month and it puts him in front of paying fitness clients daily.
3. Write down your unit economics. Price per client, hours per client, customer acquisition cost, and gross margin. If you cannot fill in those four numbers with real figures, you have a theory.
4. Set a revenue trigger for spending. Ramsey’s $6,000 to $7,000 per month threshold is a reasonable proxy for “the business is real.” Pick your own number and refuse to spend growth capital until you clear it.

The dream is fine. The sequencing is what kills most side hustles: money out before money in. Validate first, then invest.

The post ‘You Haven’t Got a Business Yet, You’ve Got a Theory’: Dave Ramsey to 25-Year-Old Working 3 Jobs appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

A 21-year-old HVAC technician called The Ramsey Show a week before his wedding with a math problem most workers would kill to have. He is four months into the trade, earning $3,800 a month, debt free on Baby Step 3, and holding a job with what he called “awesome benefits.” His cousin, a manager at a window company in Idaho, is dangling a job offer after clearing $198,000 in his first year selling. Dave Ramsey’s response: “I don’t want to just go make more money and end up being something I hate in a place I hate because my cousin called me. That’s a dumb reason to do a career.”

The stakes are concrete. A move built on a headline number, with no benefits and a bride who would likely take a Costco job to secure medical insurance, can vaporize the financial stability this caller just spent four months building.

Why Ramsey’s Contradiction Actually Adds Up

Ramsey took both sides of the same call. He told the caller that “more people in marketing and sales end up as CEOs than any other trade. It’s the fastest track into the C suite, into running a business, because you’re developing people skills and the ability to persuade.” Then he told him not to take the job. The contradiction resolves once you stop looking at the compensation number and start looking at the compensation structure.

Commission-only sales income functions as a probability distribution. The cousin’s $198,000 first year is a single data point drawn from that distribution: one manager, one Idaho market, one housing cycle. Ramsey’s skepticism that the caller will “still be selling Windows at 31” is a bet on the underlying odds. First-year commission earners rarely repeat their opening year, and outside residential sales carries some of the highest turnover of any career track.

Price the current job the way an employer prices it. A $3,800 monthly gross plus employer-paid family health premiums (commonly worth $7,000 to $15,000 a year as an illustrative range), plus paid time off, plus any retirement match, is the number to beat. Strip those benefits, and a $198,000 gross commission has to fund self-paid insurance for two, self-funded retirement, zero PTO, and the tax hit on draw or 1099 income. A bigger top-line number carries more risk per dollar.

One Variable That Flips the Answer

The single factor that decides this call is whether the caller finishes his HVAC certification before he moves. Ramsey made that his one condition: complete the certification, due in a couple of weeks, so there is a fallback if sales fails.

Run the two scenarios. With the credential in hand, a failed sales year in Idaho ends with a licensed HVAC tech who can pick up journeyman work in any state. Downside is capped. Without it, a failed sales year ends with a 22-year-old husband with no benefits, an interrupted trade, and a resume gap. Same offer, very different floor.

For context on what predictable cash flow is worth as an asset, look at how markets price it. Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) common shares currently yield roughly 5.4%, and Ford’s preferred series (NYSE:F-PB, NYSE:F-PC, and NYSE:F-PD) trade on scheduled distributions investors can plan around. Labor income works the same way. A $3,800 paycheck with health coverage behaves like a bond. A $198,000 commission year behaves like an option on a hot local market.

Three Numbers to Run Before You Take Any Commission Job

1. Fully loaded current comp. Base pay plus the annual dollar value of health insurance, retirement match, and PTO. That is the number the new offer must clear, not the base salary line on the pay stub.
2. Break-even commission. Add self-funded health premiums, self-employment tax exposure, and a six-month personal reserve to your target income. The result is the minimum gross commission year that actually matches your current standard of living.
3. Downside floor. If the new job pays zero for six months, what do you fall back on? A finished certification, a portable license, or a former employer willing to rehire is the difference between a pivot and a crisis.

Ramsey framed sales as the fastest lane to the C-suite in the same breath that he warned against this specific move. His warning targets an impulse jump triggered by a single headline number. Finish the credential, price the benefits, then decide whether the offer really beats what you already have.

The post ‘Somebody Dangled a Carrot and Now You’re the Horse’: Ramsey to 21-Year-Old Eyeing $198K Sales Job appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

On the September 3 episode of The Ramsey Show, a new law school graduate called in asking whether to refinance about $104,000 in student loans from roughly 8% down to roughly 6%. She planned to be debt free in two years. Dave Ramsey ran the arithmetic on air and delivered the line at the top of this article: “You don’t have a $1,000 problem, you have a $104,000 problem.”

The stakes for anyone hearing that quote are concrete. Spend three months rate shopping a refinance while ignoring the payoff plan, and you can save a rounding error while losing a year of momentum. Ramsey’s point was that the lender you pick is worth pennies compared with the paycheck you deploy.

Why Ramsey’s Refinance Math Actually Holds Up

The verdict is simple. For a borrower who genuinely intends to clear the balance in 24 months, refinancing from 8% to 6% is a small win worth a few hundred dollars, while the payoff plan is the main event.

When you pay a loan down aggressively, your average outstanding balance runs at roughly half the starting balance across the payoff window. On a $104,000 loan cleared in two years, the average balance earning the 2-percentage-point savings is about $50,000. Ramsey did the calculation live and landed at roughly $1,000 in total savings. That is the correct order of magnitude for a two-year timeline.

Contrast that number with the cash the borrower still has to produce. She has to find $104,000 in principal in 24 months. Ramsey’s framing: “The important thing is to find the other $103,000 during two years by living on nothing, not going out to eat, and starting your law career on beans and rice. That’s 98% of the equation.”

Behavior is 98% of the outcome, refinancing 2%. Stretch the payoff to 10 years and the refi savings grow into real money. Keep it at two years and the refi is a footnote.

Payoff Horizon Flips the Whole Answer

Payoff horizon decides everything. Same $104,000, same 8% to 6% move, wildly different results depending on how long the debt is carried:

• Two-year payoff: Average balance around $50,000, roughly $1,000 saved. Refinance is optional.
• Ten-year payoff: Average balance is similar but carried five times longer. Savings run into the low five figures. Refinance is worth doing.

The second variable is loan type. Federal student loans carry income-driven repayment, Public Service Loan Forgiveness eligibility, death and disability discharge, and administrative forbearance. Refinancing federal debt into a private loan is a one-way door. You cannot undo it. Rachel Cruze flagged private student loans in default as the narrow case where refinancing options deserve a real look, while federal loans are a one-shot decision. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s 2026 private education loan report confirms the same asymmetry: federal loans offer grace periods, income-based repayment, and cancellation programs that private lenders do not match.

Income Is the Real Lever

Earlier in the same episode, Ramsey told a master’s graduate carrying $69,644 in student debt who was eyeing a $37,000 car: “Your number one wealth building tool is your income. As long as you’re giving that away in car payments and student loans, you’re going to be what’s known as a middle class broke person.”

The math backs the sermon. If your student loan rate sits at 8% and you park cash in a blue chip dividend payer like Ford (NYSE:F) at a roughly 5.4% yield, the loan is beating the dividend by close to 3 points before tax. Ford’s preferred securities trading as F-PB, F-PD, and F-PC carry fixed coupons, but none of them beat an 8% pre-tax hurdle on a reliable basis for a taxable retail holder. Paying the loan is the guaranteed return.

What to Do Before You Sign Any Refinance

1. Confirm the loan type. Log into studentaid.gov to see which balances are federal Direct, FFEL, or Perkins. Anything federal you refinance into a private loan loses IDR, PSLF, and hardship protections permanently.
2. Set a payoff horizon in writing. Two years, five years, or ten. The horizon determines whether refinancing is worth an afternoon or worth ignoring.
3. Run the average-balance shortcut. Take your rate savings, apply it to roughly half your starting balance, and multiply by the years you will carry the debt. If the result is under a few thousand dollars, focus on cash flow instead.
4. Attack income and expenses first. A second job, a signing bonus applied to principal, or six months of aggressive expense cuts almost always beat any rate you can shop.

Ramsey’s line lands because the arithmetic lands. On a two-year payoff, the lender is a footnote and the borrower is the story.

Data Sources

• Ramsey Show personal finance Q&A supplied the caller scenario, Ramsey’s on-air math, the $103,000 lifestyle quote, the master’s graduate quote on income, and Rachel Cruze’s private-loan carve-out.

The post ‘You Don’t Have a $1,000 Problem, You Have a $104,000 Problem’: Dave Ramsey to Law Grad Eyeing Refi appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford’s latest quarterly check landed in shareholders’ accounts on September 1, 2026, and the payment was familiar: $0.15 per share, unchanged for the ninth straight regular quarter. Ford (NYSE:F) still carries a 5.51% yield that towers over the 4.75% 10-year Treasury, but income investors have long memories, and this payout has already been reset once.

A Prior Cut Still Hangs Over the Payout

Ford slashed the regular dividend to $0.10 in early 2022 before restoring it to $0.15 that August. That reset means there is no consecutive-growth streak to lean on, and the base dividend has not risen in four years. Management has substituted supplemental payments instead: a $0.40625 special hit accounts in August, following supplementals of $0.30 in 2025 and $0.33 in 2024. Nice bonuses, but the recurring commitment stays flat.

Coverage Is Suddenly a Strength

The near-term coverage math looks better than it did a year ago. Q2 2026 delivered reported EPS of $0.42 against the $0.15 payout, and Q1 2026 EPS came in at $0.66. Ford generated $2.1 billion in company adjusted free cash flow in Q2, ended the quarter with $22.3 billion in cash, and raised full-year adjusted free cash flow guidance to $6 billion to $7 billion. CFO Sherry House told investors, “We remain committed to our investment grade rating in returning capital as shareholders.”

Warning Lights Are Still Blinking

FY2025 booked a net loss of $8.16 billion after impairments, and Ford paid out $2.99 billion in dividends against that loss. Model E is guided to lose about $4 billion in EBIT this year, and the trailing P/E sits at -7 with a debt-to-equity ratio of 4.66. The 76 basis-point yield premium over Treasuries is not a fat cushion for equity risk, and a prior cut plus a flat base payout are exactly the setup we flagged in a free report on the seven warning signs a big yield is about to be cut.

Grading The Dividend: C+

Yield beats the risk-free rate, current cash flow covers the payout comfortably, and management raised EBIT guidance to $10 billion to $11 billion. But zero growth in four years, a documented cut, EV losses, and cyclical exposure keep this scorecard capped. Shares have returned 26.4% over the past year, and Ford’s Super Duty production just hit a 20-year high, which helps the case. Income investors get paid to wait. They just should not confuse a flat dividend with a growing one.

The post Ford’s 5.5% Yield Comes With One Big Warning appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Somehow, The Wall Street Journal got hold of Ford’s (NYSE: F) sales of its Fathom, which is its most recent jump into the EV sector. The figure is 100,000 in the first year. Maybe the approximately $30,000 price tag will help. Almost every car industry headwind is against it. This looks a bit like Ford’s first massive move into EVs. In 2021, it said it would put $30 billion into its EV business through 2025. Ford management said it expected to have 40% of its new car sales as EVs by 2030

The likely stumble of the Fathom forecast is just a little smaller than Ford’s first run at the sector. Its next-generation manufacturing plan will not create Fathom sales. The manufacturing is part of a broader Ford announcement about another effort to grow beyond its gas-powered car business in the US, which has been a spectacular success.

Ford will hit two walls. The first is that Americans do not want EVs. Cox Automotive said new EV sales as a percent of all total new car sales in the US dropped by over 20% in the second quarter compared to the same quarter the year before. Part of this was because the $7,500 federal EV tax credit, which covered many of the EVs sold before September 30, disappeared. That is not coming back. Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), the market leader by far, may only sell 480,000 cars in the US this year. It has the two best-selling EV models on the market–the Tesla 3 and Tesla Y.

Other reasons Americans do not want EVs show up in almost every survey of the sector. First, Americans worry about EV range, which is stuck under 300 miles. Second, they worry about the number of public charging stations. People who live near large cities may be able to find them. However, these stations often have long lines and occasional vandalism.

The other wall is that people do not want to buy Ford EVs. For Ford’s $30 billion, it got terrible sales for the Ford F-150 Lightning, which carried the name of America’s best-selling vehicle. And there was the Mustang Mach-E, which was named for an iconic American sports car. Ford turned it into an EV crossover.

Finally, there is one more consideration beyond the obvious. Chinese EVs, considered the best in the world and priced below those sold elsewhere, will eventually make it into the US market. That could be next year, or three years from now. Their price point and quality are too high to keep them from US consumers. Ford management has said this would be a catastrophe. And it is coming.

The post Ford Risks Another Big EV Failure appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

On the September 3 episode of The Ramsey Show, a Houston caller named Nathan explained that he had roughly $280,000 left on a mortgage he described as “whatever 2% mortgage or something,” against about $346,000 in liquid assets: $190,000 in cash accounts plus roughly $156,000 in a non-retirement brokerage. Dave Ramsey did not hesitate. His instruction: write a check for $280,000, keep the remaining $66,000, and have it done “by nightfall.”

The stakes here are real dollars. The same week Ramsey issued that verdict, the 10-year Treasury yield closed at 4.79% on September 1, 2026, the highest reading in the trailing 12 months and the 99.6th percentile of the past year. Treasury bill investment yields on September 2 stood at 3.87% for 13 weeks, 4.03% for 26 weeks, and 4.17% for 52 weeks. Every one of those risk-free rates is more than double Nathan’s mortgage cost.

Verdict: Right Answer, Wrong Math

Ramsey’s advice is defensible as a behavioral prescription and indefensible as an arithmetic one. Paying off a 2% loan with cash that can be parked in Treasury bills yielding 4.17% is the textbook definition of surrendering positive arbitrage.

Run the numbers on the $280,000 in question. At Nathan’s approximate 2% mortgage rate, the annual interest cost on that balance is in the neighborhood of $5,600. At the 52-week Treasury bill yield of 4.17%, the same $280,000 held in bills generates roughly $11,700 a year in interest. The spread, before taxes, is around two percentage points annually, or about $6,100 in the first year on this specific balance. That is guaranteed money left on the table, backed by the U.S. Treasury.

Ramsey’s own aside makes this decision worse, not better. When pressed on the caller’s hesitation, he said, “if you pay off your house and you hate it, Nathan, you can go get another mortgage… I know it’s 6%.” That is the punchline. A 2% mortgage in a 6% market functions as a subsidy the bank cannot take back. Once Nathan writes the check, that subsidy is gone forever. The optionality is one-way.

Behavioral Case, Presented Fairly

Ramsey’s argument is about sleep, not spreadsheets. His framing to the caller’s wife was direct: “If you had $66,000 in the bank and a paid-for house, would you go borrow money on your house so you have more money in the bank? Every day you don’t pay this off, it’s like you’re borrowing on your house to put money in savings.”

That reversal test is powerful, and for someone whose emergency fund evaporates into stress every night, the behavioral value can outweigh $6,100 a year. But it flattens the actual variables that matter: the rate spread, tax treatment, and the fact that a replacement mortgage today costs three times the existing one.

Even co-host Rachel Cruze pushed back on air. Her suggestion: “Even if you wanted to slow step and be like let’s throw a hundred grand tonight at it. Throw a hundred grand and let’s wake up tomorrow and see how we feel.” That half-measure preserves most of the arbitrage and still delivers a psychological win. Ramsey dismissed it because partial payoff, in his view, does not produce the same relief.

One Variable Decides It

The single factor that flips this decision is the gap between your mortgage rate and the after-tax yield on short-term Treasuries. At a 2% mortgage and a 4.17% one-year bill, the spread is roughly two percentage points in your favor even after federal tax (Treasury interest is exempt from state tax). At a 6% or 7% mortgage, the spread reverses and Ramsey’s advice becomes mathematically correct as well as emotionally correct.

What To Actually Do

Before writing the check, do three things:

1. Pull your amortization schedule and identify the exact interest rate and remaining interest cost over the life of the loan.
2. Compare that rate to current yields at TreasuryDirect for 13-, 26-, and 52-week bills, and calculate the after-tax spread using your marginal federal bracket.
3. If the spread is positive by more than one point, consider the Cruze compromise: pay down a portion, keep the rest laddered in bills, and revisit when either rate moves.

Retiring cheap fixed-rate debt at a moment when risk-free cash pays more than double the mortgage rate is fundamentally a psychological decision dressed up as a financial one. Understand which one you are actually buying. For readers tracking dividend income as part of the same yield conversation, common shares like Ford (NYSE:F) and its preferred series NYSE:F-PB, NYSE:F-PC, and NYSE:F-PD sit in a different risk bucket entirely from Treasuries and should not be confused with the risk-free leg of this trade.

Data Sources

• Ramsey Show personal finance Q&A was used for Nathan’s balance sheet, Ramsey’s “by nightfall” directive, the 6% replacement-mortgage aside, and Rachel Cruze’s partial-payoff suggestion.
• FRED series DGS10 was used for the September 1, 2026 10-year Treasury yield of 4.79% and its 12-month percentile ranking.
• Treasury bill investment-rate yields for September 2, 2026 were used to establish the 3.87%, 4.03%, and 4.17% short-end curve for the arbitrage comparison.

The post ‘Needs to Be Paid Off Tonight’: Ramsey Gives Controversial Advice To Caller With 2% Mortgage And Pile Of Cash appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

When the first Tesla Cybertrucks rolled out of Gigafactory Texas on November 30, 2023, the top trim available was the Foundation Series Cyberbeast, a tri-motor pickup priced at $119,990. Nearly three years later, Bloomberg would call the vehicle the biggest flop in automotive history, a characterization 24/7 Wall St. covered on July 27, 2026 as Tesla shares fell sharply. That framing now sits over the launch of another six-figure electric vehicle: the Range Rover Electric, which Jaguar Land Rover is bringing to the U.S. at a starting price of $138,000, according to Automotive News.

Cybertruck Pricing Story Was Never a Straight Line

When Elon Musk unveiled the concept in 2019, he promised a dual-motor all-wheel drive starting at $49,900 and a tri-motor at $69,900, according to 24/7 Wall St.. Neither price ever shipped. The Foundation Series, capped at the first 1,000 reservation holders, opened with the Cyberbeast at $119,990 and a dual-motor AWD at $99,990, a $20,000 premium over standard trims, according to 24/7 Wall St.. That program ended in October 2024 after 11 months, and standard trim pricing settled lower.

Then it moved the other way. Reuters reported that on August 25, 2026, Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) raised prices on the dual motor and premium all-wheel drive by $5,000, to $74,990 and $84,990 respectively. As 24/7 Wall St. noted, the base model now sits just below $75,000 and the top-of-the-line at $100,000. Prices came down, then went back up, into weak demand.

Sales Are the Strongest Evidence

Cox Automotive puts Cybertruck sales at 38,965 units in 2024, falling 48.1% to 20,237 in 2025, with first-quarter sales this year at 3,519 units. Edmunds has said the truck has “proven more adept at grabbing headlines than market share,” citing build quality and pricing. The pain is not unique to Tesla. Ford (NYSE:F) discontinued the F-150 Lightning, and 24/7 Wall St. notes Rivian (NASDAQ:RIVN) delivered 12,194 vehicles across all models in the second quarter, with the R1T pickup starting just below $80,000. Premium electric pickups have been a hard sell.

What Range Rover Is Actually Selling

The Range Rover Electric is an SUV, not a pickup, so the comparison is one of premium EV launches rather than vehicle category. Jaguar Land Rover cites a 117 kWh battery, a dual-motor AWD system producing a combined 542 hp and 627 lb-ft of torque, and marketing that leans on quieter, more responsive driving. It is the first of three planned Range Rover EVs, with a Sport Electric expected in late 2026 or early 2027.

Range Rover carries decades of luxury and off-road heritage. The Cybertruck arrived as a form factor with no predecessor and no established buyer expectation to meet. Pricing discipline is the real test. Whether JLR holds $138,000 as inventory builds and incentives creep in will say more than any launch-week reception, according to Automotive News.

There are costs to the electric transition even for the established name. Versus the gas Range Rover, ground clearance drops roughly 10%, the breakover angle falls from 27 degrees to 23 degrees, and towing capacity is down 28.5%, to 2.5 tons. JLR itself pushed the Range Rover Electric from a 2025 target into 2026. The luxury EV rollout has been bumpier than automakers projected across the board, and $138,000 is a price that will have to be defended, not merely announced, according to Automotive News.

The post Tesla’s Cybertruck Launched at $120K and Was Called “the Biggest Flop in Automotive History.” Can Range Rover’s $138K EV Avoid the Same Fate? appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

FHN Financial chief economist Chris Lowe just spelled out the punchline of the new Canada tariff on Marketplace Morning Report: “Even though there are U.S. companies that manufacture in Canada, Ford and GM, particularly they will have to pay tariffs on the cars that are made there. And so that’s probably where the biggest impact is.”

The tariff aimed at Canada lands first as a bill to two American automakers and then to U.S. car and home buyers.

Trade War With Canada Will Impact Ford and GM Bottom Lines

Last week the U.S. pushed tariffs on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods to 50%, and Canada’s dollar-for-dollar retaliation is set to take effect September 8. Lowe added that lumber and cabinetry from Canada will push housing costs up, widening the consumer hit beyond autos.

The market already voted. Ford (NYSE:F) is up 4.8% year to date (YTD) but down 3.12% over the past month, while General Motors (NYSE:GM) is up nearly 7% YTD for the week but down 1.22% over the past month.

Ford lit up Reddit’s investing forum around the news, with the driving thread reaching 613 upvotes and 233 comments and sentiment stuck at a bearish 22. Ford’s own guidance already assumed roughly $2 billion of commodity headwinds; GM absorbed about $900 million of gross tariff impact in Q2 alone.

Profit angle: The Sept. 8 retaliation is the next catalyst. Watch for Ford and GM to revise the $10 billion to $11 billion and $14 to $16 billion EBIT ranges. Any cut, and the Detroit trade breaks lower. Any workaround, and the dip becomes the setup.

The post Ford and GM Will Have to Pay Tariffs on Cars Made in Canada appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Hyundai’s CEO José Muñoz framed the current tariff environment as an accelerant to a strategy already in motion. In a CNBC segment that aired yesterday with auto reporter Michael Wayland, Muñoz laid out Hyundai’s plan to commit an additional $26 billion to U.S. operations over the next four years, on top of the $20.4-$20.5 billion invested over the last 40 years. That means the new 4-year commitment is more than Hyundai invested in its entire 40-year U.S. history.

Muñoz described the current moment as “the two most exciting years of my entire life and career” and said Hyundai is “well ahead of our plan A, which has been supported by taking breakthrough actions over and above the standard original plan.” On trade policy, he believes that: “Tariffs are helping accelerate our localization plan. The good thing is that we had already started before tariffs were announced.”

Hyundai Could Build 800,000 Vehicles a Year in Georgia

Hyundai’s Georgia facility is now the centerpiece of its localization efforts. Originally scoped for 300,000 vehicles annually, expanded to 500,000, the site is now targeted at 700,000-800,000 by 2028, within an existing 3,000-acre plot.

Muñoz said the plant will produce six to seven models, including hybrids, EVs, and extended-range EVs, adding: “I announced that we would go into extra capacity of 200,000. Well, I can tell you today that we are looking into ways to increase that even further. We could stretch that to probably maybe 7-800,000 if needed. We want to have all this up and running by 2028.“

Hyundai adjusted the Georgia plan to add hybrid lines alongside EVs, and hybrid sales grew more than 70% last quarter in the U.S. The goal is to produce a minimum of 80% of U.S. sales domestically. Hyundai directly and indirectly employs about 570,000 people in America and plans to add 25,000 more.

Hyundai Is Using Localization to Close the Gap With Ford

Muñoz said Hyundai has overtaken Honda and Stellantis in the U.S. and is closing the gap on Ford. Today, Ford (NYSE:F) trades around $13.82, with a market cap near $54.1 billion, and shares are up 5.72% year to date.

Ford is the most U.S.-localized of the major automakers. CEO Jim Farley told analysts on the Q2 2026 call: “Ford is an unusual company in a way. We build the most in the US. We have the best ratio between imports and our local production. We also export the most.”

Ford’s Q1 2026 8-K disclosed a $1.30 billion one-time IEEPA tariff benefit, and full-year 2026 guidance assumes about $1 billion of tariff impacts excluding that benefit. Farley has argued a revised USMCA should “make it easier for Ford and other U.S. makers to compete with Japan and South Korea,” whose competitors benefit from weaker currencies and a “modest 15% tariff.”

Hyundai’s answer is shifting engineering to the U.S.: “We localize. We have more engineering capabilities, more technical capabilities in this market compared to global. So depend less on Korean management and Korean R&D and Korean resources and focus more and more here.“

Hyundai Is Demand-Constrained While Peers Sit on Excess Capacity

Hyundai’s U.S. sales have grown sharply since 2020, with the CNBC segments citing figures in the range of roughly 45-50%. The company accounts for roughly one-third of total electrified vehicles, and its Genesis luxury brand has reached #7, overtaking Porsche and Jaguar Land Rover, though the two segments characterize the ranking scope differently.

The show’s host, Wayland, captured how Hyundai has the opposite problem of most of the auto industry: “Hyundai is the exact opposite. They are trying to build new plants and build vehicles as fast as they can.“ Muñoz reinforced that unlike competitors dealing with excess capacity, Hyundai’s constraint is demand outpacing supply.

Key Takeaways

Ford wants trade rules that better protect domestic manufacturers. Hyundai is responding to those same pressures by rapidly becoming more American. The big tests will be whether Hyundai’s Georgia plant reaches as many as 800,000 vehicles by 2028 and whether U.S. demand remains strong enough to absorb that enormous expansion.

The post Hyundai’s $26 Billion 4-Year US Investment Will Exceed Its Previous 40 Years Combined appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford’s (NYSE: F) stock has performed better this year than Tesla’s (NASDAQ: TSLA). Tesla’s stock is down 22%. Ford’s is up 6%. While that is short of the S&P 500, which is up 12%, it is a strong performance for the No. 2 car company in the U.S.

What stock performance doesn’t show is that Ford’s market cap is only 4% of Tesla’s $1.38 trillion. It’s hard to fathom. In the minds of many investors, Tesla has an uncertain future. So does Ford, but Ford’s future is easier to guess.

Ford is the king of the SUV and full-sized pickup markets in the U.S. Its F-150 is routinely America’s top-selling vehicle. Most analyses put the F-150 among the most profitable vehicles on the market. It accounts for about 30% of Ford’s U.S. unit sales each month. It is part of Ford’s fleet, 90% of which is gas-powered. Ford does not sell EVs. Its hybrid sales are modest.

Ford’s gamble on the future is its Fathom mid-sized EV pickup. It is hard to see why Ford would re-enter the EV market with just one vehicle, which won’t be on the road until next year. Ford’s promotion for the Fathom is as much about Ford’s new manufacturing system as any single vehicle. No proof shows this system is any better than the current one.

Ford’s risks are twofold. One is that the American market will abandon gas-powered cars. Another is that tariffs on Chinese EVs will drop or go away. Even Ford admits this would be a catastrophe. Ford’s sales outside the U.S. are small, but that should already be baked into the stock price.

Broadly, Tesla’s risks appear much greater as EV sales in the U.S. have been falling. Its EV sales in the EU collapsed last year but have started to recover. In China, it is one of dozens of other EVs. And EV car sales in China are at cutthroat prices. Tesla’s car business, therefore,f is not very good.

So, Tesla’s investors have to bet on huge adoption of self-driving cars that are Teslas. The market has other self-driving technology from companies like Waymo that will probably be available across a number of manufacturers and models. Beyond that, there is the Robotaxi. It is too early to know if these business models will catch on.

Tesla’s biggest bet is on its Optimus robot. Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, says there is a market for hundreds of millions of these. That comes with a huge “maybe” and assumes that the market will not be flooded with scores of competitors.

The market cap difference does not make any sense.

The post Tesla Is Worth Twenty-Five Times More Than Ford appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

President Trump has given Canada until January 1, 2027 to reach a trade deal, warning that failure will trigger a 50% duty on Canadian autos, auto parts, and steel. The message, posted to Truth Social and covered by Fox Business on August 24 and 25, 2026, was unambiguous: “On January 1, 2027, tariffs on all cars, trucks, both large and small, automotive parts and steel will be increased to 50%. Build in the U.S. and there are zero tariffs. Canada will be treated like a state no longer.”

Talks collapsed over the weekend, with ambassadors recalled and negotiations suspended. Washington has already imposed 50% tariffs on hundreds of Canadian goods worth $20 billion, and Canada has announced retaliatory 50% tariffs effective September 8 targeting steel, dairy, and agricultural equipment.

For investors in General Motors (NYSE:GM) and Ford (NYSE:F), the question is what a date sitting more than four months out means for a supply chain that cannot be redrawn on that schedule. Both automakers depend on an integrated North American footprint that cannot be re-sourced in a single quarter.

Carve-Out Targets Future Factories Over Current Flows

The most revealing part of the threat is the exemption. Building in the United States means zero tariffs, a structure aimed squarely at plant siting decisions that take years to execute.

GM is already leaning into that logic. On its July 21, 2026 call, CEO Mary Barra said the company is “onshoring significant manufacturing starting next year” in a move that will bring U.S. production capacity to more than 2 million units and reduce tariff exposure.

GM plans to spend roughly $1 to $1.5 billion this year to onshore production, strengthen the supply chain, and expand software capabilities, and has already incurred $400 million of those costs in the first half. Barra asked plainly for a workable outcome with Canada: “We need a strong North America. We need all the countries to work together.”

Ford CEO Jim Farley framed the same problem in USMCA terms, arguing that foreign rivals benefit from “incredibly strong local supply chains like steel and aluminum” and weak currencies, and saying Ford is “prepared to support revising the USMCA so long as it allows the promotion of more competitive US auto sector.”

Legal Fragility Is the Real Story

The Fox Business segment flagged something more important than the January date. A former counsel to the U.S. Trade Representative noted that the Section 338 authority has never before been used to impose tariffs, that legal challenges are likely, and that duties collected may have to be refunded if the authority is struck down.

A tariff regime that could be struck down and refunded leaves supply chains without a stable basis for planning. The former USTR counsel described the underlying dispute as narrower than the headlines suggest, citing disagreements over U.S. alcoholic beverages, U.S. motor vehicles, and access to Canada’s dairy market.

On the collapse of talks, he said: “I think it is pretty common that when you are having these trade negotiations, you have an agreement at a high level and then you get to the part where people are sort of actually writing up the terms.”

The underlying GM Q2 2026 filing quantifies a gross tariff impact of around $900 million per quarter in the back half of the year.

What It Means for GM and Ford

GM shares closed at $86.98 on August 24, 2026, down 1.08% on the day, while Ford closed at $13.93, down 3.33%. Reddit sentiment on the tariff post was classified as bearish for both names.

GM is the more exposed name on the surface, with North America generating $3.4 billion of adjusted EBIT last quarter at an 8.6% margin, and Canadian plants in Oshawa, Ingersoll, and St. Catharines feeding that segment. Ford’s Oakville expansion is on track to launch in the fourth quarter with up to 100,000 units of additional Super Duty capacity, which sits directly in the crosshairs of a 50% duty. Ford has also warned of commodity headwinds just above $2 billion for the year, led by aluminum, and a 50% steel tariff would compound that pressure regardless of what happens to the auto duty itself.

The January date is likely a negotiating instrument, but the legal uncertainty around Section 338 is a real and present cost on capital planning that neither company can hedge away before the deadline arrives. With plant siting decisions running on multi-year timelines, both GM and Ford face a window that is too short to restructure sourcing and too long to ignore in near-term guidance.

The post Trump Just Gave Canada Until January 1. If There’s No Deal, 50% Tariffs Hit Cars and Steel appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

According to Reuters, Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) has just raised the price of its Cybertruck. It may be Tesla’s least successful launch. The news service reports, “The company increased the price of its Cybertruck dual motor and premium all-wheel drive by $5,000 to $74,990 and $84,990 respectively.” The decision doesn’t make any sense.

Tesla started to sell the Cybertruck on November 30, 2023. Tesla first announced it plans to build the vehicle when Elon Musk unveiled a prototype on November 21, 2019. Musk commented at the time, “The apocalypse could come along at any moment, and here at Tesla we have the finest in Apocalypse technology.”

According to Cox Automotive, Cybertruck sales dropped sharply by 48.1% from 38,965 units in 2024 to 20,237 units in 2025. “Cybertruck Called the Biggest Flop in Automotive History,” a recent 247WallSt. headline read. Looking at the first quarter of this year, Cox reports unit sales were only 3,519.

The Cybertruck is not the only evidence that Americans do not want full-sized EV pickup trucks. Ford (NYSE: F) believed its F-150 Lightning would sell hundreds of thousands of units a year. Ford discontinued the product just a few months ago.

And, perhaps the best sign EV pickups have not done well and never will is sales of the Rivian (NASDAQ: RIVN) pickup model. Across all its models, Rivian only delivered 12,194 vehicles in the second quarter. Rivian’s pickup is the R1T. Its base price is just below $80,000.

The base model of the Cybertruck is priced just below $75,000. The top-of-the-line model is priced at $100,000. The price increase seems indefensible.

The post Tesla Raises Prices on Cybertruck Almost No One Will Buy appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

A longtime Ford (NYSE: F) assembly worker retired at 62 and started Social Security immediately. He still follows the company’s vehicle launches, so Ford’s planned midsize electric pickup caught his attention. The truck is scheduled for 2027 with a targeted starting price of approximately $30,000.

Then he remembered his retiree discount. It could take another bite out of the price, but claiming early had made him wary of anything resembling compensation. A paycheck could shrink his Social Security benefit. Could the savings at the dealership do the same?

The discount came from his former employer. It did not come from returning to work.

The Discount Stays Off His Wage Record

Ford retirees may qualify for Z-Plan vehicle pricing, although individual models can be excluded. Under federal tax rules, a qualified employee discount on an employer’s own merchandise generally stays out of taxable wages. For this purpose, the IRS treats someone who retired from the company as an employee.

The exclusion has limits. For merchandise, the qualifying amount is generally tied to the employer’s gross profit percentage for that line of business. Ford handles that calculation when designing its program. The retiree is not expected to reverse-engineer it at the dealership. Social Security’s earnings test counts wages and net self-employment income before full retirement age (FRA). A qualified retiree discount is neither. It does not appear on his earnings record or use any of the annual earnings limit. That leaves his Social Security check alone, even if the lower purchase price saves him several thousand dollars.

The Truck Is Not the Tax Problem

The money used to buy it may create a separate issue. A large traditional IRA withdrawal does not count under Social Security’s earnings test, but it does increase taxable income. That can pull more of his benefit into the taxable column and, once he reaches Medicare, potentially contribute to a premium surcharge two years later.

Money already sitting in a bank account adds no new income. A qualified Roth withdrawal generally does not either. Selling investments in a brokerage account may produce capital gains, depending on what he paid for them. The retiree discount does not shrink his Social Security payment. Financing the rest of the truck could still reshape his tax return.

Before He Places the Order

Two details need to be confirmed:

1. Check whether the pickup qualifies for Z-Plan pricing. Ford says vehicles are generally eligible for its purchase programs, but some models are excluded and the list can change. Because the truck has not yet reached dealerships, its treatment under the retiree program remains unconfirmed.
2. Calculate the tax cost of the purchase. Compare financing with a traditional IRA withdrawal, available cash, a qualified Roth distribution, or a brokerage sale before moving a large amount in one year.

He spent years helping Ford put vehicles on the road. Buying one at the retiree price does not put him back on the payroll. Social Security counts what he earns from working, not what he saves at the dealership.

The post He Retired From Ford, Then Eyed Its $30,000 Electric Pickup. His Retiree Discount Suddenly Looked Uncomfortably Like Pay. appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE:F) stock is down 4% to $13.87 in Monday mid-morning trading after President Trump announced a sharp escalation in auto tariffs targeting Canadian imports. Meanwhile, Stellantis (NYSE:STLA) shares are also down 4% to $5.19, while General Motors (NYSE:GM) stock is down 2% to $86.28.

The selling is sorting within Detroit’s Big Three, with Ford and Stellantis taking the harder hit on the tape today. For context, the Global X Autonomous & Electric Vehicles ETF (NASDAQ:DRIV) is down 2% to $34.25.

The tariff itself isn’t yet in force, and Trump’s announced 50% duty on Canadian vehicles and parts is set to take effect January 1, 2027, so Monday’s tape is repricing an announced future cost. Ford stock was up 17% year to date through Friday’s close, so today’s slide erodes a slice of that lead. Stellantis has traded well below year-end levels heading in, which magnifies the sting for shareholders already sitting on losses.

Truth Social Post Triggers the Auto Selloff

In a Truth Social post Monday, Trump wrote, “On January first, 2027, tariffs on all cars, trucks, both large and small, automotive parts, and steel, will be increased to 50%.” He accused Canada of “ripping off” the United States and cited a $60 billion trade deficit as justification for the escalation. The post landed at the open of the week and immediately pressured cross-border auto exposure across the Detroit names.

The auto action follows the collapse of U.S.-Canada trade talks late Friday. Separately, Washington applied 50% tariffs to about $20 billion of Canadian goods after talks broke down, 5% of Canada’s exports to the U.S., covering electronics, industrial machinery, dairy, paper goods, appliances, and agricultural equipment. That levy is distinct from the forward-dated auto duty, and Canada announced counter-tariffs scheduled to take effect September 8.

Why Talks Collapsed and Where Automakers Fit

Canada’s ambassador to the U.S., Mark Wiseman, told Bloomberg that Canada “needed medium and heavy duty vehicles to be included” in any tariff relief, noting the issue directly affects General Motors and Ford, both of which operate assembly in Canada. He stated, “That’s just something we could not accept because we want to protect the existence of an automotive assembly industry in Canada for cars, light trucks, you know, medium trucks and heavy-duty trucks.”

Wiseman cautioned that the truck dispute “is not why the deal fell apart,” describing it as one example among several where the written text diverged from what Canada believed it had agreed to. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated Canada sought more “in the last hours,” after Washington had offered to halve steel and aluminum tariffs, substantially reduce auto tariffs, and accommodate Canada on softwood lumber.

Ford and Stellantis are absorbing the announcement more sharply than General Motors on Monday. All three automakers carry cross-border production exposure across cars, light trucks, and heavy-duty units, and the tape is treating that exposure unevenly across the group today. The gap between a 4% drop for Ford and Stellantis and a 2% slide for General Motors is visible on quotes, though no single explanation for the divergence has emerged from either the White House or the companies themselves.

How to Size Risk From Here

The selloff is concentrated within North American auto names. With the auto tariff dated to January 1, 2027, investors have runway to model the impact, and the market is pricing in that risk now. Any softening of the policy, exemptions for USMCA-compliant content, or a resumption of talks could reverse today’s move quickly, while escalation or Canadian retaliation extending beyond the September 8 counter-tariff date could deepen it.

Holders of Ford, Stellantis, and/or General Motors shares should size their positions to reflect elevated policy risk running into year-end and the January 1 effective date. A cautious approach is warranted for adding exposure here, since headline flow out of Washington and Ottawa can move these names several percent in a single session. Trimming into strength and keeping dry powder for clarity after the September 8 Canadian counter-tariff date can help manage the whipsaw ahead for their portfolios.

Keep an eye on stock-price reactions to any company statements on production impact, guidance revisions, or White House clarification on the scope of the auto tariff. Those disclosures are the next inflection point for Ford, Stellantis, and General Motors shares heading into the fall.

The post Ford and Stellantis Drop 4% as Trump Sets 50% Auto Tariffs on Canada, General Motors Slips appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Two Detroit automakers moving opposite directions on the same session tells the story: today’s slide in Ford stock is a company-specific reversal driven by a fading product-report bounce. Ford (NYSE:F) shares are down 4% to $13.98 Thursday afternoon, giving back essentially all of Wednesday’s rally. General Motors (NYSE:GM) stock is up 1% to $85.72, moving in the opposite direction on the identical tape.

Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) shares are down 2% to $342.69 on a separate storyline. Ford closed Wednesday at $14.50, a 4% session gain, after an unconfirmed product-scoop report suggested the Bronco family could expand years from now. Today’s tape is that rally being surrendered in full.

Bronco Product Scoop Fades as Fast as It Rallied

Wednesday’s Ford rally traced to a Car and Driver report that the Bronco lineup could add a hybrid around 2027 and a pickup around 2030. Ford hasn’t confirmed either product. Investors bid Ford shares up 4% on a scoop about vehicles that wouldn’t reach dealerships until the back half of the decade.

Ford’s Bronco franchise is real underneath the noise. Bronco and Bronco Sport together accounted for 15.5% of Ford-brand U.S. sales volume in the first half. Yet a report about hypothetical 2027 and 2030 models is a thin peg for a same-week revaluation, and the market is now pricing that in reverse.

Wells Fargo reiterated a Sell rating on Ford stock with an $11 price target Wednesday, the same session Ford shares rallied. Owner notification letters begin August 24 for a recall covering 565,691 Bronco and Bronco Raptor vehicles over a wiring defect that can short-circuit and raise fire risk. Protective sheathing will be installed at no cost to owners.

Ford management has been consistent about the Bronco family’s role in the mix. CEO Jim Farley described the company’s bet on “Bronco, Tremor, and Raptor” as having “paid off with higher growth and higher margins”, and off-road performance trims accounted for 25% of Ford’s U.S. sales in the second quarter. That existing strength was arguably already reflected in Ford’s year-to-date advance, which limited the analytical value of Wednesday’s headline.

GM Higher on the Same Tape Rules Out a Sector Story

The cleanest evidence that today’s Ford slide is Ford-specific: General Motors, an equally legacy Detroit automaker with an equally gasoline-heavy lineup, is trading higher into Thursday afternoon. GM shares are up 1% to $85.72 as Ford stock falls 4%. Two automakers with nearly identical business mixes moving in opposite directions on the same session rules out a legacy-versus-electric rotation as the explanation.

Coming into today’s session, Ford stock was up 17% year to date (YTD) against General Motors stock at up 5% through Wednesday’s close. Ford simply had more recent gain available to surrender when Wednesday’s product-scoop premium reversed. Traders may want to check for signs of a narrowing YTD gap between the two Detroit names into Friday.

Ford stock trades at $13.98 with the day’s giveback near the size of Wednesday’s gain, while General Motors stock trades at $85.72 with modest upside. The company’s outperformance year to date left more premium to release once the product-report tailwind reversed. A Ford-specific reversal is the cleanest read on the split.

Tesla Slips on an Unrelated Storyline

Tesla stock is down 2% to $342.69 and is the only name in this group in the red for the year, at down 22% year to date through Wednesday’s close. Capital-spending pressures tied to recent AI infrastructure investment have weighed on Tesla shares for months. Today’s Tesla weakness runs on a separate storyline from the Detroit product-report reversal.

The Tesla setup is best evaluated separately from Ford’s product-cycle story. Tesla shares have been pressured through the year by capital-spending headwinds and operating-margin compression, factors unrelated to legacy-automaker product news out of Detroit. Shareholders sizing Tesla exposure should weight the AI-capex path more heavily than any single-day automotive move.

What Investors Should Watch Next

A rally built on an unconfirmed report about a product several years away tends to be surrendered quickly, and that’s what’s playing out in Ford shares today. Investors sizing new positions in Ford stock should keep exposure modest until a firmer catalyst emerges. The setup rewards patience over chasing single-day product-report spikes.

August 24 marks the nearer-term item on Ford’s calendar, when Bronco recall notification letters begin reaching owners. Shareholders can watch for the market’s reaction to the recall coverage. A stabilization above $13.50 in Ford stock would suggest today’s giveback has run its course.

The post Ford Drops 4% as Bronco Pickup Rally Fades, Tesla Slips, General Motors Inches Higher: What’s Behind the Auto Stock Differential? appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

With the S&P 500 up moderately and the NASDAQ 100 basically flat today, shares of pure-play electric vehicle names are leading the auto complex higher Wednesday. Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) stock is up 3% to $346.71, and Rivian Automotive (NASDAQ:RIVN) stock is climbing 4% to $15.31.

The legacy automotive incumbents are also rising, but only modestly. Ford (NYSE:F) stock is up 1% to $14.07, and General Motors (NYSE:GM) stock is up 1% to $84.84. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 0.4% and the S&P 500 gained 0.5% alongside the group.

The action inverts the 2026 pattern in which profitable incumbents held ground while the growth-story EV names de-rated. Tesla stock is still down 25% year to date (YTD) through Tuesday’s close, and Rivian Automotive stock is down 25% over the same window. Meanwhile, Ford stock is up 13% YTD and General Motors stock is up 3%.

Rate Relief Appears to Drive the Bid

No company-specific catalyst has surfaced for Tesla or Rivian Automotive on Wednesday. The more plausible driver is a sharp move in long-end Treasury yields tied to a Treasury Department announcement on debt buybacks.

The Treasury Department stated it would increase buybacks of long-dated government debt “by at least double” for securities from the 10-year to 30-year sector. The 10-year Treasury yield fell 5 basis points to 4.65%, and the 30-year yield declined 8 basis points to 5.2% after hitting its highest level since 2007 earlier this week.

Lower long-end yields tend to help high-multiple growth names, and rates also matter for vehicle demand because auto purchases are financing-sensitive. Adding to the backdrop, President Trump paused 50% tariffs on Canadian goods for three days, moving the start date to August 22, which is relevant context for automakers with cross-border supply chains. That said, one strong session doesn’t undo the year, and it’s fair to treat today’s action as a broad rate-driven bid rather than a confirmed turn in EV sentiment.

How the Peer Auto Names Traded

Ford stock is up 1% to $14.07. The company’s YTD gain of 13% through Tuesday’s close is the strongest performance in the group covered here, illustrating how the legacy cash generator has held its footing while the pure-play EV complex de-rated.

In a similar vein, General Motors stock is up 1% to $84.84. The GM YTD gain of 3% through Tuesday’s close, a modest but positive result that contrasts sharply with the deep drawdown in Tesla shares and Rivian Automotive shares.

Interestingly, Lucid Group (NASDAQ:LCID) stock is down 0.3% to $5.76, bucking the day’s tone. The Lucid shares are down 45% YTD through Tuesday’s close, making it the weakest of the pure-play EVs in 2026 and a reminder that the cash-burn end of the complex hasn’t participated in Wednesday’s rebound.

The Thematic ETF in Focus

The Global X Autonomous & Electric Vehicles ETF (NASDAQ:DRIV) trades at $34.78 and is up 18% YTD through Tuesday’s close. The fund packages the broader EV and autonomy narrative, with holdings that span semiconductors, traditional automakers, battery producers, and lithium miners.

The Global X Autonomous & Electric Vehicles ETF’s top positions include Intel, NVIDIA, Alphabet, Qualcomm, and Tesla, alongside battery names such as Samsung SDI and miners including Albemarle and Rio Tinto. That breadth softens the impact of any single stock. However, a narrow theme fund still packages a single narrative and can fall even when the broad market holds up, so its price behavior isn’t a substitute for underlying fundamentals in the group.

What to Watch

Traders may want to keep an eye on whether long-end yields keep drifting lower into the close, since the rate story is doing more work than any company-specific headline for the EV complex Wednesday. One session doesn’t undo the 2026 drawdown in Tesla stock or Rivian Automotive stock, and the split between profitable incumbents and cash-burning pure plays remains the defining feature of the auto tape.

A cautious approach and moderate position sizing still make sense here. The longer-term pattern could re-establish itself as quickly as it inverted today.

The post Tesla Climbs 3%, Rivian Jumps 4%: Why Are These EV Stocks Outperforming Ford and General Motors Today? appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

General Motors (NYSE: GM) and Ford (NYSE: F) both raised full-year guidance this summer, yet the market is treating them very differently. Since GM’s board authorized a $6 billion buyback on June 11, 2024, the hare sprinted past the tortoise. In 2026, the hare is napping. Ford is quietly outrunning its rival year to date, and both are running against the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY).

The Sprint, the Trailing Year, and the Flip

GM’s original authorization was followed by more capital returns: a 25% dividend hike and another $6 billion buyback in February 2025, then a further $6 billion repurchase approved in January 2026. That drumbeat shrank the diluted share count to 893 million, 35% below Q2 2023. Ford has leaned instead on its 4.18% dividend yield and smaller buybacks.

Why GM’s Lead Stopped Widening

GM’s Q2 earnings report looked strong on the surface. Adjusted EPS came in at $3.57 versus $3.18 expected, and management raised the full-year EBIT-adjusted range to $14.0 to $16.0 billion. But $2.28 billion in EV strategic realignment charges pressured GAAP results, and quarterly earnings growth registered −26.2% year over year. Ford’s direction is the opposite: quarterly earnings growth of +430.8% year over year, with Model E losses narrowing and Ford Pro paid subscriptions reaching roughly 1.6 million, up about 50% year over year. CEO Jim Farley described the business as “a more profitable, more disciplined, and generally different company.”

What Wall Street Is Paying For

Analysts lean harder toward GM. The consensus price target is $100.04 for GM versus $15.78 for Ford. GM’s analyst rating split is seven Strong Buy, 15 Buy, four Hold, one Sell, and one Strong Sell. Ford’s is three Strong Buy, five Buy, 13 Hold, and one Sell. Forward P/E offers a similar frame: GM at 6x, Ford at 8x. Institutional ownership is 90.5% for GM versus 68.0% for Ford, which caps how much fresh sponsorship GM can pull in from here.

The Takeaway

GM did what it promised on capital returns, and the buyback-window result reflects that discipline. Ford’s turnaround, however, is where the year-over-year deltas are widening fastest. For steadier cash conversion and Detroit’s biggest buyback engine, GM still fits. For exposure to operating leverage on a leaner cost base, with the Universal EV platform and Ford Energy still not yet reflected in the numbers, Ford is the more interesting high-variance bet. But don’t forget that the hare woke up once before.

The post GM Sprinted Past Ford After Its $6 Billion Buyback. This Year The Hare Is Napping. appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Three market strategists appeared on CNBC on August 17, 2026, and one of them, Mike O’Rourke of JonesTrading, described the current tape in a way worth taking seriously. He said the market feels like a plane flying on one engine, and that engine is AI. A very small group of companies tied to data center capital spending is carrying the index while the consumer economy is weakening. NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA) trades at a $5.45 trillion market cap, and its Data Center segment brought in $75.246 billion in a single quarter.

Meanwhile, Target (NYSE:TGT) is guiding to approximately 2% net sales growth after a year in which comparable sales declined 2.5%. That divergence matters because if the engine holding the market up sputters, the ride down catches consumer names too, because household wealth and confidence are already stretched.

The Valuation Question, and Why the Distinction Holds

O’Rourke said, “I think AI is a bubble. That’s my point of view, or at least not AI itself. AI is fantastic. It’s the valuations of these stocks right now.”

NVIDIA at a P/E of 45x on trailing earnings that grew 85.2% year over year is defensible, and its $119 billion in total supply-related commitments suggests customers are still signing. What looks stretched is Palantir (NASDAQ:PLTR) at a P/E of 246x after 92.8% revenue growth, because that multiple prices an outcome no company has delivered at scale. Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META) trades at a P/E of 22x and has already fallen 10.49% year to date because its Q2 free cash flow collapsed to $784 million from $8.55 billion a year earlier, amid a $30.1 billion quarterly capex bill.

A handful of extreme prices rest on the assumption that hyperscaler capex, running at what Jensen Huang called “the largest infrastructure expansion in human history”, will continue to expand indefinitely. Any deceleration would compress those multiples fast.

(See NVIDIA’s Q1 FY2027 press release for the scale of commitments involved)

O’Rourke’s framing only requires the market’s willingness to pay 246 times earnings for a piece of AI to fade, even if the underlying technology continues to succeed (riding a mania is fine as long as you plan the exit, and we walked through both halves in a free bubble survivor’s handbook).

The Feedback Loop Into the Consumer

If AI equity prices roll over, the wealth effect reverses, dragging down spending on everything else. Ford (NYSE:F) is already absorbing roughly $2 billion in commodity headwinds and $1 billion in tariff impacts against a core auto business that produced a $777 million loss in Model e last quarter. Target’s transaction count declined 2.9% in Q4 and comparable store sales dropped 3.9%. These companies’ customers are already thinning out.

University of Michigan sentiment sits at 49.5, in the bottom 9.1 percentile of readings historically. Retail sales fell to $763.6 billion in July, down $4.5 billion from June. Gas at $4.01 per gallon is above the household pain threshold. Credit card delinquencies at 2.92% sit in normalizing territory but well above pre-pandemic norms. This is a consumer already leaning on paper wealth. Take that wealth away and retailers and automakers get hit twice: first by weaker demand, then by earnings compression.

The Bond Market’s Warning, Tested

Lee Baker said, “The bond markets are troubling. And it seems as though the bond markets are warning us about something. But the equity markets just aren’t listening.” The 10-year Treasury yields 4.63%, near the 92.7th percentile of its 12-month range.

The 10Y-2Y spread has climbed off a June low of 0.27% to 0.51%, still in the lower third of its range. The VIX sits at 14.25, in the bottom 2.3 percentile of the past year. The gap between fixed-income caution and equity complacency is real, although the Sahm Rule at -0.03 argues against imminent recession.

This risk is concentrated in the highest-multiple AI names and in consumer discretionary companies whose customers depend on the paper wealth those AI names have created. Owning Palantir at 246 times earnings underwrites one scenario. Owning Target or Ford underwrites the durability of a consumer whose sentiment is near recessionary. Holding both without recognizing they are the same trade concentrates risk in a single macro outcome.

The post A Top Strategist Says This Market Is Flying on One Engine. He Thinks It Could Stall appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Troubled EV company Rivian (NASDAQ: RIVN) has a $23 billion market cap. Global car giant Stellantis (NYSE: STLA) has a $20 billion market cap. This seems impossible. It shouldn’t be. The EV revolution has ended in the US. Stellantis has troubled brands, but not that troubled.

Rivian expects to sell 65,000 to 70,000 vehicles this year. Some of that will come from its new R2, which will have a price point under $50,000. Currently, Rivian models can cost as much as $100,000. Stellantis sold about 5.4 million last year. That is expected to drop slightly in 2026.

Stellantis had about $50 billion in revenue in the second quarter. On that, it made a very small $335 million. It was very, very modest proof that a turnaround plan has begun. Revenue was spread across Jeep, Chrysler, RAM, Fiat, Opel, Peugeot, and several niche brands.

Rivian had revenue of $1.1 billion in the second quarter, on which it lost $833 million. It has one brand.

Why the gulf?

Presumably, because a huge car company that has almost entirely gas-powered vehicles has its best years well behind it. An EV company will take off quickly.

Look at another car company. Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) has a market cap of $1.1 trillion; Ford’s (NYSE: F) is $55 billion. The same logic applies here to EVs versus gas-powered car futures.

The gap between gas-powered car sales and EVs worldwide remains substantial. The notable exception is China. EV sales have started to gain ground in the EU, but gas-powered cars still have a huge market-share advantage.

And the US is the worst large EV market in the world, where these vehicles represent about 5% of new car sales so far this year.

Either Stellantis is worth too little, or Rivian is worth too much.

The post Why Is Rivian Worth As Much As Stellantis? It Isn’t appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) presents one of the market’s clearest disconnects right now. More analysts rate the stock a hold than a buy, yet the consensus price target keeps drifting higher.

Our 24/7 Wall St. price target for Tesla is $402.67, implying 22.95% upside from the current $327.51 price. That translates to a buy rating with a confidence level of 90%. The model leans positive despite an analyst community that skews neutral.

A Rough Summer After a Punishing Earnings Reaction

Tesla is down 27.17% year to date and 17.04% over the past month, though shares have edged up 1.85% in the last week. The stock trades well below its 52-week high of $498.83 and near the low of $297.38. Q2 2026 explains most of the decline.

Tesla posted revenue of $28.24 billion, up 25.52% year over year and beating consensus by 7.10%. Non-GAAP EPS of $0.33 missed the $0.5367 estimate by 38.51% as operating expenses jumped 47% on AI infrastructure, R&D, and the CEO Performance Award.

Deliveries hit a record 480,126 vehicles and FSD subscriptions reached 1.48 million, but free cash flow swung to negative $1.09 billion. Shares fell 14.52% on the report.

The Case for $474 and Higher

In our bull scenario, Tesla reaches $474.14 within twelve months, a 44.77% total return. Robotaxi is the swing factor. The service runs in seven US metros, and Elon Musk said unsupervised miles are growing “more than 10% a week.”

Optimus lines are being installed at Fremont, Megapack 3 is on track for 2026, and Cybercab engineering drives are underway. UBS upgraded the stock earlier this year, citing the long-term AI opportunity balancing near-term demand risk.

What Could Go Wrong

Our bear case takes Tesla to $358.43, still a 9.44% return but well below the base case. CFO Vaibhav Taneja confirmed capex will exceed $25 billion this year and grow for two to three more. Operating margin collapsed to 1.4% in Q2.

Prediction markets assign only a 10.5% probability to an Optimus release by year end. Bulls counter that the OpEx surge reflects AI compute and CEO Performance Award vesting, both non-recurring drags on the reported EPS line.

How Tesla Compares to Rivian and Ford

Rivian (NASDAQ:RIVN) is the closest pure-play EV comparable. Rivian carries a market cap of $23 billion against Tesla’s $1.31 trillion, and posted a Q1 2026 adjusted loss of $0.54 per share. It trades at a negative earnings multiple, which makes Tesla’s 169x forward P/E look expensive on paper but reasonable given actual profitability.

Ford (NYSE:F) offers the legacy contrast. Ford raised full-year 2026 adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion and pays a 5.5% dividend yield. Its Model e segment is still losing $4 billion to $4.5 billion annually. Ford is priced as a mature manufacturer; Tesla is priced on AI, robotics, and autonomy. That framing supports our buy, though it explains why 18 analysts sit on the sidelines.

Tesla Price Prediction 2026-2030

The 24/7 Wall St. model output is buy at $327.51 with a price target of $402.67 and 90% confidence. The bull thesis rests on robotaxi miles compounding as management describes, while the key downside catalyst would be FSD approvals in China and Europe slipping further into 2027.

Extending the model forward, here is where Tesla could trade if the base-case trajectory holds.

These projections assume Tesla executes on robotaxi scaling and Optimus production. Meaningful upside or downside will hinge on FSD regulatory approvals and the return on that $25 billion annual capex commitment.

The post More Analysts Say Hold Than Buy on Tesla. The Price Target Went Up Anyway. appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Investors, more and more likely to look at Tesla’s (NASDAQ: TSLA) car sales, should be encouraged by official EV figures out of China for the month of July. According to the China Passenger Car Association, across the world’s largest car market, sales of passenger cars fell 20.9% in July from the same month the year before to 1.46 million retail units. Sales of EVs and other cars that are not run entirely by fossil fuels dropped 3.9% to 951,000.

Tesla’s sales were extremely strong. According to The Wall Street Journal, “In July, Tesla exported 66,330 units made at its Shanghai plant and sold 93,579 units to Chinese buyers.” Keep in mind that in the second quarter, Tesla said it produced 450,000 vehicles and delivered over 480,000 vehicles. On top of China, Tesla sells hundreds of thousands of cars in the US, UK, and EU each quarter. Although the Chinese numbers cannot be used as an exact way to estimate third-quarter sales, investors should be optimistic.

On top of the good Tesla news, its primary global EV rival BYD had a horrible month. It did not sell enough units to be among the top three by units sold in China in July.

Tesla’s stock is down 26% this year, while the S&P 500 is up 12%. To some extent, this is because of a tug-of-war between Elon Musk and a group of investors who believe his argument that Tesla will grow because of Robotaxis, AI, and robots is unlikely. Rather, they would like to see Tesla as the dominant EV company in the world, as it was a half a decade ago. It continues to trail some of the largest EV companies in China, which include Geely.

In Europe, after a difficult year in 2025, Tesla’s sales have rebounded in double digits year over year in the first half of 2026. However, BYD is growing faster and now sells more units per month.

In the US, Tesla has over half the EV market. It is helped by the fact that large US car companies, particularly GM (NYSE: GM) and Ford (NYSE: F), have retreated after billions in losses on their EV divisions. But US EV sales dropped by about 20% in the first half of the year. Most of this has been blamed on the elimination of the $7,500 federal tax credit, which ended in September of last year. High gas prices could help reverse that trend–if they remain high. Used EV sales have already started to rise. (That could draw people away from new models, which tend to be expensive compared to gas-powered cars.)

Tesla may never get back its global market share, but it could benefit from a sharp growth in EV sales across a large number of nations, particularly those where gas prices are high already. If the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz remains very low, EVs will become more and more attractive. Gas prices in the US could move toward $5. They are currently just above $4 a gallon, but US oil reserves are a multi decade low. According to The Independent, “US oil reserve just hit a low not seen since 1983.”

If Tesla has an ace in the hole, it is the 100% tariff the US has put on Chinese EVs. Many experts consider these cars to be as well-built as Teslas, but they are also less expensive. China may be important for Tesla, but the US tariffs may be the key to a rebound.

The post Tesla’s China Numbers Show It Is On The Road To Comeback appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) and Ford (NYSE: F) just delivered earnings that read like two different eras of the auto industry. Tesla poured cash into robotaxis, Optimus, and AI compute. Ford leaned on trucks, commercial vans, and software subscriptions. With $700 pointed at Tesla’s disruption story and $300 anchored in Ford’s income hedge, a $1,000 sleeve captures both growth optionality and cash-flow ballast.

Robotaxis Burn Cash. F-Series Prints It.

Tesla’s Q2 2026 revenue reached $28.24 billion, up 25.5% YoY, on record deliveries of 480,126 vehicles. Yet EPS came in at $0.33, missing the $0.54 estimate by 38.51%, and operating margin compressed to 1.4% as capex surged 141.81% to $5.79 billion. Services and Other jumped 50% YoY to $4.58 billion, powered by 1.48 million FSD subscriptions and Robotaxi expansion into seven U.S. metros. Real investment, real burn.

Ford’s Q1 2026 told a calmer story. Revenue of $43.25 billion (+6% YoY) and EPS of $0.66 came with a guidance raise. Ford Pro posted $1.69 billion EBIT at an 11.4% margin, and paid software subscriptions grew to 879,000, up 30% YoY. Jim Farley called it “the momentum of the Ford+ plan”. Model e still lost $777 million, a reminder the EV transition remains expensive.

Optionality on One Side, Yield on the Other

Prediction markets remain skeptical on Tesla’s headliners. Polymarket assigns just 15% probability to a California robotaxi launch and 14.5% to an Optimus release by year-end. That gap between narrative and probability is precisely why sizing matters.

What I Am Watching Into Year-End

For Tesla, I want to see operating margin stabilize above the 1.4% Q2 trough and Robotaxi extend beyond its current seven metros. The stock is down 26.94% YTD, sitting at $328.58, which cools the entry price meaningfully. For Ford, the swing factors are the Novelis aluminum recovery in H2 and whether the raised $8.5B to $10.5B adjusted EBIT range holds through tariff noise.

Why the 70/30 Split Fits My Read of the Quarter

I like this pairing because the two businesses fail differently. If Tesla’s AI ramp works, the $700 slug gets asymmetric upside from software and fleet economics that the current P/E already assumes. If it stumbles, Ford’s $5.0B to $6.0B free cash flow guidance and quarterly $0.15 dividend keep the sleeve producing income while Ford Pro’s software base compounds. You get a growth call option and a yield floor in the same $1,000. I would revisit the weighting if Tesla’s operating margin stays below 2% for another quarter, or if Ford’s commodity headwind widens past guidance.

The post How to Deploy $1000 Across Tesla and Ford for Growth and Optionality appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Four of the biggest names in corporate America want more people holding conduit benders and pipe wrenches. On July 21, Ford (NYSE:F), Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL), BlackRock (NYSE:BLK), and Carhartt launched the Alliance for America’s Skilled Trades, with founding commitments that include $300 million from Ford, $100 million from BlackRock, and $50 million from Google, and support for training in 30 states. The catalyst is compelling: the country is short on electricians, welders, and pipefitters, and wages are rising fast enough that a seasoned tradesperson can name a price.

Which brings us to Ray, a 63-year-old journeyman electrician outside Columbus. He filed for Social Security at age 62 to steady the household budget after a slow stretch. Now his phone will not stop ringing. Data-center jobs, hospital retrofits, industrial panel work. He is picking up 15 to 20 hours of overtime a week and wondering what those larger paychecks will do to his benefits.

The new federal overtime deduction helps with his tax bill. It does not protect his Social Security checks. That is the catch.

Two Rulebooks, Two Definitions of Income

Ray is bumping into two federal systems that barely acknowledge each other. The federal overtime deduction can reduce taxable income. But the deduction does not cover every dollar earned during overtime hours. It generally applies only to the premium required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

If Ray earns $40 an hour and receives $60 for an overtime hour, only the additional $20 may qualify for the deduction. The regular $40 portion does not. Overtime provided solely under a union contract or paid beyond the federal requirement may also receive different treatment. The deduction is capped at $12,500, or $25,000 for a married couple filing jointly, and begins phasing out above $150,000 of modified adjusted gross income for a single filer or $300,000 jointly.

Social Security uses a much less forgiving number. Its retirement earnings test counts wages from the job, including the full $60 Ray earned during that overtime hour. A deduction claimed months later on his tax return does not change the wages Social Security sees. For someone under full retirement age (FRA) throughout 2026, the annual earnings limit is $24,480. Social Security withholds $1 in benefits for every $2 earned above it. With a full-time electrician’s salary plus 15 to 20 overtime hours each week, Ray could lose every benefit payment for the year.

The Withheld Checks Are Not Gone, but They Are Not Waiting in an Envelope

The earnings test disappears once Ray reaches his FRA of 67. From that month forward, he can earn any amount without having retirement benefits withheld. Social Security also recalculates his benefit at 67 to account for months in which checks were reduced or withheld. It does this by adjusting the early-claiming reduction originally applied to his benefit, producing a larger monthly check going forward.

That is not a dollar-for-dollar refund arriving at 67. How much Ray eventually recovers depends partly on how long he collects the higher benefit. The immediate cash-flow loss is still real, which matters because steady income was why he claimed at 62. He should also report his updated earnings estimate to Social Security now. Waiting until wages appear on a W-2 can produce an overpayment notice and a demand that benefits already received be returned.

The Second Overtime Catch

Higher wages can pull more of Ray’s Social Security into the taxable column. The formula uses combined income, which includes adjusted gross income, tax-exempt interest, and half of Social Security benefits. The overtime deduction appears below adjusted gross income (AGI) on the tax return. It can reduce taxable income and the final federal tax bill, but it generally does not lower the combined-income figure used to determine how much of Social Security is taxable.

In other words, the deduction may soften the tax bite without preventing it.

What to Settle Before the Next Big Paycheck

Two steps carry most of the weight:

1. Separate the two systems. The overtime deduction lowers federal taxable income on a limited portion of qualified overtime pay. Social Security still counts the full gross wage when applying its earnings test.
2. Price the cash-flow trade. Benefits withheld before 67 can produce a higher monthly payment afterward, but Ray must still cover expenses during the years when the checks are missing. His current pay stub, expected annual hours, and the 2026 earnings limit will show whether some benefits or all of them will be withheld.

America may need Ray back on the job. The IRS is willing to give part of his overtime a tax break. Social Security is still counting every dollar.

The post Ford, Google, and BlackRock Say America Needs Millions More Tradespeople. A 63-Year-Old Electrician Should Know the Overtime Catch. appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has escalated a long-running defect probe into roughly 135,551 Ford Fiesta, Focus, and EcoSport vehicles with 1.0L turbocharged three-cylinder engines from model years 2014 to 2021, declaring an “unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.” The trigger: timing belt material that degrades and clogs the oil pump pick-up screen, starving the engine of oil pressure and, in some cases, causing sudden power loss or seizure.

The upgrade to an “engineering analysis” is the formal step required before NHTSA can move to compel a recall. Regulators cited 355 incidents in which a low oil pressure warning light appeared shortly before power loss, an average failure mileage of about 70,000 miles, and 98% of failures occurring before the recommended 150,000-mile belt replacement. One 2017 Focus driver on a Delaware highway reported the oil light came on and the car “lost all power” and began “sound[ing] like a tank” within an eighth of a mile. NHTSA’s verbatim finding: “Based on NHTSA’s analysis of the data, failure rates, information provided by Ford, preliminary engine teardown analysis, and precedent recalls regarding loss of engine oil pressure with the presence of driver facing warnings, [the agency] believes there is an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.”

Ford (NYSE:F) has not yet issued a formal recall. In June, it told NHTSA it was rolling out a non-safety “customer satisfaction program,” shortening the recommended timing belt interval to 100,000 miles or 6 years, and offering reimbursement to some customers who already paid for related repairs. All three affected nameplates are discontinued in the U.S., so the defect does not touch Ford’s current F-Series, Bronco, Explorer, or Maverick lineup.

One Entry in a Very Long 2026 List

The timing belt case lands atop an unusually crowded year. NHTSA has logged 36 Ford-linked recalls in 2026 covering an estimated 9.8 million vehicles, one carrying a rare “Do Not Drive” warning. Notable campaigns include 741,195 vehicles pulled over a transmission park-system defect that could let cars roll away, 565,691 Bronco and Bronco Raptor vehicles recalled for engine-compartment wiring fire risk, 387,911 Explorer and Aviator vehicles for a seat defect, and a 2.4 million-vehicle recall tied to rearview camera and windshield wiper issues, after which Ford’s stock fell about 2% in a single session. Each is mechanically distinct, but together they define the reliability perception problem CEO Jim Farley has spent two years trying to fix.

The Earnings Beat and the Structural Drag

Ford’s Q2 2026 report on July 28 was strong: adjusted EPS of $0.42 against a $0.35 consensus, adjusted EBIT up 17% year-over-year to $2.5 billion, and full-year adjusted EBIT guidance raised to $10 billion to $11 billion. Shares jumped roughly 6.8% to 8% after hours. The NHTSA action reinforces the through-line analysts already fixate on. Warranty expenses peaked at $4.8 billion in 2023, and while Ford cut warranty and material costs by $1.5 billion in 2025 and is targeting another roughly $1 billion in 2026, Farley conceded on the Q1 call: “We’re on track to deliver another over $1 billion in material and warranty cost improvements this year, and we will never stop.” That progress is measured against a FY2025 GAAP net loss of $8.16 billion, driven largely by $10.7 billion in EV-related impairments.

As of early August, Ford trades around $14.64, and the sell side remains skeptical. Jefferies carries a $13.50 target with a Hold, Wells Fargo sits at $11 with an Underweight, and the broader analyst average target is $14.78. Recalls are the reason the earnings beat has not translated into a rerating. The signal to watch next quarter is whether Ford preempts NHTSA with a formal recall on the timing belt fleet, and what that does to the roughly $1 billion in warranty savings Farley promised investors for the balance of the year.

The post NHTSA Says 135,551 Ford Cars Pose an “Unreasonable Risk” as Recall Investigations Continue to Plague Ford Stock appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

It is easy to tell which huge American car company investors favor over the long term. GM’s stock is up 61% in the last five years, according to Yahoo Finance and Google Finance. Ford is up 6% over the same period. The auto industry has been through at least one huge economic cycle during that period. It is easy to see who won.

What are the obvious things? Ford (NYSE: F) took a beating in the EV space in the US, but in terms of write-offs, GM (NYSE: GM) also posted awful numbers. Ford’s write-off was $19.5 billion. GM had two. One was $6 billion, and the other was $1.6 billion. Ford said on many occasions that its EV plans would transform the company. Executive Chairman Bill Ford made it clear that the launch of the EV F-150 Lightning was the most important launch of his career. Ford also forecast EV sales into the hundreds of thousands and said it had the capacity to build them. GM Chairman Mary Barra said her company would be a success, but her comments about success were more muted.

Ford CEO Jim Farley has also made alarming comments about what will happen if Chinese EVs make it into the US market. The risk would seem to be equivalent to that faced by GM, but Barra has been less vocal.

Another of Ford’s problems was its US market share. By most measures, it is behind both GM and Toyota (NYSE: TM). Market share in a company’s home market means a great deal, particularly when its primary competitor is not even US-based.

Ford also falls well behind all its US rivals in product quality. It did take the top spot among mass-market brands in the ranking of mainstream brands in the JD Power 2026 U.S. Initial Quality Study (IQS). However, this does not offset the 153 safety recalls it had last year, or the 61 it has had this year.

Finally, and more of a guess, there is the issue of long-term control of the companies. The Ford family has voting power over the corporation. GM has a more traditional structure under which the board and shareholders are in charge.

The post GM Up 61%, Ford Up 6% In Five Year Stock Price Race appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Pre-Market Stock Futures:

The futures are trading higher as we get set to wrap up one of the wildest weeks on Wall Street in some time. Following a massive 1100-point DJIA sell-off, we got a Thursday snapback rally that made heads spin and erased much of the mid-week losses. Some big numbers from Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT) and encouraging economic data helped power a buying tailwind (and short covering) that got things going on the open, and they stayed in place all day. When the final bell rang, the big winner was the tech-heavy Nasdaq, which closed at 25,122, up 2.78%, while the S&P 500 finished the session up 1.66% at 7,437. The Dow Jones Industrials grabbed back a chunk of that 1,100-point loss, finishing at 52,209, up 1.19%, while the small-cap Russell 2000 was last seen at 2,947, up 1.40%.

Treasury Bonds:

The Treasury complex turned in a performance on Thursday that was very similar to Wednesday. Modest selling on the belly of the curve, with larger moves on the longer maturities, and buyers grabbing the T-bills.  When the dust settled, the yield on the 30-year long bond was posted at 5.22%, while the benchmark 10-year note was priced at a 4.67% yield.  

Oil and Gas:

Despite some escalation in the war with Iran, energy prices fell on Thursday after reports that cargo shipments through major waterways were still moving, helping alleviate some supply concerns. When the final bell rang, Brent Crude closed down 1.75% at $89.15, while West Texas Intermediate closed down 0.72% at $83.85. Natural gas was the sole winner in the energy space, closing up 0.92% at $2.75. 

Gold:

For the second day running, Gold continued to trade higher, as published reports on Thursday indicated that China is buying every dip, as are other central banks around the world. U.S. dollar weakness, signs that inflation is moderating, and ongoing geopolitical issues related to the war all provided reasons for the bullion to trade higher. The final print for Gold was posted at $4,018, up 1.06%, while Silver finished the day at $59.03, up 2.61%.

Crypto:

Here are some of the top Wall Street analyst upgrades, downgrades, and initiations seen on Friday, July 31, 2026.  

Upgrades:

• Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F) was upgraded to Hold from Sell at DZ Bank, with a $16 target price.
• International Paper Company (NYSE: IP) was upgraded to Buy from Hold at Deutsche Bank, which raised the target price to $50 from $39.
• Nextpower (NASDAQ: NXT) was upgraded to Outperform from Neutral at BMO Capital, with an unchanged $132 target price.
• Patterson-UTI Energy (NASDAQ: PTEN) was raised to Neutral from Underweight at JPMorgan, which bumped the target price for the stock to $12 from $10.
• Saia (NASDAQ: SAIA) was upgraded to Buy from Hold at Stifel, which trimmed the target price for the shares to $438 from $450.

Downgrades:

• Blackstone Mortgage (NYSE: BXMT) was downgraded to Market Perform from Outperform at Keefe Bruyette & Woods,  which dropped the price target to $16 from $20.
• Boston Scientific (NYSE: BSX) was downgraded to Hold from Buy at Argus, without a target price.
• Edison International (NYSE: EIX) was cut to Equal Weight from Overweight at Barclays, which trimmed the target price for the utility to $75 from $78.
• GoDaddy (NYSE: GDDY) was downgraded to Market Perform from Outperform at William Blair, without a price target.
• Roblox Corporation (NYSE: RBLX) was downgraded to Market Perform from Outperform by BMO Capital, which slashed the price target to $45 from $100.

Initiations:

• BBB Foods (NASDAQ: TBBB) was started with a Buy rating at Citigroup, with a $49 target price.
• Duos Technologies Group (NASDAQ: DUOT) was initiated with an Overweight rating at Cantor Fitzgerald, with a $26 target price.
• Faeth Therapeutics (NASDAQ: FTH) was started with an Outperform rating at Raymond James, which has a $56 target price objective.
• Heartflow (NASDAQ: HTFL) was initiated with an Outperform rating at Baird, with a $14 target.
• Sky Harbour Group (NYSE: SKYH) was initiated with a Buy rating at Roth Capital, with a $14 target price. 
  
  

The post Here Are Friday’s Top Wall Street Analyst Research Calls: Blackstone Mortgage, Boston Scientific, Edison International, Ford, GoDaddy, International Paper, Roblox, Saia, and More appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Two things happened to Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta (NASDAQ: META) yesterday. Earnings showed how much the company was investing in AI, and data centers particularly. This drove the stock down 10%. At the same time, it became clear that it had become the dominant social media presence in the world’s largest nation based on population. Daily active users of its Instagram platform are rising at a level that is hard to imagine. Meta should abandon the AI sector, where it is already a loser, for it, and one where it cannot catch up. It should focus on its core business, which is doing better than expected.

Meta’s top line growth rate remains impressive based on its size. In the quarter, revenue rose 28% to $60.8 billion, which keeps it on track to be one of the largest companies in America by that yardstick. Ad impressions were almost as strong and were up 14% year over year. These are the company’s revenue engine.

However, this did not translate into strong earnings. Net income fell 14% to $15.9 billion. Guidance was weak. “We expect third quarter 2026 total revenue to be in the range of $61-64 billion.” And the amount of money Meta plans to spend was nothing short of colossal. “We anticipate 2026 capital expenditures, including principal payments on finance leases, to be in the range of $130-145 billion, narrowed from our prior outlook of $125-145 billion.” Free cash flow nearly disappeared as it dropped 91%.

On the other side of the world, CNBC reports, “The number of daily active users on Instagram jumped 16% year-on-year to 531 million between July 18 and July 26, as per Sensor Tower data.” Its user base in the nation, which included Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, dwarfs its competition. CNBC added, “WhatsApp had an average of 837 million daily active users in India, Instagram 501 million and Facebook 362 million so far this year.”

Somewhat lost in the analysis is that India’s population is 1.47 billion, which is 4.4 times that comparable number in the US. There is no sign that any other social media company comes close to its coverage, or ever will. Two analysts added that the ability of Meta to target people by way of its algorithms is extraordinary.

Big companies often get sidetracked because they believe they can grow by investing in projects that are not part of the core business. Examples of this range from Microsoft’s  (NASDAQ: MSFT) video game products to Ford’s (NYSE: F) EVs. The decisions are often costly, and on reflection are staggering mistakes.

The post Meta Should Give Up On AI, Focus On Surging Social appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Market day supply” is what the car industry calls it. The figure represents the number of days it would take to sell all current inventory at the current daily sales rate. The average across the industry, including all models, is about 60. Toyota (NYSE: TM) has six models in the top 10 list as of June, according to CarEdge.

The models are the Land Cruiser at 7 days, the Grand Highlander at 10 days, the Highlander at 12 days, the Sienna at 12 days, the Corolla Cross at 13 days, and the RAV4 at 13 days. The RAV4 and Grand Highlander are also among the ten best-selling models by volume in the US, according to the same analysis.

Based on the small number of days for each of these Toyotas, they are basically gone the moment a dealer gets them.

Toyota was the largest car company in the world, based on vehicles sold last year at 11,322,575. To give a sense of scale, the No.1 US car company ranked 4th. GM sold 6,183,928.

Perhaps as impressive as Toyota’s global numbers are, it is also amazing that it entered the US in a significant way when it introduced the Corona. Today, it is No.2 in market share in the US at about 15%. GM’s (NYSE: GM) is 17%, and Ford’s (NYSE: F) is 13%

The Land Cruiser and Sienna are among Toyota’s most expensive models. The huge Land Cruiser SUV has a base price of $58,000, which can jump above $70,000 with a number of features. The RAV4 is among its least expensive, with a base price of just shy of $32,000.

What may be the most impressive thing about Toyota is that both its cheapest and most expensive models are on the list.

The post Toyota Runs Out Of Cars appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Shares of Ford (NYSE:F) are up 6% Wednesday morning to $15.90 after the automaker delivered a Q2 2026 earnings beat, lifted its full-year outlook, and picked up a Buy upgrade from Citi. Ford stock is outrunning both Detroit and Silicon Valley today, with General Motors (NYSE:GM) shares flat at $90.30 and Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) shares flat at $307.42.

The pop stretches Ford stock’s year to date (YTD) gain to 17%, well ahead of Tesla shares, which are down 32% YTD after a soft Q2 report last week. Ford shares closed Tuesday at $14.96, and Wednesday’s rally puts them back near their highs of the summer.

An EPS beat, a real guidance raise, a sell-side upgrade, and management reframing EV write-downs as clearing the decks all landed inside a 24-hour window.

Earnings Beat and Raised Guidance Fuel the Rally

Ford reported Q2 2026 adjusted EPS of $0.42 versus $0.36 expected, with adjusted EBIT of $2.5 billion at a 5.2% margin. Management then raised FY2026 adjusted EBIT guidance to $10 billion to $11 billion, up from $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion, and lifted adjusted free cash flow to $6 billion to $7 billion.

Ford CFO Sherry House credited pricing, a richer mix skewed to higher-priced SUVs, and lower net tariff exposure. CEO Jim Farley added that Ford is becoming “a more profitable, more disciplined and genuinely different company.”

The headline GAAP number looks rough at first glance. Ford booked a $1.32 billion net loss tied to $4.2 billion in pre-tax special charges, mostly the $3.6 billion non-cash BlueOval SK battery joint venture exit plus $500 million in EV program cancellations. Model e still lost $919 million, though the segment improved year over year (YoY) for a third straight quarter.

Citi Upgrade and a New Energy Angle

Analysts at Citi upgraded Ford to Buy with a $20 price target, implying 34% upside from Tuesday’s close. Fresh upgrades landing on top of a guidance raise tend to draw short covering and momentum flows, which helps explain the size of Wednesday’s move in Ford stock.

Ford is also repurposing stranded battery assets into Ford Energy, a grid-scale and utility energy storage business. That gives the company an adjacent growth story outside of passenger EVs, where Model e losses have weighed on the equity for years. It also softens the optics of the BlueOval SK exit by pointing capacity toward a market with real utility demand.

Peers Sit Still as Ford Leads

GM shares are flat despite a strong Q2 last week, when the company posted adjusted EPS of $3.57 against a $3.18 consensus and raised FY2026 adjusted EBIT guidance to $14 billion to $16 billion. GM stock is up 11% YTD, so the calm reaction likely reflects a rally already priced in. Meanwhile, Tesla stock remains under pressure after a Q2 miss driven by heavy AI infrastructure spending and a compressed operating margin.

For diversified exposure, the First Trust S-Network Future Vehicles & Technology ETF (NYSEARCA:CARZ) holds all three names alongside Asian automakers like Hyundai, Kia, and BYD. The ETF is up 28% YTD, though it has cooled on Tesla weakness. The fund is narrow by design, so investors may want to size their positions with the sector concentration in mind.

What to Watch

Ford’s U.S. Q2 sales volume fell 10% on EV weakness and product phase-outs, though the company’s June retail share climbed to 12.3%. Investors can watch for whether Ford’s pricing power and mix hold through the second half, especially as tariff net exposure eases and Ford Pro continues to anchor profitability.

The next question is whether other sell-side desks follow Citi. Ford stock offers a dividend yield of around 4%, and additional upgrades would give income-focused investors more confidence in the payout’s durability. The prior consensus price target sat at $15.05, which Wednesday’s rally has already cleared.

Momentum traders may keep Ford stock active into the close. The bigger tell will be whether the rally holds above $15 through Friday, and whether Q3 U.S. volume data starts to confirm the pricing and mix story that management leaned on this quarter.

The post Ford Jumps 6%, Outstrips GM and Tesla on Q2 Earnings Beat, Raised 2026 Guidance, Citi Upgrade appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Pre-Market Stock Futures:

Futures are trading lower after a strong bounce-back day for all the major indices, except the Nasdaq. Powerful earnings releases for the second quarter, tumbling oil prices, and most across Wall Street agree that the Federal Reserve Chariman Kevin Warsh will keep interest rates where they are now. The Dow Jones Industrial traded over 500 points higher to close up 1.03% at $52,747, while the S&P 500 had a more muted day, gaining 0.21% to 7,428. The small-cap Russell 2000, which is still leading all of the major indices this year, closed at 2,954, up 0.25%. The Nasdaq, which closed well off the lows of the day, was under pressure again as semiconductor stocks continued to be sold amid a big rotation. When the final bell rang, the Nasdaq stood at 28,876, down 0.22%. With more big earnings on the way this week, we could see more of the same.

Treasury Bonds:

Just like Monday, yields were lower across the entire yield curve for the same reason: investors grabbed some of the highest Treasury yields since 2025. Falling oil prices and concerns over inflation were a solid tailwind for the Treasury complex and could continue this week if rates do indeed stay where they are. The 30-year long bond closed Tuesday’s session at 5.09%, while the 10-year note was last seen at 4.60%. 

Oil and Gas:

Oil prices plunged again on Tuesday to a 2-week low as hopes for a settlement of the Iran conflict remained an ongoing triggering flash point for every move higher or lower. When the final bell rang, Brent Crude closed at $83.92, down 5.02%, while West Texas Intermediate closed at $79.18, down 4.15%. Natural gas closed the day at $2.64, down 4.55%. 

Gold:

Things didn’t go quite as well for the precious metals on Tuesday. A stronger dollar and some caution ahead of the Federal Reserve meeting, where the higher-for-longer mantra is becoming more entrenched, weighed on prices. The closing price for Gold was $4,029, down 1.14%, while Silver closed at $57.01, down 2.21%.

Crypto:

Cryptocurrency markets traded lower on Tuesday, pushed down by falling Bitcoin prices, fading hopes for the CLARITY Act, and caution ahead of the Federal Reserve meeting. Bitcoin dropped approximately 3% to $63,000, touching a 10-day low and briefly dipping to $62,684 before recovering later in the afternoon. At 8 AM EDT, Bitcoin traded at $64,405, while Ethereum traded at $1,912.

24/7 Wall St. reviews dozens of analyst research reports every day to identify fresh investment ideas for investors and traders alike. These daily analyst notes include recommendations on stocks to buy, sell, or avoid, as well as new coverage initiations. Important reminder: No single analyst report should ever be the sole basis for buying or selling a stock.

Here are some of the top Wall Street analyst upgrades, downgrades, and initiations seen on Wednesday, July 29, 2026.

Upgrades:

• Bloom Energy (NYSE: BE) was upgraded to Buy from Hold at Clear Street, with a $290 target price.
• CarMax (NYSE: KMX) was upgraded to Neutral from Underweight at JPMorgan, which lifted the target price for the shares to $60 from $38.
• Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F) was upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Citigroup, which bumped the target price for the legacy automobile company to $20 from $19.
• Noble (NYSE: NE) was upgraded to Buy from Hold at Fearnley, with a $50 target price.
• Texas Instruments (NYSE: TXN) was raised to Buy from Neutral at Arete, with a $405 target price. ,

Downgrades:

• Caesars Entertainment (NYSE: CZR) was downgraded to Hold from Buy at TD Cowen, with an unchanged $31 target price objective.
• Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT) was cut to Neutral from Outperform at Baird, which slashed the target price for the stock to $900 from $1.200.
• HF Sinclair (NYSE: DINO) was downgraded to Sell from Hold at Freedom Broker, which raised the target price for the shares to $73 from $62.
• MPLX LP (NYSE: MPLX) was downgraded to Peer Perform from Outperform at Wolfe Research, without a target price.
• Oneok (NYSE: OKE) was downgraded to Equal Weight from Overweight at Morgan Stanley, which trimmed the target price for the shares to $103 from $113.

Initiations:

• Kinetik Holdings (NYSE: KNTK) was resumed with an Overweight rating at Morgan Stanley, with a $64 target price.
• NeoVolta (NASDAQ: NEOV) was initiated with an Outperform rating at Northland, with a $15 target price.
• Reddit (NYSE: RDDT) was started with an Overweight rating at KeyBanc, with a $225 target price for the shares.
• Steel Dynamics (NASDAQ: STLD) was reinstated with a Buy rating at Goldman Sachs, with a $300 target price. 
  
• Xanadu Quantum Technologies (NASDAQ: XNDU) was initiated with an Outperform rating at CIBC, with a $22 target price.

The post Here Are Wednesday’s Top Wall Street Analyst Research Calls: Bloom Energy, Caesars Entertainment, CarMax, Caterpillar, Ford, MPLX LP, Noble, Reddit, Texas Instruments, and More appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

The EV business is supposed to be in trouble. U.S. sales have dropped as much as 20% in the first half of the year. Sales in China, the world’s EV capital, dropped 13% in the first half to 4.73 million. The only large market where EVs are doing very well is the EU. And, as is the case with China, the number of competitors is large, which means a battle for market share.

What has become clear in the last month is that the two most visible EV companies have taken different paths. BYD, based in China and the largest EV company in the world, has a stock that has risen 22% during the last month. Tesla’s (NASDAQ: TSLA) shares are down 23% over the same period. If the theory is true that the market forecasts a company’s fortunes a year down the road, Tesla’s struggles will continue.

BYD still fights with one hand behind its back. It cannot sell cars in the US because of tariffs. It remains the top-selling EV company in China. However, there are dozens of small competitors, which means pricing pressure. Those small firms desperate to stay in business have little more to boost sales than price cuts.

BYD can make the case that it has cracked the EU market. Registrations of the brand rose 168% in the first half to 130,743. Tesla’s comparable number was an increase of 75% to 124,242. At least Tesla reversed its troubled sales in 2025.

So, what is the problem? There are two. Tesla rules the U.S. EV sector. Fossil fuel challengers like Ford (NYSE: F) and GM (NYSE: GM) have largely left the market. That should fuel market share growth for Elon Musk’s company. However, just offstage is anxiety among investors that at some point, some US President will drop tariffs, probably as part of a larger trade deal with China. The market will be inundated with Chinese EV products. And, without tariffs, BYD could have a significant price advantage.

At the core of the price difference, however, is Elon Musk’s claims that Tesla is an AI and robotics company. Quarter after quarter, signs of that do not appear, and mesmerized shareholders become a little more skeptical. Robotics is far off, and the AI sector is so crowded that it is like an overfull elevator.

BYD shares are up because it is an EV company that can be tracked based on its success in the EV sector. The valuation of Tesla is much more confusing, and that has hurt it.

The post BYD Shares Rally 22% As Tesla Dives 23% appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) shares trade at $380.84 against an average Wall Street price target of $425.22. That works out to roughly 12% of implied upside from where the stock currently sits.

The gap hides a wider disagreement about what Tesla actually is. Buyers are underwriting Elon Musk’s roadmap for autonomous ride-hailing, humanoid robots, and vertically integrated AI silicon. Every quarter, the market decides how much of that future belongs in the price.

Wall Street is fractured on the answer. Consensus implies modest upside. Wedbush’s Dan Ives, the loudest bull on the name, has a $600 target anchored on FSD monetization, Robotaxi networks, and Optimus scale, with a bull case near $700 that would represent roughly 84% upside from today.

The 2026 Selloff Has Been a Slow Bleed

Tesla is down 15.32% year to date while the S&P 500 is up 9%. The stock has dropped 6.6% in the past week alone and trades below its 50-day moving average of $409.80.

Q1 26 results didn’t justify the selloff. Revenue hit $22.387B, non-GAAP EPS came in at $0.41 (beating by 17.78%), automotive gross margin recovered to 21.1% from 16.2%, and Services & Other revenue climbed 42% YoY on 1.28M FSD subscribers. Headwinds came from energy storage revenue slipping 12% YoY, opex jumping 37% on AI/R&D, and inventory building to 27 days from 22.

Sentiment is the bigger issue. Polymarket traders assign just a 16% probability that Optimus launches this year and 19% that Tesla runs robotaxis in California by year-end. Those two products explain why Tesla trades at a 167x forward P/E. When the crowd stops believing the timeline, the multiple compresses.

Why the Loudest Bull Is Not Blinking

Ives treats Tesla as a physical AI platform. His thesis rests on long-term monetization of Full Self-Driving subscriptions and autonomous Robotaxi networks, vertical integration into internal “Terafab” chip production, engineering synergies with SpaceX, and Optimus scaling toward the guided 1M robots per year capacity at Fremont.

Consensus is more measured. Of 47 covering analysts, 23 rate Tesla Buy or Strong Buy, 18 sit on Hold, and 6 rate it Sell or Strong Sell. Bank of America maintains a Buy with a $460 target. Morningstar calls the stock “fairly valued” at $450. Lower averages reflect analysts who see the AI ramp but won’t underwrite the Ives-style multi-trillion-dollar autonomy math.

Q2 earnings this week will move the debate. Analysts are watching FSD v14.3 uptake, Cybercab pilot production, Robotaxi expansion beyond Austin/Dallas/Houston, and the AI5 inference chip whose tape-out completed in April. If those items land on schedule, $425 stops being aspirational and $600 stops looking absurd.

Legacy Automakers Are Beating Tesla in 2026

Tesla is the outlier in its cohort. Ford and GM are priced as functional cash generators. Rivian trades on R2 launch momentum. None carry Tesla’s AI premium, and none share its 2026 underperformance.

General Motors (NYSE:GM) sits at $76.07 versus a $95.85 target, roughly 26% upside. The stock is down 6% YTD despite Q1 26 adjusted EPS beating estimates by 41% and management raising 2026 guidance. Of 27 covering analysts, 20 rate it Buy or Strong Buy with just 2 sells.

Ford (NYSE:F) trades at $14.23 against a $15.05 target, only about 6% upside. Ford is up 11% YTD on Q1 26 EPS of $0.66, but 15 of 21 analysts covering it sit on Hold, recognizing the quarter leaned heavily on a $1.3B one-time tariff benefit.

Rivian (NASDAQ:RIVN) at $17.45 carries an $18.77 target, roughly 8% upside. The stock is down 11% YTD even after R2 customer deliveries began and a $1B VW equity infusion. Recent share issuance has weighed on sentiment.

GM carries the largest consensus-implied upside at 26%. Take Ives seriously and Tesla dwarfs the entire cohort. The peer setup argues Tesla’s dislocation is about company-specific narrative execution, with sector-wide auto weakness ruled out by peer performance.

What the Consensus Actually Signals

Tesla trades at $380.84 against a $425.22 average target from 47 covering analysts, roughly 12% implied upside. Year to date the stock is down 15.32%, versus a 9% gain for the S&P 500. Over the past year, shares are up 19.23%.

The analyst ratings split:

• Strong Buy: 5
• Buy: 18
• Hold: 18
• Sell: 4
• Strong Sell: 2

Tesla trades below both its 50-day ($409.80) and 200-day ($417.05) moving averages, roughly 24% below its 52-week high of $498.83 and 28% above the 52-week low of $297.82. Forward P/E sits at 167x.

Where I Come Out on Tesla

The bull case strengthens if Q2 earnings confirm the Q1 gross margin recovery, if Robotaxi rolls out beyond current markets before year-end, and if AI5 silicon translates into a visible cost or performance edge. Under those conditions, $425 is easy math and the Ives $600 becomes defensible.

The bear case gains traction if Optimus and Cybercab slip into 2027, if FSD China approval stalls, and if energy storage revenue keeps shrinking. At 167x forward earnings, Tesla cannot afford another execution miss. Polymarket crowds, historically 75.8% accurate on prior TSLA questions, are already pricing skepticism into these near-term catalysts.

Consensus at $425 looks reachable if execution holds. The Ives $600 requires proof of execution.

The post Tesla Continues Its 2026 Crash. This Prominent Analyst Believes It’ll Rise 85% in 12 Months. appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Vehicle recalls carry a material cost for automakers. Warranty accruals, remediation labor, and reputational drag all show up on the income statement. Ford (NYSE:F) reports second-quarter results after the close on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, and the news flow has been busy: a 565,691-vehicle Bronco and Bronco Raptor recall for engine-compartment wiring that could ignite, plus a 387,911-vehicle Explorer and Aviator seat defect recall. Several dealer groups sit downstream of that campaign. Here’s a look at four to see who actually stands to gain.

Why Recalls Are a Cost for Ford Shareholders

Ford management has been transparent that warranty and material costs are an ongoing P&L issue. CEO Jim Farley said on the Q1 2026 call, “We’re on track to deliver another over $1 billion in material and warranty cost improvements this year, and we will never stop.” The company delivered $1.5 billion in cost reductions in 2025 and is targeting another $1 billion in 2026. FY2025 ended with a GAAP net loss of $8.16 billion after $10.7 billion in EV impairments, and Q4 2025 EPS of $0.13 missed the $0.19 estimate. The prediction market currently prices an 80.5% chance Ford beats Q2 non-GAAP EPS, but recalls remain a genuine headwind.

Four Dealer Groups Positioned for the Service Bay

Ford reimburses recall repairs at warranty labor rates. The real prize for franchised dealers is the customer-pay work that a service-lane visit tends to generate. Here are the publicly traded proxies with Ford exposure or heavy aftersales mix:

• Penske Automotive (NYSE:PAG): premium-heavy (BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Audi, Lexus), light Ford exposure.
• Lithia Motors (NYSE:LAD): broadest domestic footprint, including Ford and GM franchises.
• Asbury Automotive (NYSE:ABG): mixed luxury and domestic including Ford, plus its Total Care Auto F&I arm.
• Group 1 Automotive (NYSE:GPI): meaningful Ford and Lincoln stores in a diversified U.S. and U.K. portfolio.

Comparing Aftersales Exposure

Lithia stands out on absolute aftersales dollars and blends the widest Ford/domestic franchise mix. Group 1 carries meaningful Ford/Lincoln stores and achieved a record U.S. parts and service gross margin of 56.4%. Penske’s premium-brand focus means less direct Ford recall benefit, though its service business runs at a 59.0% same-store gross margin.

What Management Is Saying

Roger Penske: “I was particularly pleased with the sequential increase in new and used vehicle gross profit per unit in our retail automotive business and the continued strength of our service and parts business, which increased retail automotive same-store revenue by 5% and related gross profit by 6%.”

Lithia’s Bryan DeBoer: “Our team drove strong results across our platform and sequential growth in earnings, delivering higher revenues and improved GPU in used vehicles, meaningful growth in aftersales, and growing penetration in Driveway Finance.”

Group 1’s Daryl Kenningham: “In the U.S., we saw a key bright spot in aftersales, with parts and service gross margin reaching a new quarterly high. Parts and service continues to be a key differentiator for us.”

Asbury’s David Hult: “We are making great strides towards meeting our strategic objectives, including the rollout of Tekion across our stores.”

Who Actually Benefits Most

Based on brand mix and aftersales scale, Lithia looks best positioned to convert Ford recall traffic into paying service work. It combines the broadest domestic franchise footprint with more than $1 billion in quarterly aftersales revenue at a 58.9% gross margin. Group 1 is the closest peer, with heavy Ford and Lincoln exposure and record parts and service profitability. Asbury’s Ford-exposed stores contribute while its Tekion rollout builds. Penske’s mix is more premium, so its recall linkage is more indirect, but its service margins are among the best in the group.

The Bottom Line

Ford’s recall wave is a shareholder cost that pressures margins. The cleaner way to play the recall economy is through franchised dealers that convert service-bay traffic. Lithia and Group 1 have the most direct Ford exposure, with Asbury a solid third and Penske benefiting more from premium aftersales. Watch Ford’s July 28 report for updated warranty commentary.

The post Ford’s Recalls Are a Headache for Shareholders. Here’s Who Actually Cashes In. appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Pre-Market Stock Futures:

Futures are trading higher as we head into the busiest week of the second quarter earnings season. More than 30% (over 150 companies) of the S&P 500 are scheduled to report earnings this week. Key highlights include reports from four of the Magnificent 7 companies. The major indices closed split on Friday, with the Dow Jones Industrials posting a solid 0.46% gain to finish the week at 51,974, while the S&P 500 eked out a small gain of 0.05% to finish the session at 7,411. The Nasdaq once again took a hit from chip stock selling, closing at 24,978, down 0.64%. The small-cap Russell 2000, which remains the leading index this year, up 17.6%, was last seen at 2,930, down 0.34% on the day. With oil plunging after the U.S. and Iran agreed to halt attacks, we are poised for a strong start to this busy earnings week.

Treasury Bonds:

After a week of selling, the higher yields across the Treasury curve finally enticed some buyers to come in. When the final bell rang, yields were lower across all maturities, except very short-dated T-bills. The 30-year long bond finished the session at 5.16%, while the benchmark 10-year note closed at 4.68%. The Federal Reserve Governors will meet this week, and while it would be stunning if they raised rates, many will be listening closely to Chairman Warsh for clues about the path forward for interest rates. 

Oil and Gas:

After a week that saw oil prices rise dramatically, sellers finally took advantage of those big moves higher, and both major benchmarks saw heavy selling on Friday. Reuters reported on Friday that Pakistan and Iran, supported by China, are seeking to restart stalled peace negotiations with the United States. The initiative follows the collapse of a June memorandum of understanding and recent military escalations in the region. That caught the sellers’ attention, and by the close, Brent Crude ended the day at $98.03, down 2.64%, while West Texas Intermediate was last seen at $90.31, down 2.04%. Natural gas closed at $2.88, down 1.17%.

Gold: 

The precious metals saw some buyers emerge to end the week, as the safe-haven allure and the recent backup in spot pricing were just what the doctor ordered. Gold closed Friday at $4,051, up just 0.08%, while Silver ended the session at $58.09, up 0.98%. JPMorgan reiterated its $4,500 year-end target, which would be a strong move from current trading levels. 

Crypto:

24/7 Wall St. reviews dozens of analyst research reports every day to identify fresh investment ideas for investors and traders alike. These daily analyst notes include recommendations on stocks to buy, sell, or avoid, as well as new coverage initiations. Remember that no single analyst report should ever be the sole basis for buying or selling a stock.

Here are some of the top Wall Street analyst upgrades, downgrades, and initiations seen on Monday, July 27, 2026.  

Upgrades:

• Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOGL) was upgraded to Buy from Accumulate at Phillip Securities, which trimmed the target price for the tech behemoth to $425 from $450.
• Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F) was upgraded to Buy from Hold at Jefferies, which raised the price target for the legacy motor vehicle giant to $17.50 from $14.50.
• Rivian Automotive (NASDAQ: RIVN) was raised to Overweight from Neutral at Piper Sandler, which bumped the target price for the shares to $20 from $18.
• Rocket Lab USA (NASDAQ: RKLB) was raised to Outperform from Market Perform at KGI Securities, with a $107 target price.
• Sirius XM Holdings (NASDAQ: SIRI) was upgraded to Equal Weight from Underweight at Wells Fargo, which raised the target price for the shares to $30 from $18.

Downgrades:

• Albertsons Companies (NYSE: ACI) was downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Citigroup, with an $11 target price.
• Huntington Bancshares (NASDAQ: HBAN) was downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Bank of America, which sliced the target price to $18.50 from $20.
• Stellantis NV (NYSE: STLA) caught a double downgrade at Piper Sandler from Overweight to Underweight, which cut the price target for the Jeep and Dodge automaker to $4 from $14
• Warner Bros. Discovery (NYSE: WBD) was downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Seaport Research, without a price target.
• Vale SA (NYSE: VALE) was cut to Neutral from Buy at Goldman Sachs, which trimmed the target price for the stock to $16 from $18.

Initiations:

• Cadre Holdings (NYSE: CDRE) was initiated with an Overweight rating at JPMorgan with a $40 target price.
• Clean Harbors (NYSE: CLH) was started with a Buy rating at Bank of America, which has a $360 target price.
• Rhythm Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: RYTM) was initiated with an Overweight rating at JPMorgan, which has set a $145 target price for the shares.
• Terawulf (NASDAQ: WULF) was started with a Buy rating at Chardon, with a $32 target price.
• Williams-Sonoma (NYSE: WSM) was initiated with an Overweight at Piper Sandler, with a $253 target price. 
  
  

The post Here Are Monday’s Top Wall Street Analyst Research Calls: Alphabet, Clean Harbors, Ford, Huntington Bancshares, Rivian, Rocket Lab, Terawulf, Vale, Warner Bros. Discovery, and More appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE:F) reports Q2 2026 earnings on July 28 with three major factors working in its favor: a 4.24% dividend yield, a valuation of roughly 4.5 times free cash flow, and recently raised full-year profit guidance.

Ford’s electric-vehicle business remains deeply unprofitable, but the company’s commercial and traditional vehicle operations continue to generate enough cash to fund the dividend and absorb those losses.

Ford Offers a 4.2% Dividend Yield

Ford’s $0.60 annualized dividend against a $14.37 share price puts the forward yield at 4.24%, more than double the S&P 500 average. General Motors (NYSE:GM) has a dividend yield of about 1% on a low-single-digit payout ratio.

The Q2 2026 dividend of $0.15 was declared April 28, 2026, and paid June 1, 2026, and management has layered in special dividends of $0.30 in February 2025 and $0.33 the year prior. Ford also repurchased $311 million of stock in Q1 2026, reinforcing the capital-return story.

Ford Trades at Just 4.5x Free Cash Flow

The stock trades at roughly 4.5x price-to-free-cash-flow, 1.5x book, and a forward P/E of 8. Free cash flow yield sits near 22%, backed by 2026 guidance for $5.0 billion to $6.0 billion in adjusted free cash flow.

Q1 2026 delivered EPS of $0.66 on $43.25 billion in revenue (6% YoY growth), with net income surging to $2.55 billion from $471 million a year earlier and adjusted EBIT improving $2.50 billion YoY to $3.49 billion.

Ford Just Raised Its 2026 Profit Forecast

Management raised full-year 2026 adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion (from $8.0 billion to $10.0 billion) on Ford Pro’s commercial and software momentum. Paid software subscriptions reached 879,000 in Q1 2026, up 30% YoY with 11.4% segment margins.

CEO Jim Farley said the results “reflect the momentum of the Ford+ plan.” Shares are up 33.85% over the last year and 12.08% year-to-date, with an average analyst price target of $15.05.

Ford’s EV Business Could Lose Another $4.5 Billion

The pushback is Model e, where losses are guided to $4.0-$4.5 billion in 2026. However, Ford Blue EBIT is guided to positive $4.5-$5.0 billion and Ford Pro EBIT to $6.5-$7.5 billion, more than absorbing the EV drag. That means the $10.70 billion in Q4 2025 Model e impairments is already accounted for.

Ford heads into its July 28 Q2 earnings report offering a rare combination of income and deep value. If Q2 results confirm that those core businesses remain strong and management maintains its higher outlook, Ford could remain one of the more attractive dividend stocks in the auto industry.

The post 3 Reasons Ford Looks Overlooked Ahead of Its July 28 Q2 Earnings appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Tesla’s (NASDAQ: TSLA) earnings showed that, at an extremely rapid pace, it has become two companies (at least). One makes and sells cars—the other gambles, often on what appears to be longshots, on AI and robotics. (Tesla does have an energy generation business which produced $3.1 billion, or 11% of the total, in the most recent quarter. It does not fit neatly into either silo.)

The proof that Tesla’s car business continues to be the revenue core is that at $20.5 billion, it was 73% of Tesla’s total revenue of $28.2 billion. Auto revenue was up 23% year over year in Tesla’s second quarter. Overall revenue rose 26%. Net income for the entire company was $1.1 billion, which was down 5% year over year.

Total vehicle deliveries were 480,126 in the quarter, up 25% year over year. Anyone who believes that Tesla’s car operations are in trouble is wrong. China sales may have been unstable over time. Tesla took a brutal beating in the EU last year, and lost the EV sales lead there to China’s BYD. However, this year, EU figures have gotten better. The US remains an EV graveyard, but Tesla is still the market leader, and what might have been major competitors like Ford (NYSE: F) have quit.

Tesla breaks out the status of what it calls its “robotics” operation. It reports that two facilities are under construction. One is in California, and the other is in Texas. Tesla reported, “The initial Optimus builds will be used in our Optimus Academy for training data collection and further functionality development. Additionally, we continued site development at Gigafactory Texas with building construction now in full swing.”

Tesla offered updates to its “robotaxi” business. It admitted that the effort is still in early stages, with wide-scale deployment contingent on both technological breakthroughs and regulatory approvals.

Capital expenditures jumped 142% to $5.8 billion from $2.4 billion in the same quarter last year. Part of the cost of the robotics business is AI training and development of hardware and software that make a robot a real robot (CEO Elon Musk has said that, in the future, the world will have billions of robots).

The question is how the company actually gets broken apart. The self-driving parts of the auto business are really AI-based. The ultra-advanced autopilot business is growing rapidly. The system is called Full Self-Driving (Supervised). Tesla said “active FSD subscriptions” rose 56% in the quarter to 1.48 million. It does not function without a car, so it belongs with the auto operations. Similarly, the robotaxi business and its Cybercab are modes of transportation and, thus, cannot be separated from these car operations.

So what does that leave? Robotics and AI are what Musk says are the future of Tesla. That is at the core of the debate over Tesla’s valuation, which is $1.4 trillion. That makes it the 11th most valuable company in the world. The market caps of other major car companies are, in every case, a fraction of that.

Spin-outs and break-ups of public companies are meant as a way to unlock value that is locked because disparate businesses have been put together under one roof. Tesla should “unlock.” Let investors who want to invest in EVs and their software buy an EV stock. Let people who want to own a robotics company that relies on advanced AI features own a robotics company.

The challenge, of course, remains in the execution of such a split. While the automotive arm can provide the cash flow necessary to fund Musk’s more ambitious visions, the robotics side is what currently inflates Tesla’s staggering $1.4 trillion valuation. Once again, by separating them, the market would finally be forced to decide if the robotics venture is a revolutionary tech giant or a speculative longshot, all while allowing the car business to be judged on its industry-leading fundamentals.

The post Tesla Should Break Itself Into Two Companies appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Morning Brew Daily’s July segment framed the U.S. electric vehicle industry in stark terms. They argued that Lucid (NASDAQ: LCID), once valued at $91 billion, is now worth just $2.87 billion, while Rivian (NASDAQ: RIVN) has fallen from a peak near $150 billion to roughly $25 billion. The guest analyst on the show argued that both pure-play startups are “one boardroom decision at another company away” from collapse, and that neither company is expected to turn cash flow positive before 2030. The numbers back the framing.

Lucid: A Saudi-Funded Life Raft

Lucid closed at $7.36 on July 17, leaving the stock down 76.41% over the past year and 97.99% below its November 2021 level. Revenue is scaling. Losses are scaling faster. Q4 2025 revenue reached $522.73 million, while deliveries rose 72% year over year to 5,345 vehicles. The company reported a GAAP net loss of approximately $814 million and negative free cash flow of $1.24 billion for the quarter. For the full year 2025, revenue totaled $1.35 billion, while free cash flow was negative $3.8 billion.

Cost of revenue exceeded revenue in every quarter of 2025, highlighting a persistent gross-margin problem rather than merely a scale challenge. Cash and cash equivalents declined to $997.83 million at year-end, while Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund expanded Lucid’s term loan facility to approximately $2.0 billion. CEO Marc Winterhoff characterized 2025 in the Q4 8-K as a year of “execution and strategy adjustment.”

Rivian: Volkswagen, Uber, and the DOE Are the Backstop

With Rivian, Q1 2026 revenue came in at $1.38 billion, while free cash flow was negative $1.08 billion. Cash declined from $4.81 billion in Q2 2025 to $2.85 billion in the latest reported period. Regulatory credit revenue fell from $299 million in Q4 2024 to $29 million in Q4 2025, reducing a previously meaningful source of high-margin income.

The company’s remaining lifelines are Volkswagen’s $1 billion equity infusion, Uber’s potential $1.25 billion commitment toward a 50,000-vehicle autonomous R2 fleet, and a $4.5 billion Department of Energy loan for its Georgia facility.

Legacy Detroit: Ford and Stellantis Take the Write-Downs

Ford (NYSE: F) recorded $10.7 billion in Model e-related impairments and EV program cancellations in Q4 2025 and is guiding to a FY2026 Model e loss of $4.0 billion to $4.5 billion. CEO Jim Farley characterized the moves as “difficult but critical strategic decisions” intended to support Ford’s target of an 8% adjusted EBIT margin by 2029. Despite the EV restructuring, Ford’s stock is up 33.85% over the past year.

Stellantis (NYSE: STLA) took a larger hit, recording $25.41 billion in unusual charges in Q4 2025 and a $22.33 billion net loss for FY2025. CEO Antonio Filosa acknowledged in the company’s annual filing that the results reflected “the cost of overestimating the pace of the energy transition.”

Tesla: Dominant but Distracted

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) remains the segment leader, with a market capitalization of roughly $1.2 trillion. FY2025 revenue declined to $94.83 billion, while Q4 2025 deliveries fell 16% year over year to 418,227 vehicles. Prediction-market traders had assigned high odds that Tesla would not achieve certain near-term AI milestones, including a public California robotaxi launch and an Optimus release by year-end, reinforcing the show’s portrayal of a company shifting toward humanoid robotics and autonomy while its core vehicle business faces slowing growth.

The Affordability Hail Mary

U.S. EV sales are up 15% year to date, aided by gas prices that peaked at $4.50 per gallon in May before easing to $3.85 in mid-July. Ford’s planned $30,000 EV pickup and Bezos-backed Slate Auto’s $25,000 bare-bones truck signal the industry’s pivot toward affordability. Whether that reset arrives before more balance sheets buckle is the question hanging over the sector.

The post From $91B to $2.3B: The Catastrophic Collapse of America’s EV Industry appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

A new, widely followed survey shows that Cadillac is America’s worst luxury car brand. Its sales have been mediocre for years, as they have fallen behind German and Japanese brands. Its parent company, GM (NYSE: GM), wants to revive the brand, but that may be impossible

The American Customer Satisfaction Index tracks dozens of product and service categories. These range from athletic shoes to banks to cell phones. Its most recent study is of cars and is known as the ACSI Automobile Study 2026. Its conclusions are based on 6,699 surveys that were in the field from July 2025 to June 2026.

Its auto research results are broken into two segments. One is mass-market cars, and the other is luxury cars. The luxury brands include Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Lexus, Tesla, BMW, Lincoln, Acura, Infiniti, and Cadillac. Mass-market cars include brands like Ford (NYSE: F), Chrysler, and Toyota.

Both segments look at comfort, driving performance, safety, dependability, exterior and interior appearance, the mobile app, website, technology, driving distance, and trade-in value.

The Automobile Study included nine luxury brands that were rated on a scale of 1 to 100. The average score among these is 78. Cadillac’s score is 67. At the top of the list, Mercedes has a score of 81.

Cadillac has a number of problems. First among them is sales volume. Last year, it sold 173,615 units, according to AutoWeek, which put it fourth among luxury cars sold in America. It trailed the top three by a very wide margin. In first place, BMW’s sales were 388,897. Lexus sales were 370,260, and Mercedes sales were 343,300. So Cadillac’s annual sales were barely 50% of those of the leaders. Barely trailing Cadillac, Audi has sales of 164,942.

Unlike the market sales leaders, Cadillac has a small selection of models. It has four sedans, the huge Escalade SUV (which also comes in an EV version), four SUVs (which include two EVs), and a performance division with seven models, most of which are existing models with more powerful engines. With the small number of models, it is hard to be competitive with its larger rivals.

Cadillac’s score fell 13 points from 2025 to 2026, which was by far the largest drop among luxury brands. It is a huge setback as it tries to gain on its three much larger rivals.

The post Cadillac Is America’s Worst Luxury Brand, By Far appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

A new, widely followed survey shows that Chrysler is America’s worst car brand. Additionally, other data show that over the last several years, its sales have been declining. Its parent company wants to revive the brand, but that may be impossible.

The American Customer Satisfaction Index tracks dozens of product and service categories. These range from athletic shoes to banks to cell phones. Its most recent study is of cars and is known as the ACSI Automobile Study 2026. Its conclusions are based on 6,699 surveys that were in the field from July 2025 to June 2026.

Its auto research results are broken into two segments. One is mass market cars, and the other is luxury cars. Mass market cars include brands like Toyota (NYSE: TM), Ford (NYSE: F), and Chevy. Luxury cars include auto brands like Mercedes, BMW, and Cadillac.

Both segments consider comfort, driving performance, safety, dependability, exterior and interior appearance, mobile apps, websites, technology, driving distance, and trade-in value.

The Automobile Study included 16 mass market brands that were rated on a scale of 1 to 100. The average score among these was 78. At the bottom, Chrysler’s score was 67. The brand is owned by Stellantis (NYSE: STLA). It also owns Jeep, Ram, and Dodge. Each of these also scored poorly.

At the top of the mass market brand list, Toyota had a score of 83. Japan’s largest car company often does well in research about brand quality. Subaru was second at 81. It also typically posts high scores in other research.

Chrysler has several problems. One is the number of models it has. The other is that its sales have been plunging. According to CNBC, “The Chrysler brand sold nearly 600,000 vehicles in 2005. In 2024, it sold fewer than 125,000 — an 80% decline in two decades.” One theory about why this has happened is that Stellantis has not made any investment in the brand and its product lineup.

There was a time when Chrysler was one of America’s Big Three car companies, along with Ford and GM (NYSE: GM). Today, it sells only two minivans, which are the Pacifica and Voyager.

Stellantis says it wants to turn Chrysler around. That would be nearly impossible. It would have to greatly expand its product lineup to include traditional SUVs and most likely sedans. SUVs would put it in competition with Stellantis’ Jeep brand. Pickups would put it in competition with its Ram brand.

For the time being, there is no reason to think Chrysler will do better. It has fallen apart so severely that a reset would cost billions of dollars. Stellantis has 15 other brands to attend to.

The post This Is America’s Worst Car Brand appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Tesla has spent the first half of 2026 pulling back from December highs. Our proprietary model answers the key question: where does the risk-reward stand from here?

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) trades at $391.06 as of July 16, 2026. Our 24/7 Wall St. price target for Tesla is $439.50, implying 12.39% upside over the next 12 months. The recommendation is buy, with high (90%) model confidence.

24/7 Wall St. Price Target Summary

A Pullback From December Highs

Tesla is down 3.81% over the past week and 13.04% year to date, but still up 21.57% over 12 months. The stock sits 15% below its 52-week high of $498.83.

Fundamentals tell a constructive story: Q1 2026 revenue rose 15.78% year over year to $22.39 billion, non-GAAP EPS of $0.41 topped expectations, and automotive gross margin expanded to 21.1% from 16.2%. Free cash flow jumped 117% to $1.44 billion, and FSD paid subscribers hit 1.28 million, up 51%.

The Case for $493 and Higher

Our bull scenario points to $492.94, a 26.05% total return. Catalysts include Cybercab production has just started, Semi ramps this year, and CFO Vaibhav Taneja’s guidance to “over $25 billion of CapEx” in 2026 for six factories, AI infrastructure, and Terafab.

Elon Musk described unsupervised FSD reaching customer cars “probably in the fourth quarter” and Optimus as “the biggest product ever”. Robotaxi is live in Austin, Dallas, and Houston with zero reported incidents. Polymarket traders assign an 81.5% probability to Tesla beating its next earnings report.

What Could Push Shares to $383

Our bear case lands at $383.32, a 1.98% decline. Tesla is priced for perfection at a trailing P/E of 357, and energy storage revenue fell 12% YoY in Q1, with regulatory credits sliding to $380 million. Operating expenses grew 37% YoY as AI R&D and Musk’s CEO stock-based comp hit the P&L.

Bulls counter that OpEx growth is investment: operating income still jumped 135.84%, and Taneja acknowledged Tesla is “in a very big capital investment phase” that supports future revenue. Insider selling has been notable, with 30 recent insider transactions skewed toward sales.

How Tesla Stacks Up Against Rivian and Ford

Rivian (NASDAQ: RIVN) is the closest pure-play EV comparable. Rivian’s $24.67 billion market cap, Q1 2026 revenue of $1.38 billion, and adjusted loss of $0.54 per share show how far Tesla leads on scale and profitability.

Rivian guides to a $1.8 to $2.1 billion EBITDA loss in 2026, making Tesla’s premium multiple defensible.

Ford (NYSE: F) offers a valuation counterpoint. Ford’s Q1 2026 EPS of $0.66 on $43.25 billion in revenue dwarfs Tesla in absolute earnings, yet Ford’s market cap is $55.5 billion.

Ford also pays a 5.4% dividend yield. That contrast frames Tesla as an autonomy and robotics play rather than a traditional automaker. Our 24/7 Wall St. price target is reasonable in that context.

Tesla Price Prediction 2026-2030

Tesla’s 24/7 Wall St. price target of $439.50 and buy rating at 90% confidence rest on expanding auto margins, FSD subscription growth, and a mid-range entry point. The bull thesis strengthens if Cybercab and Robotaxi hit 2026 milestones. The risk case builds if OpEx growth outpaces revenue into 2027.

Our five-year base case projects Tesla at $584.82 by July 2031, a 49.55% total return. These projections assume Tesla executes on autonomy, energy, and Optimus. Meaningful upside or downside could result from unsupervised FSD approval timing in China and Europe.

The post Price Prediction: Tesla Poised for 12% Rally as Profit Margins Improve appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE:F) is trading at $14.20, and a $2,500 stake today buys into a legacy automaker in the middle of a transformation: leaner Model e losses, a Ford Pro software business scaling into the hundreds of thousands of subscribers, and management pushing toward an 8% adjusted EBIT margin by 2029. The question for a five-year holder is simple: what could that $2,500 actually be worth by 2031?

The Headline Answer

Under the base case, a $2,500 investment in Ford could grow to about $3,557.75 by 2031, a total return of 42.31%. That maps to a modeled five-year price of $20.20 per share, or an annualized return of 7.31%. The model carries a confidence score of 0.9 (High), reflecting stable analyst coverage, positive year-over-year earnings growth, and Ford’s large-cap profile.

Scenario Table: Where the $2,500 Could Land by 2031

Sell-side analysts sit close to today’s price, with an average target of $14.95 and a rating breakdown of 2 Strong Buys, 3 Buys, 15 Holds, and 1 Sell. Sentiment leans 71% Neutral, so the bull thesis largely rests on Ford executing its own plan rather than on Wall Street chasing the stock higher.

The Why Behind the Target

Three drivers underpin the base-case path to $20.20.

1. Ford Pro is the profit engine. The commercial arm posted $1.69 billion of Q1 2026 EBIT and expanded margins to 11.4%. Paid software subscriptions reached 879,000, up 30% year over year, a high-margin recurring-revenue layer that traditional automakers rarely get credit for. Management guides Ford Pro EBIT of $6.5 billion to $7.5 billion for the year.

2. Earnings power is rebuilding. Ford raised full-year 2026 guidance to adjusted EBIT of $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion and adjusted free cash flow of $5.0 billion to $6.0 billion. Q1 2026 delivered EPS of $0.66 on revenue of $43.25 billion, up 6% year over year. Forward EPS of $1.69 against a stock near $14 translates to an implied P/E of about 9, cheap if the margin plan holds.

3. Cash returns cushion the ride. Ford pays a $0.15 quarterly dividend and has issued two elevated payments in the past two years ($0.33 in February 2024 and $0.30 in February 2025). A dividend yield near 5% compounds meaningfully over five years, especially if reinvested. Ford also repurchased $311 million of stock in Q1 2026. Readers looking at income-focused strategies may find our research on building a portfolio you never touch the principal on useful context for how a 5%-yielding cyclical fits alongside more defensive payers.

What Could Sink the Projection

The bear case at $15.17 assumes execution slips. The biggest overhangs are concrete and near-term. Ford flagged roughly $2.0 billion in commodity headwinds (led by aluminum) and about $1.0 billion of tariff impact outside the one-time IEEPA benefit. The Model e segment is still bleeding, with a Q1 2026 loss of $777 million and full-year losses guided at $4.0 billion to $4.5 billion. FY2025 also carried a GAAP net loss of $8.16 billion after $10.7 billion of Model e impairments. Volatility is real too, with a beta of 1.83, meaning any recession or credit tightening would hit Ford harder than the market.

The Bottom Line

A $2,500 stake in Ford maps to a five-year range of roughly $2,671 in the bear case, $3,557.75 in the base case, and $3,922.50 in the bull case, before counting dividends reinvested along the way. The math is only as good as Ford’s execution on Pro software, Model e loss reduction, and the 8% EBIT margin target. This is a projection, not investment advice, and analyst targets are not guarantees. But for investors weighing a cyclical name with a real dividend and a credible transformation plan, the risk-reward through 2031 skews constructive rather than punitive.

The post Ford (F) Price Prediction: How Much a $2,500 Investment Could Be Worth by 2031 appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Two articles showed up in the press this morning. The first was in The New York Times. It read, “The American E.V. Has Been Crushed. Will It Take the U.S. Auto Industry With It?” The Times rarely runs an article so long. The Wall Street Journal ran an article headlined, “Ford Executive Chairman on Chinese Cars: U.S. ‘Can’t Expect to Keep Them Out Forever’. This article was, in part, a talk with Bill Ford, whose family controls the company. As a matter of fact, they have controlled it since its founding in 1903 by Henry Ford with 12 investors and $28,000.

While neither story says the US car industry is dead, each shows that time has almost run out. The two American industrial giants could crumble and affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people (this includes the companies that supply them). It is harder to imagine a collapse so huge in the history of American business.

The message of both articles is the same. The US has stuck with large SUVs and pick-ups. The Chinese now control the global EV industry. Tariffs that keep these EVs out won’t last forever. What neither said is that gas-powered cars have a tremendous future, at least in the US.  Ford plans to launch a new small EV pickup next year. It doesn’t need to take the risk.

Nothing shows the difference between the Wall St perception of the car industry better than market caps. Tesla’s (NASDAQ: TSLA) market cap is $1.49 trillion. GM’s (NYSE: GM)is $69.3 billion. Ford’s (NYSE: F) is $55.7 billion. GM sold 6.18 million vehicles worldwide last year. Ford sold 4.5 million. Tesla sold 1,636,129 vehicles. Some people would argue that Tesla’s market cap is based in part on its robotics and AI futures. But EVs are its business today. Much of the premium is based on that simple fact. and no other.

The evidence of Ford’s future is as well-worn a road as any in the car industry. It began aggressively entering the EV business. It quit on that after one of the greatest strategic mistakes in the car industry’s history. It is left to be the king of large SUVs and pickup trucks, which run on gas (Ford sells a few hybrids). There is a realization among some that Ford should have continued its brutal EV path because, at some point, it would be rewarded by that future. But Ford’s EV gamble had already failed.

But this is the fact. According to Cox Automotive, EVs were about 5% of total new car sales in the US in the second quarter. Overall EV sales were down over 20% from the same quarter last year. While Ford has some temporary supply chain problems, it still owns 13% of the US market, which is the second largest in the world after China. The idea that Americans will eventually flock to Chinese EVs may not be true.

American driving habits may not change much until gas prices jump above, say, $5 and stay there. The world is awash in oil. Who says EVs will be in every American garage?

The post Ford Should Stop Selling EVs appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

There are several reasons not to buy a Rivan. And the list is growing.

Rivian (NASDAQ: RIVN) has won several awards as one of the best SUVs. But when it comes to the gold standard of quality measurements, that starts to fall apart. In the  JD Power U.S. Initial Quality Survey 2026, there are 246 problems per 100 vehicles owned over the first 90 days of ownership. It is one of the brands marked “it does not meet award criteria.” Power decided to publish it nevertheless. And the press that covers cars jumped on the low-quantity numbers. The number was worse than that of any of the brands evaluated. I use J.D. Power when I shop for cars.

The new R2 SUV is supposed to save the company. Rivian says its base price will be $44,990. Recently, it launched the Performance Launch Edition priced at $59,485. The less expensive model will be released later. So, it is hard to evaluate whether it can measure up to what Rivian says it will

In the meantime, I can buy the R1S SUV, which has a base price of $83,990. It has seven seats. And the R1T pickup costs $79,990. Add a few features, and the prices move above $100,000. The sticker shock gets unbelievable.

Rivan doesn’t have many service centers. So, where should they go for service? In Texas, the second most populous state in America, Rivan has four. It has one in Arizona. However, Rivian has a service called its Mobile Service. Rivian Technicians staff it. The company says, “We prioritize the safety of our technicians and owners by limiting repairs to what’s safe in a Mobile Service environment.”

Rivan has a management problem, based on its results. RJ Scaringe is the founder and CEO. He has voting control of the company. It is not certain whether that was true since he got divorced. In the meantime, he received a $406 million pay package. That is a lot for the CEO of a company that has lost billions of dollars.

One of the things that worries me most is how long Rivian will be around. The company says it has enough cash to stay in business for years. However, in the second quarter, it produced only 12,613 vehicles. In the first quarter, it lost $416 million on revenue of $1.38 billion.

Finally, I usually agree with the view Wall St. has of a company. Rivan’s stock is down 11% this year. The drop since it went public is 87%.

If I’m going to buy an EV SUV, I’d rather get one of the few F-150 Lightnings Ford (NYSE: F) has left. At least I’m sure it can get serviced–for decades.

The post Why I Won’t Buy A Rivian appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) is once again eating the financial press, with a $1.58 trillion market cap resting on Cybercab, Optimus, and robotaxi promises that traders keep paying up to own. But here’s what you should actually be watching.

The Hot Ticker Is Selling You a Timeline

Strip away the AI narrative and Tesla is an auto manufacturer trading at 381 times trailing earnings, 200 times forward earnings, and a PEG ratio near 6. Its net profit margin sits at 3.95% and return on equity at 4.9%. Those are industrial-company fundamentals wearing a software-company multiple.

The delivery record is worse than the marketing suggests. Full-year 2025 revenue fell 2.93% and net income dropped 46.79%. Q4 2025 vehicle deliveries came in at 418,227 units, down 16% year over year. Q3 2025 EPS missed by 10.35% while operating expenses jumped 50% YoY on AI and R&D. Cybercab, Semi, and Megapack 3 have been described as “on schedule for volume production starting in 2026” in filings going back to Q2 2025. Same promise, new quarter.

Retail is catching on. The most-discussed Reddit thread in the last 30 days asked flatly: “People buying Tesla at a $1.2T valuation: what is the actual bull case?” It drew 630 comments and 702 upvotes. Shares are down 10.41% year to date and trading below both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages. This is a crowded trade beginning to lose its choir.

Where Retirement Money Should Actually Look

Ford (NYSE:F) is the redirect. A $55 billion market cap, forward P/E of 8, and a 4.49% dividend yield. Three points make the case.

1. Execution is showing up in the numbers. Q1 2026 delivered EPS of $0.66, revenue of $43.25 billion up 6% YoY, and adjusted EBIT of $3.49 billion, a $2.50 billion improvement year over year. Management then raised full-year 2026 adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion. Companies raise guidance when the current quarter is already in the bag.

2. Ford Pro is a real recurring-revenue story hiding in plain sight. Paid software subscriptions reached 879,000, up 30% YoY, with segment EBIT margin at 11.4%. That is the sticky commercial-fleet software business Wall Street is willing to pay 40x earnings for elsewhere. Here you get it inside an 8x stock.

3. Capital is coming back to shareholders. A $0.15 quarterly dividend was paid June 1, 2026, alongside $311 million in Q1 buybacks and $17.65 billion in cash. CEO Jim Farley told investors Ford is targeting an “8% adjusted EBIT margin by 2029.” Tesla returns capital through stock-based compensation and pitch decks.

For investors who want direct short exposure to the promise-heavy name rather than the constructive alternative, the AXS TSLA Bear Daily ETF (NASDAQ:TSLQ) holds 22.33% of net assets in inverse Tesla derivatives. That is a tactical trade for short-term positioning only.

For long-term investors weighing the two, Ford offers a profitable automaker paying cash today while Tesla’s timeline continues to slip.

The post Forget Tesla: If You Dislike That Tesla Remains Long on Promises and Short on Delivery, Play This Inverse ETF appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE: F) should give back its JD Power 2026 U.S. Initial Quality Study award for the best Mass Market Brand. It scored 152 on a scale that rates brands based on problems per 100 vehicles. The award is based on 10 major yardsticks of quality. This is, in turn, based on the first 90 days of ownership by those surveyed. The average among all brands was 175.

Ford has huge product quality problems. The only defense it has to claim to keep the Power rating is that perhaps Ford’s vehicles were well built in the period from June 2025 through May 2026, when the study was in the field. Jim Farley, Ford president and CEO commented on the award, “Many doubted that an American company with a huge American workforce could compete with the world’s best on quality, let alone reach the top.” Actually, many doubted Ford could make it.

Ford’s recall record last year was astonishingly high and set a record. Ford issued 152 recalls, which was a record for any year. Farley has claimed that those were for vehicles built in earlier years. For many of these recalls, that is accurate.

Ford’s recalls this year are off to an amazing pace. Recently, it recalled 43,000 Mach-E EVs. It also recalled several gas-powered Mustangs. The total of the two was about 110,000 vehicles. A few days ago, it recalled 741,000 SUVs and pickups.

Kelley Blue Book reports, “Ford on Pace for Second-Worst Recall Year.” Ford cannot say all of these vehicles were purchased before June 2025.

The fact of the matter is that Ford did well for a snapshot of time, with data from surveys of a modest number of owners. Based on a much larger universe of Ford owners, the numbers are terrible.

Ford’s sales are falling this year. It is not possible to give a single reason why. May sales dropped 13.6% year over year to 190,828. For the year, they are down 11.2% to 826,810.

Ford should give back its U.S. Initial Quality Study. And it should also stop the bragging.

The post Ford Should Give Back Its J.D Power Quality Award appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Rivian’s (NASDAQ: RIVN) stock dropped 18% on news that it would issue new equity to pay off debt. The day before, it was worth half as much as Ford (NYSE: F) based on market cap. Rivian’s is $25 billion today. Ford’s is $53 billion. Rivian’s stock is down 80% since late 2021. It went public in November 2021. Ford’s is close to flat. That means Rivian’s IPO gave it a value well above Ford’s

Rivain will sell about 67,000 vehicles this year. Ford will sell about 4.3 million. What’s wrong with this picture?

Rvian had $5.4 billion in revenue last year and lost $3.5 billion. Ford’s revenue was $187.2 billion, on which it lost $8.2 billion. Ironically, Ford’s loss was due to its EV business.

As astonishing as it may be, Rivian continues to benefit from EV mania, even as the EV sector across the US is in trouble. Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) has a market cap of $1.51 trillion. However, much of this is based on a future that will presumably have the best AI-driven and self-driving cars and an army of tens of millions of robots. Tesla’s future is worth much more than its present.

The sale of Rivian stock was for 75 million shares at $15.50 per share. They raised $1.2 billion. Most will be used to pay off money due because of the Amended and Restated Loan Arrangement and Reimbursement and Sponsor Support Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy. Some will be used to help expand the company.

What does Rivian have going for it? One thing that may not work. VW may invest as much as $5.8 billion into a joint venture to build a “next-generation” EV. However, $3.5 billion of the investment is pending and may never be made by VW.

Based on any rational valuation, Rivan is worth much less than its current market cap. This means the stock has much further to fall.

The post Is Rivian Worth Half Of Ford? appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE:F) and Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) just closed the books on Q1 2026. Ford leaned on trucks, fleet software, and a raised outlook. Tesla leaned on margin recovery, FSD subscriptions, and a roadmap stuffed with robots. Both grew revenue. Only one is priced like a growth story.

Trucks Carry Ford. Margins Carry Tesla.

Ford posted $43.25 billion in revenue, EPS of $0.66, and adjusted EBIT of $3.49 billion. Ford Blue drove the quarter with $23.9 billion in revenue (up 14%) as F-Series, Bronco, and Expedition kept humming, with off-road trims making up roughly a quarter of U.S. sales. Ford Pro delivered an 11.4% margin and grew paid software subscriptions 30% year over year to 879,000. Model e still bled $777 million.

Tesla posted revenue of $22.39 billion (up 15.78%), non-GAAP EPS of $0.41, and automotive gross margin of 21.1% from 16.2%. FSD subscriptions climbed to 1.28 million, up 51%. Services revenue jumped 42%. Energy storage dropped 12%.

Deep Value Truck Maker vs. AI Fleet Operator

Jim Farley framed the quarter as validation: “Our strong first-quarter results and raised full-year guidance reflect the momentum of the Ford+ plan.” Ford lifted 2026 adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5B to $10.5B. A $1.30 billion IEEPA tariff benefit flattered the earnings report, and commodity headwinds run near $2 billion. Tesla is spending $1.95 billion on R&D and sitting on $44.7 billion in cash, funding Cybercab, Semi, Megapack 3, and Optimus lines rated for 1 million robots per year at Fremont.

The Next Test Is Whether AI Revenue Scales

Watch two things. For Ford, whether the Universal EV platform can narrow Model e’s $4.0B to $4.5B projected 2026 loss without gutting Blue’s cash generation. For Tesla, whether robotaxi rides in Dallas and Houston convert into real revenue. Polymarket traders assign only 12% odds to an Optimus release by year-end and 7.5% to Robovan orders opening before 2027. That is significant runway priced into a 357 trailing multiple.

Why I Lean Toward Tesla, With One Caveat

Ford at a forward multiple of 8 and a 4.4% yield is tempting, especially after 13 directors bought stock at $13.22 on May 21. If you want income and a turnaround narrative, Ford fits.

But structure matters. Tesla’s 21.1% automotive gross margin and scaling FSD base signal a software mix shift, while Ford funnels combustion profits into an EV unit losing billions. Tesla is the better long-term compounder. I would trim conviction if FSD monetization stalls or if one-time warranty and tariff gains reverse next quarter. Both can work. Tesla’s ceiling is higher.

The post Ford Vs. Tesla: 2 American Icons With Upside, Which to Buy appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

The Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF (CBOE:COWZ) is having a solid 2026, up 6.4% year to date and 14.81% over the past year through July 6. Yet a fund built expressly to own America’s biggest cash machines holds zero shares of Apple, arguably the most famous cash generator on the planet. That contradiction is baked into the methodology.

What COWZ Actually Owns

COWZ is issued by Pacer ETFs and tracks the Pacer US Cash Cows 100 Index, which ranks the Russell 1000 by trailing free cash flow yield and buys the top 100 names. The fund had $18.18 billion in net assets as of April 30, 2026, spread across 102 positions. The expense ratio was not disclosed.

The top holdings read like a checklist of mature, cash-generative businesses. Qualcomm (NASDAQ:QCOM) sat at the top at 2.67% of net assets, followed by ConocoPhillips (NYSE:COP) at 2.17%, CVS Health (NYSE:CVS) at 2.16%, and Ford Motor (NYSE:F) at 2.01%. Altria, Uber, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Verizon, and AT&T round out the upper ranks.

Why It’s Up

The one-year gain traces back to a handful of leaders across sectors. CVS surged 56.84% over the trailing year and is up 30.76% year to date as its Health Care Benefits segment turned a corner. Ford tacked on 22.82% over the past year. QUALCOMM added 17.39% and ConocoPhillips 14.22% in the same window. The heavy tilt toward energy, healthcare, telecom, and consumer staples has done the lifting while high-multiple growth names were absent from the roster.

The Apple Absence, Explained

Apple’s absence from a “cash cow” fund traces directly to methodology. Apple generated $98.77 billion in free cash flow in fiscal 2025, one of the largest figures ever produced by a single company. The catch is the denominator. Apple carried a market capitalization of roughly $4.59 trillion, a trailing P/E of 38, and a dividend yield of 0.34%. Divide that enormous cash flow by an even more enormous market value, and Apple’s free cash flow yield lands well below the level required to crack the top 100.

Compare that with a name COWZ does own. QUALCOMM produced $12.82 billion in free cash flow in fiscal 2025 against a market cap near $196.5 billion. Smaller absolute cash flow, dramatically higher yield relative to price. That is the screen doing its job.

The same logic sweeps out the rest of the Magnificent Seven. Microsoft, Nvidia, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Tesla are also absent from the portfolio, a systematic outcome of the yield-based screen rather than a stock-picker’s judgment call.

What the Exclusion Means for a Portfolio

For investors comparing COWZ with a broad market index, the trade-off is direct. Apple gained 15.22% year to date and 46.99% over the past year, both ahead of COWZ. Funds that hold Apple at index weights captured that. COWZ did not. In exchange, holders got heavier exposure to energy producers, healthcare cash generators, telecoms, and older-economy industrials, sectors that behave differently from mega-cap tech in a drawdown.

Concentration risk shifts as well. Without the mega-cap tech anchors, COWZ leans into cyclicals like ConocoPhillips (energy) and Ford (autos, dividend yield 4.49%). Those names typically move with commodity prices, credit conditions, and consumer demand, tracking cyclical rather than AI-driven forces.

The Takeaway

COWZ does exactly what it says on the tin: it ranks the Russell 1000 by free cash flow yield and buys the top 100. Because Apple trades at a growth-stock valuation, its cash yield is not high enough to qualify, no matter how many billions it prints. Investors who want a value-tilted, cash-flow-first slice of the U.S. large-cap market may find that appealing. Investors who want mega-cap tech exposure will need to look elsewhere.

The post Up 14.81% in a Year, COWZ Proves You Don’t Need Apple appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford’s (NYSE: F) sales of its two flagship EVs dropped to nearly zero in May. Originally, each was to sell hundreds of thousands a year.

Sales of the Mustang Mach-E dropped to 2,467, down 44% from the year before. That is 82 per day nationwide. Ford thought that using the Mustang brand would help jump-start EV sales. The Mustang was launched in 1964 and is still on sale today. It is powered by a gas engine. The Mach-E was launched in 2020.

The Ford F-150 Lightning was named for the best-selling vehicle in America. The full sized pick up market is the most successful vehicle niche in the US. Ford sold 1,046 Lightnings last month, down 45% from the year before. That figure was 45 Lightnings sold per day.

Ironically, Ford CEO Jim Farley test-drove Chinese EVs. His comment after his early rides was “There’s no real competition from Tesla, GM, or Ford with what we’ve seen from China. They are completely dominating the EV landscape globally.” Earlier, he said Chinese EVs could be an existential threat to Ford. The barrier to EVs in the US is high tariffs, which Ford hopes will stay high every day.

The Ford EV folly has started to move forward after a remarkably poor past. “The best predictor of future performance is past performance. And I’ve seen your past performance,” or so the saying goes.

For reasons that are impossible to explain, Ford’s most visible project for its sales future is its Universal EV Platform and Ford Universal EV Production System. It is to be the largest car-production revolution since the Henry Ford assembly line, introduced in 1913, Ford management said. The Ford investment in the new project is $5 billion.

At the time of the launch, Farley said, “We took a radical approach to a very hard challenge: Create affordable vehicles that delight customers in every way that matters – design, innovation, flexibility, space, driving pleasure, and cost of ownership – and do it with American workers.”

The first product of the project will be a midsize EV truck, which will be ready in 2027. Given the pace at which the EV segment is evolving, that is late. While Ford may have exited the EV segment, several EU car companies have stepped up EV plans, as has Ford’s crosstown rival GM (NYSE: GM). It is hard to say what Ford’s management is thinking.

It will need several EV models, to hopes it to be competitive.

The post Ford Finally Runs Out of EVs appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

He is 68, a mechanical engineer who retired a couple of years ago, started his Social Security check, and thought his commuting days were over. Then his old employer called. The company wants him back, not full time, just enough to help younger engineers spot failure modes that algorithms have not yet learned. The pay is real. So is his hesitation. He has heard that going back to work can shrink the Social Security benefit he already claimed.

His situation is common right now. Ford (NYSE:F) has hired 350 veteran engineers over the past three years, drawing from both former employees and suppliers, after concluding that AI and automated quality systems could not replace decades of hands-on judgment. Charles Poon, Ford’s vice president of vehicle hardware engineering, was candid about the company’s mistaken assumption: “Mistakenly we thought that by just introducing artificial intelligence and ingesting the design requirements that we had, that that would produce a high-quality product.” Ford’s chief operating officer Kumar Galhotra added that the company had been “relying more and more on automated quality systems” with results that fell short. The gray beard engineers were brought back not just to find defects, but to train younger staff and reprogram the AI tools that had underperformed.

The results have been tangible. CEO Jim Farley credited the initiative with contributing to “hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars” in reduced warranty and recall costs, with $1 billion in savings projected for 2026 alone. That turnaround matters in context: Ford set the all-time record for vehicle recalls in 2025, issuing 152 separate safety alerts and nearly doubling the previous industry record of 77 set by General Motors in 2014. The company had already been fined $165 million by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in late 2024 for failing to recall vehicles with defective rearview cameras promptly. Ford also claimed the top spot among mainstream brands in the JD Power Initial Quality Survey released June 25, 2026, a dramatic reversal from its recent quality struggles.

Similar quiet re-hirings are playing out across manufacturing and the trades. With unemployment sitting at 4.1% as of July 2026 and experienced talent in short supply, un-retirement offers from former employers are landing in inboxes that thought they were done. One retiree recently described the exact dilemma our engineer faces: he wanted the work, he wanted the money, but he feared his benefit would get clawed back the moment payroll started.

The Earnings Test Stops at FRA

Here is what should let him sleep at night. The Social Security earnings test, which withholds part of your benefit when wages exceed a threshold, applies only before you reach full retirement age (FRA). Once you hit FRA, the test disappears entirely. You can earn ten thousand dollars, a hundred thousand, or a million in W-2 wages, and Social Security will not reduce your monthly check by a single dollar.

Full retirement age depends on birth year. For anyone born in 1960 or later, FRA is 67. For people born in the late 1950s, it falls somewhere between 66 and 67. Our 68-year-old engineer is past it either way. The earnings test he has been worrying about simply does not apply to him. The check keeps coming, at its full amount, no matter how many hours Ford puts on his timesheet.

What a Paycheck Does Change

A protected benefit still leaves room for other consequences. Three things shift in the background when an older worker returns to payroll.

1. More of the Social Security check can become taxable. Once combined income crosses certain thresholds, up to 85% of the benefit is pulled into ordinary taxable income. That 85% is the share that becomes taxable, not the tax rate itself. Wages are the fastest way to cross that line, so the engineer should expect a larger portion of his benefit to show up on his federal return.
2. Medicare premiums can rise two years later. The income-related monthly adjustment amount, known as IRMAA, looks back two years at modified adjusted gross income. That means a strong year back at Ford in 2026 can quietly raise his 2028 Medicare bill. For reference, the 2026 IRMAA surcharges kick in at $109,000 of modified adjusted gross income for a single filer and $218,000 for a joint filer, on top of the standard Part B premium of $202.90 per month. While the 2028 brackets have not yet been set, they will likely fall in a similar range after annual inflation adjustments, so the engineer should plan accordingly.
3. The benefit itself may inch up. Social Security recomputes benefits using the highest 35 years of indexed earnings. If a new year of wages replaces a lower-earning year in that top 35, the agency automatically refigures the benefit and bumps it up. For someone who had a thin year early in his career, a couple of solid years back at Ford can produce a small permanent raise on top of the 2.8% cost-of-living adjustment that took effect in January 2026.

What He Should Actually Weigh

The fear that drove his hesitation was the wrong one. The check is safe. The real questions are narrower: how much of the benefit will show up as taxable income next April, whether the paycheck pushes him into an IRMAA bracket that follows him into 2028, and whether the work itself is something he wants to do. Going back to work after FRA is a tax planning exercise, not a benefit threat. A conversation with a tax preparer before the first paycheck hits is cheaper than a surprise in April or a Medicare surcharge letter two winters from now.

Editor’s note: This article was updated to reflect the July 2026 national unemployment rate of 4.1%, corrected from the previously cited 4.2%. New context was added on Ford’s 2025 recall record of 152 separate safety alerts, its NHTSA fine of $165 million in 2024, and the role the gray beard engineers play in retraining AI tools alongside younger staff. The IRMAA two-year lookback was also clarified to note that 2026 earnings affect 2028 Medicare premiums, with the 2026 brackets of $109,000 (single) and $218,000 (joint) cited as a directional reference.

The post Ford Is Calling Its ‘Gray Beard’ Engineers Back to Work. At 68, He Feared the Paycheck Would Cut His Social Security. Past Full Retirement Age, It Doesn’t. appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

With the third quarter underway, most of the top firms we cover on Wall Street are releasing their top stock ideas for the next three months. BofA Securities, which we have covered for years, always has 10 new top picks at the start of every quarter. The 10 stocks, nine of which are Buy-rated, and one is Underperform-rated and ostensibly a short sale idea, are out, and we decided to screen the list for the top growth and dividend ideas. With the first full trading week of the third quarter upon us, many investors are seeking safer ideas amid a sustained market rally, even as major indices remain near all-time highs. We have identified four top Bank of America Q3 2026 ideas with significant upside potential and, in some cases, substantial, reliable dividends.

The BofA team remains positive on the stock market and the broader backdrop, as noted in the report:

BofA’s RIC Outlook points to a largely bullish backdrop for the U.S. economy and global equities, with indicators confirming that the “new industrial cycle” remains intact and that earnings momentum is strengthening. The Global Earnings Revision Ratio has improved to a six‑month high, with particularly strong readings in the U.S. and broad-based upgrades across regions, while the Global Wave of macro data is rising in tandem with the earnings cycle—historically a supportive signal for equity returns. Although valuations and positioning suggest markets may be somewhat overheated in the near term, we think any summer pullback could be a potential buying opportunity, especially in real assets, credit, and value-oriented areas.

Why do we cover BofA Securities’ top quarterly ideas?

BofA Securities is one of the top firms on Wall Street, and we have covered the company’s curated stock lists for years. These are their absolute best ideas across several categories, including the Endeavor List, covering small-cap stocks; the Value 10 list, featuring the top analysts’ best value ideas; and the Growth 10 List, a quantitatively generated portfolio of 10 stocks with high expected earnings growth.

Ford

This American automotive corporation was founded in 1903 by Henry Ford and 11 associate investors. This legacy carmaker pays shareholders a robust 4.3% dividend yield. Ford (NYSE: F) develops, delivers, and services a range of Ford trucks, commercial cars and vans, sport utility vehicles, and Lincoln luxury vehicles worldwide. The BofA team said this about the stock:

We expect continued upward estimate revisions for Ford given: 1) Ford’s primary North America market is better positioned compared to Europe/China given a protectionist trade agenda (no Chinese EV disruption), a favorable regulatory environment given the roll off of emission standards programs that allows Ford to produce its highest margin accretive ICE vehicles, and resilient demand despite higher gas prices, 2) mix benefit from shift to higher margin trims at F Blue, including off-road & V8 trims, 3) Novelis recovery progressing better than expected, 4) outsized growth in F’s high margin software & services business, 5) support from Ford’s new battery energy storage business & the scaling of its new EV platform with the launch of an affordable pickup next year.

It operates through five segments:

• Ford Blue
• Ford Model e
• Ford Pro
• Ford Next
• Ford Credit

The company sells Ford and Lincoln vehicles, service parts, and accessories through distributors, dealers, and dealerships to commercial fleet customers, daily rental car companies, and governments. It also engages in vehicle-related financing and leasing activities through automotive dealers.

In addition, the company provides retail installment sale contracts for:

• New and used vehicles
• Directly finances leases for new cars to retail and commercial customers, including leasing companies, government entities, daily rental companies, and fleet customers

Furthermore, it offers wholesale loans to dealers to finance the purchase of vehicle inventory, as well as loans to fund working capital, enhance dealership facilities, purchase dealership real estate, and support other dealer vehicle programs.

The Bank of America price target is $20.

IBM

International Business Machines (NYSE: IBM), nicknamed Big Blue, is an American multinational technology company. The legacy blue-chip tech giant offers conservative investors a safer way to play the sector with a 2.35% dividend, and with the shares flat this year, some big upside is possible. IBM provides integrated solutions and services worldwide. BofA noted this about the legacy tech giant when discussing the push to quantum computing:

Quantum should become a more visible part of the IBM story as interest increases (given recent pure-play Quantum IPOs). IBM reiterated in F1Q that it remains on track to deliver its first large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computer by 2029 and noted that partners could achieve the first examples of quantum advantage this year using IBM hardware. More recently, IBM and the U.S. Department of Commerce announced an LOI to create Anderon, a standalone U.S. quantum chip foundry supported by a proposed $1bn CHIPS award and a $1bn IBM cash contribution, followed by IBM announcing plans to invest more than $10bn in quantum over the next five years. We view these announcements as material for IBM’s quantum leadership to receive greater attention and as a catalyst for IBM’s quantum business to provide optionality for the stock.

The company operates through four segments. The Software segment offers a hybrid cloud and AI platform that allows clients to realize their digital and AI transformations across the applications, data, and environments they operate. IBM has partnered with Amazon Web Services (AWS) to allow users to access Watsonx AI features and its data platform. IBM also partnered with Palo Alto Networks, allowing the cybersecurity company to acquire IBM’s QRadar Software as a Service (SaaS) assets.

The Consulting segment focuses on integrating skills across strategy, experience, technology, and operations by domain and industry, while the Infrastructure segment provides on-premises and cloud-based server and storage solutions, as well as life-cycle services, for hybrid cloud infrastructure deployments. And the Financing segment offers client and commercial financing that facilitates IBM clients’ acquisition of hardware, software, and services.

The company has a strategic partnership with various companies, including:

• Hyperscalers
• Service providers
• Global system integrators
• Software and hardware vendors, including Adobe, Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, Samsung Electronics, SAP, and others

BofA Securities has set a $315 target price.

Visa

The credit card giant was recently removed from Berkshire Hathaway’s portfolio, but the BofA team remains positive on the shares. Visa (NYSE: V) is a global payments technology company that pays a small 0.7% dividend. It facilitates global commerce and money movement across more than 200 countries and territories among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, and government entities through technology.

The BofA team had these thoughts on the shares:

Visa is our top way to own the secular shift from cash to electronic payments: a durable, double-digit revenue/teens-EPS compounder with a wide debit and credit moat, a fast-growing value-added services engine (~30% of net revenue), and $33B of buyback firepower. It trades 3x below its five-year average forward PE, continuing to discount regulatory and disintermediation overhangs that we view as overstated. Visa remains a high-quality franchise at a defensive multiple, poised to be a catalyst-rich window.

Its Payment Services segment provides transaction processing services (primarily authorization, clearing, and settlement) to its financial institution and merchant clients through VisaNet, its proprietary advanced transaction processing network.

The company offers a range of Visa-branded payment products that its clients, including nearly 14,500 financial institutions, use to develop and offer payment solutions or services, including credit, debit, prepaid, and cash access programs for individual, business, and government account holders. It also provides value-added services to its clients, including issuing solutions, acceptance solutions, risk and identity solutions, open banking solutions, and advisory services.

The BofA Securities target price is $410.

Walmart

This company, founded in 1945, is the world’s largest retailer, with over 10,000 stores offering groceries, health products, and general merchandise. Walmart (NYSE: WMT) also has a strong e-commerce platform and a 0.88% dividend. BofA said this about the technology-powered omnichannel retailer:

We remain convinced that the current backdrop, with strength from the upper-income consumer and some caution from the value-seeking consumer, is conducive to Walmart accelerating share gains by leading with price and speed. WMT has significant competitive advantages to invest and gain share due to 1) its ability to tap into high-growth, margin-rich businesses like advertising and membership to help fund pricing investments, and 2) having best-in-class delivery speeds. If middle- and lower-income consumers hold up better than expected, especially as gas prices start to move lower, this would likely strengthen sales trends across Walmart US and Sam’s Club. At 36x P/E (F28), we think the stock could start to rerate higher as the market gets confidence that WMT can return to a beat/raise cycle starting next quarter.

Walmart operates retail and wholesale stores and clubs, as well as e-commerce websites and mobile applications, throughout the United States, Africa, Canada, Central America, Chile, China, India, and Mexico. It operates in three reportable segments.

The Walmart U.S. segment includes the company’s mass merchandising concept in the U.S., as well as eCommerce, which provides omni-channel initiatives and other specific business offerings such as advertising services.

The Walmart International segment consists of the company’s operations outside of the U.S., as well as eCommerce and omni-channel initiatives.

The Sam’s Club U.S. segment includes the warehouse membership clubs in the U.S., as well as samsclub.com and omni-channel initiatives.

Bank of America has a $140 target price.

The post 4 of Bank of America’s Top US Q3 Picks Pay Dividends With Double-Digit Upside Potential appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Toyota (NYSE:TM) and Ford (NYSE:F) closed very different earnings cycles. Toyota wrapped fiscal 2026 with $323.62 billion in revenue and a global hybrid engine humming across five brands. Ford posted a $43.25 billion Q1 and raised its 2026 outlook, yet the story underneath is a U.S. truck franchise carrying an EV division still bleeding cash.

Hybrid Cash Machine Meets a Truck-Powered Turnaround

Toyota’s electrified mix hit 48.1% of retail sales, with BEV volumes up 68.4% to 243 thousand units. That mix, plus a Financial Services segment that grew operating income 24.6% to $5.44 billion, helped absorb an $8.81 billion U.S. tariff hit. Operating cash flow landed at $34.94 billion.

Ford’s quarter leans on Blue and Pro. Ford Blue revenue rose 14% to $23.9 billion, powered by F-Series, Bronco, and Expedition. Ford Pro delivered $1.69 billion EBIT with paid software subs up 30% YoY to 879,000. Model e lost $777 million, and a $1.30 billion IEEPA tariff benefit flattered results.

Global Insulation vs. a Narrower U.S. Bet

Toyota earns roughly $132.70 billion in North America but balances that with $50.71 billion in Japan, $50.41 billion in Asia, and $40.84 billion in Europe. Ford is heavily U.S.-anchored, amplifying commodity and tariff swings. Jim Farley framed it bluntly: “We built the foundation for a more modern, resilient Ford, improving cost and quality and building our world-class team.” Model e guidance calls for a $4.0 billion to $4.5 billion loss this year.

Valuation frames the divergence. Toyota trades at a 9 trailing P/E with a 3.65% dividend yield and a 0.306 beta. Ford’s $0.15 quarterly payout is generous, but Q1 free cash flow was negative $1.87 billion.

The Next Test Is Who Compounds Through Tariffs

Toyota guided FY2027 operating income down 20.3% to JPY 3.0 trillion, absorbing more tariff pain and Middle East drag. Ford raised 2026 adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion. Watch whether Toyota’s BEV ramp to 598 thousand units lands without eroding hybrid margins, and whether Ford’s Universal EV platform narrows Model e losses before commodity headwinds hit their $2 billion peak.

Why I Lean Toyota for Cash Flow and Sleep-at-Night Ownership

Toyota is the more resilient business. The hybrid franchise generates cash Ford’s EV unit still consumes, and the global footprint softens shocks hitting Ford’s Michigan-heavy P&L directly. Ford’s Blue and Pro segments offer real optionality with raised guidance. Toyota offers durable free cash flow, a 0.823 price-to-book, and a dividend backed by $80.83 billion in cash. The setup weakens only if Model e losses shrink faster than Toyota’s tariff drag deepens.

The post Ford Vs. Toyota: Buy Toyota to Secure Dominant Global Cash Flow and Hybrid Supremacy appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Shares of Ford (NYSE:F) are down 2% to $13 in Thursday midday trading, putting the stock on track for a fourth straight down day. The catalyst is a soft Q2 U.S. sales report, and the slide has investors asking whether the money would be better parked in a Detroit rival.

Both General Motors (NYSE:GM) and Stellantis (NYSE:STLA) shares are trading roughly flat today, at $75 and $6, respectively. Yet, the year-to-date scoreboard tells a more surprising story than the last four sessions suggest.

Q2 U.S. Sales Miss Fuels the Selloff

Ford reported that U.S. sales fell 10% in Q2 2026 to 549,200 vehicles, with first-half sales down 10% to just over 1 million. EV volumes were the sore spot, with Q2 EV sales dropping 41% as the Mustang Mach-E slipped and the discontinued F-150 Lightning fell sharply.

The headline truck number also disappointed. F-Series sales fell 11% to 197,900, though Ford attributes the drop to a retiming of commercial production linked to last year’s aluminum supply shortages rather than soft demand. Still, the F-Series remained the best-selling U.S. truck.

Ford’s report had bright spots. The Bronco set a Q2 record, up 16% to 45,739 units; the Maverick Hybrid also set a Q2 record, up 19% to 29,457; Explorer deliveries increased; and Ford’s estimated June retail market share climbed to 12%. Ford is also phasing out the Escape and Lincoln Corsair, which weigh on near-term volume.

How GM and Stellantis Stack Up

General Motors posted a smaller Q2 U.S. sales decline of 4% and remained the top-selling U.S. automaker on the strength of trucks and SUVs. The automaker’s EV volumes also fell, a common theme after the federal EV tax credit expired and demand cooled across the industry.

On the fundamentals, GM stock trades at a forward P/E ratio of 6x with an analyst target price of $95, versus Ford stock’s forward P/E ratio of 8x and $15 target. Stellantis stock, priced for distress, trades at a forward P/E ratio of 7x and a price-to-book ratio of 0.24x.

The Surprising Year-to-Date Scoreboard

Here’s the twist. Despite the four-day slide, Ford stock is up 2% year to date (YTD), making it the best performer of the three. GM stock is down 8% YTD, and Stellantis stock is down 47% YTD. So, the answer to “is it time to switch?” is nuanced.

General Motors did have the smaller Q2 sales decline and a bigger buyback footprint, but its shares have leaked lower all year. Stellantis remains the deep-value option, with a wave of overhangs that have gutted its equity value in six months. Ford has held up best on the stock, even though its Q2 sales print looks worse than GM’s.

Should You Sell Ford Stock Now?

The bull case for Ford is that the company’s hybrid and off-road nameplates (Bronco, Maverick) are winning, retail share is expanding, and CEO Jim Farley has touted an upcoming sub-$30,000 electric truck for next year to reset the EV cost curve. Ford stock also offers a dividend yield that exceeds 4%, which can cushion share-price drawdowns somewhat.

The bear case is that EV demand is softening industry-wide after the federal tax credit expired, discontinued models are removing volume, and Ford’s Model e segment continues to bleed cash. These are volatile, cyclical stocks, and investors may want to keep their position sizes modest across the group.

There’s no requirement to panic-sell your Ford shares if you’re vigilant and have a long-term investment plan. Looking ahead, the next test is whether Ford stock can hold the $13 area into Thursday’s close and whether Q2 2026 earnings, due later this month, confirm the guidance raise. Market watchers can also monitor GM’s July sales cadence and any Stellantis update on its recovery timeline.

The post Ford Is Now Down 4 Days in a Row. Is It Time to Switch to General Motors or Stellantis? appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

General Motors (NYSE: GM) and Ford (NYSE: F) both reported Q1 2026 results in late April, and the earnings reports revealed two very different Detroit strategies. GM leaned on unified Ultium battery scale, a richer sales mix, and heavy share retirement. Ford leaned on hybrids, F-Series demand, and a fast-growing Ford Pro software business while still absorbing steep EV losses.

Ultium Scale Lifts GM. Model e Still Bleeds at Ford.

GM delivered adjusted EPS of $3.70 against a $2.6393 estimate, its fourth consecutive beat. EBIT-adjusted reached $4.25 billion, up 21.9% YoY, with GMNA margin expanding to 10.1%. A $1.077 billion charge to realign Ultium capacity stung GAAP results, yet it signals discipline rather than retreat. Chevrolet, GMC, Buick, and Cadillac all pull from the same battery architecture, which is the structural cost lever the bulls keep pointing to.

Ford’s headline was flashier and messier. Adjusted EBIT jumped $2.5 billion YoY to $3.49 billion, but a $1.3 billion IEEPA tariff benefit did much of the heavy lifting. Ford Blue produced $1.94 billion in EBIT on F-Series, Bronco, and Explorer strength, and Ford Pro paid software subscriptions grew 30% to 879,000. Model e still lost $777 million in the quarter, with a full-year loss guide of $4.0 to $4.5 billion.

Unified Platform vs. Segmented Complexity

Ford’s structurally divided corporate segments create engineering redundancies and higher warranty costs, while GM’s unified platform architecture drives down manufacturing costs across its next-generation fleet. That framing shows up in the capital returns too.

GM’s FY2026 EPS-adjusted guide climbed to $11.50 to $13.50. Ford lifted adjusted EBIT to $8.5 to $10.5 billion, but commodity headwinds of roughly $2 billion, led by aluminum, keep the picture cloudy.

The Next Test Is China and Model e

I will be watching whether GM can arrest China share erosion after worldwide sales slipped to 1.295 million units from 1.449 million. You should keep an eye on Ford’s Universal EV platform ramp and Ford Energy build-out, which are absorbing roughly $1 billion in incremental Model e investment this year.

Why I Lean Toward GM Right Now

Given the quarter, I lean toward GM. Mary Barra’s playbook of pairing a unified battery platform with a 926 million share count and a raised guide feels more durable than Ford’s tariff-aided EBIT jump. For turnaround-focused investors, Ford Pro’s 879,000 paid subscriptions and a 4.28% yield remain part of the bull case. I would rethink my view if GM’s automotive operating cash flow stays weak or China losses accelerate. For now, the buyback math and Ultium leverage tilt the setup toward GM.

The post GM Vs. Ford: GM’s Unified Battery Scale and Aggressive Share Buybacks Make It The Better Buy appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE: F) ranked No. 1 among “Mainstream Brands” in the new J.D. Power Initial Quality Study. It was the first time it had occupied that spot since 2010. Much of that positive news was wiped out by a recall of more than 740,000 vehicles, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The notice said, “The transmission park pawl may engage while the vehicle is in motion, resulting in park system damage.”

The vehicles affected were some 2018-2021 model-year Navigators, Explorers, and Expeditions, the 2020-2021 Explorer, the Lincoln Aviator, and the 2021 F-150. The news is the continuation of a trend. Ford has recalled 11.2 million vehicles this year. Last year, Ford set an all-time record for recalls, with 153, and covered more than 13 million vehicles.

Ford management has repeatedly promised to reduce the number of recalls. The J.D. Power results show that, in the minds of those surveyed, the brand has taken a step forward. However, the actual recall data paint a very different picture, which can be called “reality.”

Recalls are not just a customer-facing problem. Last year, they cost Ford hundreds of millions of dollars in warranty costs.

For the consumer, which Ford is the real Ford? It likely depends on experience. Someone who owns a recalled Ford or has seen recalls in the media might be concerned about buying a Ford product. Many current owners are obviously happy, based on J.D. Power.

The bottom line, as they call it, is that recalling millions of cars has to leave an impression on the wider car-buying public. That means Ford’s climb out of the recall pit is likely to cause it deep trouble.

The post Ford Reputation Deeply Damaged by 740,000 Recall appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

There is growing expert consensus that car sales in the US will start to decline and may drop sharply. Bain and Company has done some of the best work on this. The consulting firm said US new-car sales could drop to 2 million by 2040, according to CNBC. There are about 16 million a year today.

Cars, SUVs, and light pickups are too expensive. Car Edge reports that the average price of a new vehicle has hit over $50,000. Cox Automotive puts the figure at $51,440 based on MSRP. While it depends on which company’s data is chosen, it is up 4% from last year.

The average monthly payment for a new car is $770. Many loans are for 72 months. This means a car can be worth less than the loan on it after five or six years. The math itself will erode the new car industry.

To some extent, if not largely, due to prices, the average time a car is on the road in the US is 12 years. It is easy to see the challenge for the car companies.

The Ford (NYSE: F) F-Series pickup has been the best-selling vehicle in the US for decades. Its base price is $38,780. With a modest number of features added, the price rises to $45,000.

There is another factor worth considering. Inflation is moving up faster than wages. This means that, for the most part, Americans’ purchasing power is declining.

The average lifetime of an F-150 is 15 to 20 years. That means the truck can run for well over 200,000 miles.

Bain’s other argument is that as immigration drops, the US population growth will be flat. Additionally, only half of US 16-year-olds have a driver’s license. That is down from 70% in 1966 to 1980.

Finally, The Wall Street Journal reports that about one million Americans will drop out of the car market soon. The newspaper quoted Erik Severinson, Volvo’s chief commercial officer. Speaking of car prices, he said, “It’s a proof point of something more fundamental which is wrong in the general economy—that people are not able to buy new cars.”

The price of the F-150 and the headwinds against the whole industry mean that it, and many other vehicles, have started to price their way out of the market.

The post Ford F-150 Is Too Expensive appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

The JD Power 2026 U.S. Initial Quality Study was just released. Deeply troubled, Rivian (NASDAQ: RIVN) ranks last among all brands, a place usually occupied by Chrysler and Dodge. The rankings are based on overall new-vehicle quality, as measured by the total number of problems per 100 vehicles. The study covers answers about the first 90 days of ownership. The research is based on nine categories: climate, driving assistance, driving experience, exterior, features/controls/displays, infotainment, interior, powertrain, and seats. Vehicle repair services were also taken into account.

The average in the study was 175 per 100 vehicles. Rivian’s figure was 246, just below Chrysler’s 229. The two fell into the category of those that “did not meet award criteria.” The figures were stunning nevertheless. Rivian has won several awards for its models. This includes “Rivian R1T: Edmunds Top-Rated Electric Truck 2026.”

The survey news comes just as Rivian launches its R2 crossover. It will eventually have models priced at $44,990. This will not be available until next year. The version currently available is the Performance version, with a base price of $57,990. Rivian has been criticized for having a model lineup that is too expensive. The prices of its R1S and R1T can top $100,000.

Among the most serious problems Rivian has is whether the company is viable. Its stock is down 20% this year and 90% since late 2021; In Q1, Rivian produced 10,236 vehicles and delivered 10,365 vehicles.

Revenue for the first quarter was $1.38 billion. It lost $416 million. It is hard to imagine how many vehicles Rivian would need to sell to be profitable,

Leaving quality aside (which is unrealistic). Rivan is up against Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), which remains the industry juggernaut. What was also frightening for Rivian was that Ford (NYSE: F) had an EV pickup that carried its most storied name–the F-150 Lightning. It got so little sales traction that Ford discontinued it.

Rivian appears to have a quality problem, adding to a long list of challenges.

The post Rivian Posts Worst Scores On Quality Study (Maybe) appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Polestar will be blocked from selling EVs in the US. It doesn’t matter. Polestar sales were close to zero so far this year. To sell its 2027 models, Polestar needed permission under the Connected Vehicles Rule. The regulation essentially prohibits the import and sale of cars with connected-vehicle technology owned or controlled by companies in China. Virtually every other vehicle made by a China-based company is already in a similar position from a sales standpoint. At the head of this list is BYD, the world’s largest EV maker. Beyond connected-vehicle regulations, the US imposes high tariffs on Chinese EV trucks and cars.

Polestar never gained traction in the US, despite having several dealers. It had the money to at least make a significant effort to sell its cars in America. It is majority owned by the Chinese car giant Geely Holding.

Who wins based on the ban? At first glance, GM (NYSE: GM) and Ford (NYSE: F). Each was worried Chinese EVs would damage their sales. However, each has exited the EV market. That means the threat would be to their gas-powered car sales. Even if Chinese EVs are inexpensive and have impressive features, they are not what will get the huge majority of Americans to turn their backs on fossil-fueled engines (Americans love them too much). GM and Ford took write-offs totaling almost $30 billion as they exited the sector. They understood EV demand was weak, no matter who made or sold them.

The one company that benefits most is Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA). The US, its home market, remains its most important market by sales. Its sales are healthy in China, and are coming back in the EU. However, it could barely survive an onslaught of well-built EVs in the US, including cars priced below $25,000, if tariffs were not in place.

Tesla’s sales were hurt in the US for at least one reason, and probably two. The first is that the $7,500 federal tax credit on EVs ended on September 30. EVs across the US suffered in general. Additionally, Tesla CEO Elon Musk was involved in President Donald Trump’s early restructuring of the US government. So demand may have been hurt by that as well.

It is hard to imagine that, even as Tesla sales in the US appear to have rebounded recently, it could well withstand an invasion of Chinese EVs.

Ford has said that a US market open to Chinese EVs would do it serious harm. Perhaps. But Tesla has the most to lose.

The post Great News For Tesla, Polestar Banned From The US appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE: F) recalls this year have topped 1.2 million vehicles. While its poor 2006 track record is not nearly as bad as last year’s, the company’s quality promise has fallen apart again. And, while moves into battery technology have lifted the stock, there is reason for investors to be worried. Ford can’t get its core business right, even after decades as one of the world’s largest car companies.

One of the worst recalls, from the standpoint of how poorly Ford manages repairs for its broken cars, concerns 255,404 Ford Focus models from the 2012-2018 model years. TFLcar reports “Ford Recalls More Than 250,000 Focus Models Because the First Fix Didn’t Solve the Issue.”

Ford also recalled over 548,000 Expedition SUVs because of chrome trim on the center console. It can bubble and peel. This can cause hazardous sharp edges, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Ford’s move into what it calls “Ford Energy,” which supplies large-scale battery storage systems for data centers and the electric grid, is viewed as nothing short of genius. And the market rewarded Ford’s diversification, but only briefly. Ford’s stock is up a little less than the S&P 500

Ford’s very long-term prospects remain grim, given how the stock has traded over the last five years. It is down 9% over that period. The S&P is 72% higher in the same period. GM is up 30%.

It is impossible not to argue that almost every company should be judged by how well it does what it is supposed to do. That is, whether it can run its core business (s), Ford’s quality improvement promises are legion, as are the failures of these promises

Why is quality such a difficult problem for Ford to fix? All such problems are the responsibility of senior management. It has undermined one of the world’s best-known brands.

The post Ford Recalls Continue to Cripple Brand appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Rivian (NASDAQ: RIVN) has fumbled the ball at least twice recently as the company launches what it calls the “affordable” R2. Most versions of the SUV cost $55,000 to $60,000. At least that it is $20,000 or more below its current model R1S and R1T

Lease prices for the R2 range from $800 to $1,100, depending on which analysis is used to set the number. Many potential buyers think it is too high.

Just after the launch, Rivian laid off 2% of its 15,700-person workforce. Scaringe did not take a pay cut to save the company money or to show any sympathy. His new pay package is for $403 million. According to the FT, “The founder of electric-truck maker earns about 13 times more than next best-paid American auto executive”

Rivian’s stock is down 88% in the last five years, while the S&P 500 is 60% higher.

As we have often written on these pages, Rivian produced 10,236 vehicles in the first quarter of the year. It delivered 10,365. Rivian lost $416 million in Q1.

But, for those of you who don’t know how a corporate structure can be set up so that the CEO can hold their job permanently, Rivian has a dual share arrangement. There is the common stock, and then there are the Class B shares. The Class B shares have 100% voting power and control of the company. Scaringe can’t ne fired.

Several other famous companies and dozens of others have similar voting structures. These include Ford (NYSE: F), The New York Times, Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOG), and Meta (NASDAQ: META). The notion that shareholders have a say in governance or board selection is false.

Scaringe is more clever than he is successful–at least at running Rivian.

The post Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe Should Be Fired, But Can’t Be appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is not worth more than all the world’s car companies combined, although this is often raised in a “fake news” sort of way. A more accurate way to make the calculation is to note that the figure is close to 10x, or maybe slightly more, in aggregate. The numbers are still staggering.

Tesla’s market cap is just shy of $1.5 trillion. That makes it the 9th most valuable company in the world. Among car companies alone, it is followed by Toyota (NYSE: TM) at $230 billion, BYD at $120 billion, and Hyundai at $100 billion. GM (NYSE: GM) and Ford (NYSE: F) are not even close to these levels. The fortunes of the two US companies have improved, but the market still views them as grim.

The comparison is not useful given the current businesses of these other automakers. Those with values just below Tesla’s are gas-powered energy giants. The exception is BYD, the world’s largest EV company. BYD’s relatively modest market cap may be due to its not having fully entered the two largest car markets outside China. These are the US and EU, where trade barriers have shut it out. The EU has become a more promising area of success as tariffs in some member states are falling.

Tesla’s auto sales figures are mediocre. Tesla sold 358,023 EVs worldwide in the first quarter of 2026, up 6.3% from the same period in 2025. It was, however, Tesla’s second-worst sales quarter since 2022. Ford sold 457,315 vehicles during the same period.

Tesla’s market cap is based on three factors, none of which may occur. The first is that EVs still have a very bright future, and they will eventually begin to replace gas-powered cars at a rapid pace. The problem with this theory is that EV sales have slowed in much of the world, hybrids have become more attractive, and Tesla wmay not continue to capture a large share of the EV market. Chinese EV companies may prevent that. Another challenge is that not all large gas-powered car companies have completely exited the business.

Second, Tesla’s self-driving car business had to produce a home run in sales. The Robotaxi may help achieve that. However, there is stiff competition from other companies, including Google’s Waymo, and selling driverless cars may never become mainstream in terms of demand, as local cities and states (in the US) need to approve their operations one by one.

Finally, Elon Musk has sold investors on the idea that everyone in the world will eventually have a humanoid robot. A large number of these will be Tesla’s Optimus. Tesla’s path to success is high adoption and very little competition.

For now, investors think that Tesla’s future does not have much to do with EVs. For the time being, based on the evidence, that is not true. And the jury will be out for years in terms of Tesla’s other businesses.

The post Tesla Is Worth More Than The Next 10 Car Companies Combined appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE: F) has done everything right recently. It abandoned its expensive EV plans, which will save billions of dollars a year. It has launched “Ford Energy,” which Wall St. loves. This operation manufactures lithium-ion phosphate (LFP) batteries for stationary energy storage. The plan is based in part on a partnership with China’s CATL. Ford Energy can power customers as large as energy grids. The news has driven Ford’s stock up over 20% in the last month.

A five-year look-back shows that Ford’s prospects remain poor in the minds of many investors. Ford’s stock is down 6% in the past five years, while the S&P 500 is up 71%. Ford’s stock was unusually high in early 2022, so the comparison with the current price will likely worsen soon. The comparison at that point is terrible; if Ford’s stock remains where it is, the dip from that time period will be closer to 20%.

The late 2021 and early 2022 stock price jump may have been caused by several factors. It exited Brazil, where it had done poorly. Ford was moving away from legacy models that had lost money. Despite this phase-out, Q3 2021 sales had been unexpectedly strong. Inflation, among other things, pushed the stock price down later in 2022. That erased the early 2022 stock price gains.

Ford’s stock did not exactly trade sideways from mid 2022 until early this year, but the trend was close to that. Increases and drops in overall sales moved it up and down over the period. So did Ford’s massive commitment to EVs and its exit from the sector.

Since Ford began shuttering its EV efforts, its management has begun to admit that Chinese EVs are the best in the world and might enter the US and severely cripple its sales.

What Ford’s price comes down to is that, at the end of the day, it is a legacy car company with sales dominated by the F-Series full-sized gas-powered pick-ups. These have been the best-selling vehicles in the US in decades. And, today, Ford is largely a domestic car company with very modest sales in overseas markets.

Ford Energy was a brilliant decision. Based on the stock price over a five-year period, investors do not anticipate another.

The post Why Is Ford’s Stock Price Down 6% In Five Years? appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Both Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) and Ford (NYSE: F) flashed bullish technical signals over the past few months, but which one is better in a retirement portfolio right now? A quick reality check on the technicals matters first. Ford’s 50-day moving average of $13.13 sits above its 200-day at $12.89, so its golden cross remains intact. Bank of America’s chart is more ambiguous: the 50-day at $51.82 is currently a hair below the 200-day at $52.00, meaning that bullish crossover has faded into a near-tie. Treat the technicals as a tailwind, not a green light. Fundamentals decide this one.

Dimension 1: Income Reliability

Ford carries the higher headline yield at roughly 4.2% on a $0.60 annualized dividend, versus Bank of America’s 2.1% on a $1.12 per-share payout. But yield is only useful if the check keeps clearing. Bank of America has raised its quarterly dividend 8% to $0.28 and authorized a $40 billion buyback, returning $9.30 billion to shareholders in Q1 2026 alone. Ford’s Q1 buybacks totaled just $311 million, and the automaker famously cut its dividend during the last downturn and again in 2020. Ford’s higher yield is mostly a reflection of its depressed share price.

Dimension 2: Volatility and Risk

Bank of America’s beta of 1.196 compares favorably to Ford’s beta of 1.798, meaning Ford swings roughly half again as hard as the bank in either direction. The underlying businesses tell the same story. Bank of America posted net income of $30.51 billion in FY2025, up 12.45%, with a CET1 ratio of 11.4% and credit card charge-offs improving to 3.64% from 4.05%. Ford reported a FY2025 GAAP net loss of $8.16 billion after $15.50 billion in special charges, including $10.70 billion in Model e impairments. Adding roughly $2.0 billion in 2026 commodity headwinds and ongoing Model e losses guided at $4.0 billion to $4.5 billion, Ford remains a cyclical turnaround story.

Dimension 3: Valuation and Upside

Ford trades at a forward P/E of roughly 9, well below Bank of America’s forward P/E of roughly 12. But the analyst consensus tells a different story about implied returns. Wall Street’s average price target on Bank of America is $63.16 against a current price of $54.54, with analysts overwhelmingly recommending the stock. Ford’s $14.55 target barely tops its $14.30 price, and the rating mix is dominated by Holds. Ford has been the better one-year trade, up 34.9% versus Bank of America’s 21.0%, but analysts view most of that re-rating as already priced in.

The Verdict

Bank of America is the clear core holding for a retirement-focused investor. Brian Moynihan’s team delivered four consecutive EPS beats, $15.9 billion in Q1 net interest income, and guidance for 6% to 8% NII growth in 2026. That is the profile a retiree wants: a rising dividend, a substantial buyback program, improving credit quality, and a CEO who is “bullish on the U.S. economy in 2026.”

Ford has a role, but it’s a narrow one. It fits as a higher-risk, higher-yield satellite for investors who want exposure to a possible margin recovery toward Farley’s 8% adjusted EBIT margin target by 2029 and can stomach a negative-free-cash-flow quarter and a payout history that has not survived prior recessions. For a retirement core holding, it’s Bank of America. Ford stays on the bench.

The post After Their Golden Crosses, Is Bank of America or Ford Better for Retirement Portfolios? appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

With the S&P 500 grinding near record highs, sub-$30 stocks have become hunting grounds for income investors who want yield without paying a premium. A low sticker price is only meaningful when the underlying business supports it, and a household-name industrial throwing off a mid-single-digit dividend yield while trading at a single-digit forward earnings multiple is the kind of setup that demands a second look. Cyclical fears have pushed parts of the auto sector into deep-value territory, and one Detroit blue chip has quietly rallied off those lows.

With that in mind, here is one dividend stock trading under $30 that stands out for long-term income investors.

Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F)

Ford (NYSE:F) designs and sells the F-Series trucks, Bronco, Explorer, Expedition, and Lincoln luxury vehicles, alongside a fast-growing commercial fleet and software business under the Ford Pro banner.

Shares trade in the $17 range, well inside the $30 ceiling and within striking distance of the 52-week high of $17.78. For a retail investor, that price point means you can build a meaningful position without much capital, and it keeps the $0.60 annual dividend yielding in the attractive mid-single-digit range. The stock has rallied 44.27% over the past month and 78.98% over the past year, yet still trades at a forward P/E of 10.

Fundamentals justify the re-rating. Q1 2026 EPS came in at $0.66 on revenue of $43.253 billion, up 6% year-over-year, and net income expanded from $471 million to $2.548 billion. Management used the strength to raise full-year adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion. Wall Street, however, has been slow to follow, with the consensus analyst target price sitting at $13.75 against a mostly Hold-leaning panel of 15 Holds, 3 Buys, 2 Strong Buys, and 1 Sell.

The bull case is straightforward. Wall Street has heavily discounted Ford due to short-term cyclicality and the high capital expenditure required to scale its electric vehicle division, but that narrative ignores Ford Pro. The commercial segment generated $1.69 billion of EBIT on $14.7 billion of revenue at 11.4% margins last quarter, with paid software subscriptions climbing 30% YoY to 879,000. That is institutional-grade, sticky cash flow attached to fleets that do not switch vendors casually. Layer in Ford Blue’s $1.94 billion EBIT truck-and-SUV engine and a $0.15 quarterly dividend that has held steady for 10-plus consecutive quarters, often supplemented by an elevated Q1 payment, and the income thesis looks durable. CEO Jim Farley framed it bluntly, saying “Our strong first-quarter results and raised full-year guidance reflect the momentum of the Ford+ plan.” Retail sentiment agrees, with wallstreetbets posts hitting bullish scores of 76 to 78 out of 100 through late May.

The key risk is the EV unit. Ford Model e is still guided to lose $4.0 billion to $4.5 billion this year, commodity headwinds run about $2 billion, and Q1 free cash flow was a use of $1.874 billion. Auto demand is cyclical, and a sharp U.S. slowdown would test the payout. None of that changes the picture that Ford Pro and Ford Blue together more than cover the dividend and fund the EV pivot. For income-oriented investors comfortable owning a cyclical, Ford screens as a rare combination of yield, value, and operating momentum.

A single-digit share price is never a thesis on its own. Cheap stocks can stay cheap, and high yields can mask deteriorating fundamentals if you do not look under the hood. Use this as a starting point, dig into the segment economics and capital allocation yourself, and size any position to your own risk tolerance before acting.

The post 1 High-Yield Dividend Stock Under $30 to Buy Hand Over Fist and Hold Forever appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

For years, Ford‘s (NYSE: F) electric vehicle ambitions came with a punishing price tag. Internal math implied losses of roughly $50,000 for every EV the company sold. That gap is finally closing, and investors have noticed.

The Numbers Behind the Turnaround

Ford reported a Model e EBIT loss of $777 million in Q1 2026. Management attributed that meaningful narrowing to a nearly 35% reduction in Gen 1 losses. Full-year Model e losses are now guided to $4.0 billion to $4.5 billion. That is down from a FY 2025 Model e EBIT loss of $4.81 billion.

That progress, paired with strength elsewhere, allowed Ford to raise full-year adjusted EBIT guidance to a range of $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion. Q1 net income jumped to $2.548 billion from $471 million a year earlier, on revenue of $43.253 billion.

Ford Energy: Turning Batteries Into a Business

CEO Jim Farley framed Ford Energy as central to the math. “The energy business is a key element of our bridge to 8% margin,” he said. Ford is investing $1.5 billion in the initiative this year and is “committed to over 20 gigawatt hours of capacity starting in the fourth quarter of next year.” By repurposing battery capacity for grid storage and data center power, Ford is monetizing the same investment that previously dragged on Model e profitability.

Ford Pro Carries the Load

The commercial segment delivered $1.69 billion in Q1 EBIT at an 11.4% margin. The 879,000 paid software subscribers total was up 30% year-over-year. Software and physical services revenue topped $15 billion last year, and projects have that revenue growing nearly 8% annually through the end of the decade.

The UEV Platform and the Cost Reset

The strategic reset began with $10.7 billion in Model e asset impairments in Q4 2025. Out of that came the Universal EV platform, which Farley calls “a step change in efficiency and cost, especially for the EV market.” Louisville assembly has a slated 2027 launch.

Stock Reaction and Risks

Shares ended May at $17.44, up 42.5% over one month and 70.7% over one year, brushing a 52-week high of $17.78. Reddit’s wallstreetbets sentiment held in bullish territory, with scores ranging from 62 to 78 over the past month.

Headwinds remain. Commodity costs are tracking just above $2 billion for the year due to aluminum pricing, and Q1 benefited from a non-repeating $1.3 billion IEEPA tariff credit. Still, with Ford Pro printing cash, Ford Energy ramping, and Model e losses contracting, the per-vehicle EV bleed that defined the prior chapter is finally easing.

The post Ford’s $50,000 per EV Problem Is Finally Going Away appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE:F) and General Motors (NYSE:GM) closed Q1 2026 with a sharp contrast. GM topped estimates with a 41.31% EPS beat built on margin discipline. Ford answered with a $2.50 billion swing in adjusted EBIT and a louder transformation story. Both raised guidance. Only one is winning.

Trucks Carry Ford. Cost Discipline Carries GM.

Ford Blue delivered with $23.9 billion in revenue, up 14%, as F-Series, Bronco, Explorer, and Expedition demand stayed hot. Off-road performance trims now account for nearly a quarter of U.S. sales. Ford Pro added another layer: 879,000 paid software subscribers, up 30% year over year, at an 11.4% margin. That is recurring revenue most legacy automakers cannot match.

GM played differently. EBIT-adjusted jumped 21.9% to $4.25 billion, with margins expanding 1.8 percentage points to 9.7%, even as North American wholesale volumes slipped to 793,000 units and U.S. share fell to 16.5%. Mary Barra is squeezing more profit from fewer trucks. China helped, with equity income rising to $165 million from $45 million.

The EV Bet: Pivot vs. Purge

Ford is doubling down with a new Universal EV platform for affordable models, plus $1.5 billion earmarked for Ford Energy. Model e lost $777 million in the quarter, with full-year losses guided to $4 billion to $4.5 billion. That is substantial red ink to defend a platform bet.

GM went the other direction, booking a $1.077 billion EV capacity realignment charge and winding down Cruise, whose loss is now eliminated.

Both leaned on the U.S. Supreme Court IEEPA tariff ruling. Ford booked a $1.3 billion one-time benefit; GM trimmed its gross tariff cost range to $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion.

What I’m Watching Into the Back Half

For Ford, the test is whether the Universal EV platform can shrink Model e losses while Ford Pro compounds software subs. Jim Farley framed it bluntly: “We are well-prepared to deliver for our customers and shareholders as we enter one of the most intensive product, software and physical services rollouts in our history.”

Aluminum costs and the $400 million European restructuring drag will tell us if the cost side cooperates. BofA raised the firm’s price target on Ford to $20 from $17 and keeps a Buy rating on the shares.

For GM, the watch item is share. Fleet sales jumped to 20.6% of total from 16.5%, which props volume but pressures retail mix. China is recovering, yet vehicle sales there fell to 349,000 from 443,000.

Why Ford Looks More Compelling Right Now, With Caveats

For investors focused on the cleaner profit machine and steady buyback cadence, GM fits that profile. Barra’s team runs a tighter shop, and the one-year return rewards that discipline.

But Ford looks more compelling heading into 2026. Ford Pro’s software flywheel is the most underappreciated part of either story, and the post-earnings move and bullish composite sentiment of 66.22 tell me momentum is real.

Analyst consensus implies -17.42% downside on Ford, and Model e still burns cash. If aluminum keeps climbing or the UEV ramp slips, the case for GM strengthens. For now, the transformation story has earned the benefit of the doubt.

The post Ford vs GM: One Auto Giant Looks Much Stronger for 2026 appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford stock is up 6% in midday trading on Friday, extending an extraordinary run that has lifted Ford (NYSE:F) shares to $17.65. Impressively, the stock has rallied 43% over the past month.

The catalyst isn’t about selling pickup trucks. A Wall Street Journal headline this week put it bluntly: “Ford’s Stock Is Surging and It’s Got Nothing to Do With Its Car Business.” Investors are repricing Ford as an AI-infrastructure-adjacent industrial name.

The question now is whether the momentum can carry Ford stock to $20. With the legacy automaker’s analyst consensus target sitting at $13.75, the rally has clearly outrun Wall Street’s expectations. Here’s what could close the gap.

Ford Energy Is the Real Story

Ford Energy, a new subsidiary that repurposes EV batteries for data center power storage, is the narrative shift driving the tape. The company signed a five-year agreement with EDF Power Solutions North America to supply 4 GWh of battery energy storage systems annually. That contract reframes Ford as a supplier into the AI buildout alongside its core auto business.

CEO Jim Farley told analysts on the Q1 2026 call that Ford is “committed to over 20 gigawatt hours of capacity starting in the fourth quarter of next year.” Capital expenditure guidance includes $1.5 billion allocated for Ford Energy in 2026. Farley added that “the energy business is a key element of our bridge to 8% margin.”

The macro backdrop helps Ford. The Department of Energy projects that data centers will account for up to 12% of U.S. electrical demand by 2028, and grid-scale storage is one of the few near-term answers. Any follow-on Ford Energy contract could keep this thesis intact.

The Supporting Catalysts

The fundamentals are finally catching up to the Ford story. The company posted Q1 2026 EPS of $0.66 on revenue of $43.25 billion, up 6% year over year (YoY), and raised full-year adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion. Ford Pro continues to be the profit engine, with paid software subscriptions growing 30% YoY to 879,000.

Furthermore, the Ford industrial bank charter received preliminary approval, opening a new financing channel for fleet customers. Insider activity has also been notable, with 174 recent insider transactions, overall leaning toward net buying. The WallStreetBets subreddit has lit up with bullish posts on Ford stock too, with one celebratory thread on May 23 hitting 216 upvotes.

The Path to $20

For Ford stock to clear $20, several things likely need to fall into place. More EDF-style energy storage deals would help validate the Ford Energy revenue ramp, and the Q2 2026 earnings call on July 29 could deliver another guidance raise. Continued Ford Pro software growth would reinforce the high-margin services thesis.

The valuation case is workable. Ford stock trades at a forward P/E ratio of 10x and a price-to-sales ratio of 0.33. The 24/7 Wall St. Factor model pegs a five-year optimistic target of roughly $21.37, which puts $20 inside the realm of base-case math if the AI-storage narrative holds.

What Could Derail It

However, the bear case on Ford stock is worth noting. The analyst consensus estimate of $13.75 implies sizable downside from current levels, with 15 Hold ratings against just 5 Buys. To provide a specific example, RBC maintains a Sector Perform rating with a $13 price target.

Execution risks are stacking up, too. Ford guided to $2 billion in commodity headwinds, dealt with an F-150 production pause tied to a faulty hood die, and faces ongoing lawmaker scrutiny of the Ford-CATL battery partnership. Moreover, Model e losses are still guided at $4 billion to $4.5 billion for the year.

What to Watch

The next checkpoint for Ford is the Q2 2026 earnings release on July 29, after the close of the market. Any fresh Ford Energy contract announcement before then could be the catalyst that drags analyst price targets higher.

Prudent investors may want a moderate position size in Ford stock, given how far the shares have run ahead of Wall Street consensus. The bullish thesis is credible and the storage angle is real, but the rally has compressed a lot of optimism into a short window. Research-focused investors can keep an eye on whether Ford stock holds above $17 into next week, since that level may signal whether the AI-infrastructure reframe is sticking with institutional buyers.

The post Ford Just Rallied 43% In a Month: What Could Push the Stock to $20 Per Share? appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE: F) and General Motors (NYSE: GM) recently posted Q1 2026 results, and the contrast in how each is returning cash was the most striking takeaway. GM authorized a new $6 billion buyback in January and lifted its dividend. Ford kept its payout flat and bought back a fraction of that. Same industry, very different playbooks.

Buybacks Carry GM. Reinvestment Carries Ford.

GM produced $2.95 billion in operating cash flow in Q1 and repurchased $800 million of stock, on top of $6.04 billion bought back across 2025. The diluted share count fell to 926 million from 1.002 billion year over year. CEO Mary Barra raised the dividend 20% to $0.18 per quarter and lifted full-year EBIT-adjusted guidance to $13.5 billion to $15.5 billion. GMNA margin reached 10.1%, and GM took a $1.08 billion charge to right-size its EV capacity rather than chase volume.

Ford went the other way. CEO Jim Farley used Q1 to fund growth and reinvestment. The $311 million in Q1 buybacks is roughly a rounding error against GM’s pace, and Ford ran $0 in annual repurchases from 2021 through 2025. The dividend stayed at $0.15 quarterly. Cash is going into Ford Energy, Ford Pro software (subs up 30% to 879,000), and a Model e program still generating losses of $4.0 billion to $4.5 billion this year.

Where the Capital Really Goes

Farley framed it this way: “We are well-prepared to deliver for our customers and shareholders as we enter one of the most intensive product, software, and physical services rollouts in our history.” Translation: cash is earmarked for the build.

The Next Test Is Cash Discipline

Investors will be watching whether GM can keep buying back stock without sliding into negative free cash flow. For Ford, the question is simpler: does Model e narrow losses fast enough to justify skipping buybacks while the stock trades below $17?

Why GM Is Currently Winning the Cash-Return Game

For income-focused investors, Ford’s 3.6% yield is hard to ignore, and continued growth in Ford Pro software keeps the thesis alive. However, GM’s combination of a shrinking share count, raised guidance, and a cheaper forward multiple makes for a more disciplined capital-return setup. Ford rallied 63.7% over the past year and GM 72.3%, so the market already senses the gap. If Ford Energy starts producing real revenue, or if GM’s tariff exposure widens beyond the current $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion band, that might be reason to reconsider.

The post GM Authorized $6 Billion in Buybacks. Will Ford Match the Move? appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Larry Kudlow spent Wednesday evening on Fox Business arguing that the economy is stronger than headlines admit. “The Trumpian economy is absolutely booming as is the stock market,” he said, listing the receipts: an Atlanta Fed nowcast pointing to 4.3% real GDP growth in the second quarter, core goods prices up only 1.1% excluding food and energy, household wealth around 180 trillion dollars, and profits soaring 15% or better. The pump price, in Kudlow’s telling, is noise around a much louder signal.

The macro data mostly cooperates. BEA corporate profits hit $4,392.5 billion in Q1 2026, up 12% year over year, the fourth straight quarter of acceleration. Polymarket traders give an 80.5% probability that the U.S. avoids recession by year end 2026, a figure that has drifted down five points over the past month as Q2 data firms up. Q1 real GDP came in softer at 1.6%, dragged by an import surge, but the underlying components Kudlow cares about, gross private investment up 7.0% and government spending recovering, are where the “Trumpian” story lives.

The gas-price asterisk is real, and it is on the income statement

The EIA’s May Short-Term Energy Outlook now forecasts Brent crude averaging $95 per barrel in 2026 and retail gasoline averaging $3.88 per gallon. That is not nothing for households or for companies that burn jet fuel for a living. The market is asking whether those companies can grow through it.

GE Aerospace is the cleanest expression of the capex boom

GE Aerospace (NYSE:GE) put up a quarter strong enough to let a CEO maintain guidance with a smile. Q1 2026 orders hit $23.0 billion, up 87% year over year, with commercial wins including 300+ LEAP-1A engines for American Airlines, 300 GEnx for United, and 60 GEnx for Delta. Adjusted EPS of $1.86 beat the $1.60 consensus, and management is trending toward the high end of its $7.10 to $7.40 full-year adjusted EPS range. The earnings release flags elevated Brent through Q3 2026 as a risk and still raises the bar. The stock has returned 31.89% over the past year.

NVIDIA carries the AI infrastructure line

NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA) reported Q1 FY2027 revenue of $81.62 billion, up 85.2% year over year, with data center revenue of $75.25 billion and total supply commitments now at $119 billion. Jensen Huang called it “the largest infrastructure expansion in human history“, and the company authorized an $80 billion buyback and lifted the quarterly dividend from $0.01 to $0.25. Shares are up 14% year to date. This is the capex Kudlow’s panel points to when they say business capital investment is running at 9.4% annually.

Ford, KeyCorp, and the American Airlines stress test

Ford (NYSE:F) raised its 2026 adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion after a Q1 that included a $1.30 billion one-time IEEPA tariff benefit, which explicitly thanks the policy mix. Shares are up 23.85% year to date.

KeyCorp (NYSE:KEY) showed EPS up 33% year over year, NIM expansion of 29 basis points to 2.87%, and a raised FY26 NII growth outlook of 9 to 10%. Regional bank net interest margins widening on stable funding is exactly the bank-credit health check that recession callers keep flunking.

American Airlines (NASDAQ:AAL) is the gas-price stress test in equity form. The carrier delivered record Q1 revenue of $13.91 billion, up 10.8%, with Atlantic PRASM up 16.7% and AAdvantage enrollments up 25%, while absorbing more than $4 billion of incremental fuel expense for the year. CEO Robert Isom still expects “modest profitability for the year assuming the current forward fuel curve”. Shares have ripped 27.74% over the past month as investors decided demand was eating fuel for breakfast.

What the 401(k) data says about Trump’s claim

President Trump’s line about 401(k)s at all-time highs checks out. Fidelity’s Q4 2025 retirement analysis showed the average 401(k) balance up more than 11% over Q4 2024, the third straight year of double-digit annual increases, with five-year continuous savers averaging $304,200.

Investors sitting on those balances are facing a rebalancing question rather than a chase, because a portfolio that drifted to 80% equities in 2023 is now riding a much heavier AI and industrials weighting than it signed up for. Watch the Q2 GDP release and Brent’s path through summer. If Kudlow’s 4.3% nowcast holds and crude rolls over, his thesis stops being a Fox Business monologue and starts being the base case.

The post Larry Kudlow: The ‘Trumpian Economy’ Is Booming Despite the Gas Price Noise appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Retail investors on Reddit are calling Ford (NYSE: F) a winner. Wall Street analysts are calling it a hold. That kind of disconnect usually defines a meme stock, so it’s worth asking whether the venerable automaker now belongs in that category, or if retail investors simply recognized the value first.

Ford by the Numbers

The stock closed at $14.93 on May 22, 2026, after a 43.0% one-year run and an 18.2% one-month surge. Market cap stands at roughly $59.5 billion, with a beta of 1.66, a forward P/E near 9, and a 4.0% dividend yield.

Wall Street is unimpressed. The $13.70 mean price target is less than the current price, and the analysts’ consensus recommendation is to hold shares.

Reddit tells a different story. Sentiment readings have stayed bullish in the 71 to 78 range for 10 straight days. A wallstreetbets post titled “$F Boom shakalaka!!” captured the mood:

Who else is on this roller coaster?? This is $F’in awesome!! The early tremors of this volitility reverberate through my inner core. This is what I live for!!! That’s my 100k 2 cents for today.

Why It Looks Like a Meme Stock

The setup checks several boxes. The share price is retail-friendly. Volatility has been severe, swinging from an $11.1 billion GAAP loss in Q4 2025 tied to $10.7 billion in Model e impairments to a $2.55 billion Q1 2026 net income. And the stock has rallied while ratings stayed frozen.

Why It Isn’t

The behavior underneath the price says otherwise. Reddit activity scores are mostly low, ranging from 18 to 50, far from the coordinated pumping that defined GameStop or AMC. The float is huge, with 67.7% institutional ownership and 3.91 billion shares outstanding, making a squeeze structurally implausible.

The bullish case rests on real fundamentals. Q1 2026 revenue grew 6% year over year to $43.25 billion, Ford Pro produced $1.69 billion in EBIT at 11.4% margins, and management raised full-year adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion. CEO Jim Farley framed it plainly:

Our strong first-quarter results and raised full-year guidance reflect the momentum of the Ford+ plan… We are well-prepared to deliver for our customers and shareholders as we enter one of the most intensive product, software and physical services rollouts in our history.

Plus, recent insider transactions show net buying.

Bottom Line

Ford is a value name with a 4.0% yield, single-digit forward earnings, and a credible commercial-software flywheel in Ford Pro, where paid subscriptions grew 30% to 879,000. Retail noticed before analysts upgraded. The sentiment gap represents an opportunity worth studying, with Model e’s projected $4.0 billion to $4.5 billion full-year loss as the obvious caveat.

The post Is Ford a Meme Stock Now? Wall Street and Retail Can’t Agree appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Shares of Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) are up 8% in midday trading on Friday, decisively outstripping Detroit peers General Motors (NYSE:GM), up 2%, and Stellantis (NYSE:STLA), up 1%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is participating in the move, gaining 1%, but Ford stock is doing the heavy lifting in the automotive cohort.

The bigger reveal sits in the year-to-date scorecard. Ford is the only member of the Big Three with a positive 2026, up 13%, while GM is down 3% and Stellantis is down 31%. The Detroit comeback narrative has a clear leader, and it isn’t the one that most investors would have picked six months ago.

The cohort is moving together today, yet the spread between Ford and Stellantis tells the real story. Each name is being judged on its own product roadmap, capital allocation, and adjacency optionality.

Why Ford Is Leading the Detroit Comeback

Ford stock’s surge stacks fresh catalysts on top of a strong Q1 2026 print, detailed in the company’s 10-Q filing with the SEC. The company posted EPS of $0.66 on revenue of $43.25 billion, with adjusted EBIT improving $2.5 billion year over year to $3.49 billion.

Ford’s management raised full-year 2026 adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion, with free cash flow of $5 billion to $6 billion. Ford Pro paid software subscriptions grew 30% to 879,000 globally, a high-margin annuity stream that’s increasingly visible in the segment mix.

Layer on this week’s Ford Energy launch, an EDF battery storage framework agreement, and a European product refresh, and Ford has a multi-trillion-dollar adjacency narrative to sell investors. Ford CEO Jim Farley stated, “Our strong first-quarter results and raised full-year guidance reflect the momentum of the Ford+ plan.”

GM Joins the Rally, but the 2026 Story Has Cooled

General Motors stock is up on the session, and the longer lens still sets the company’s management in a positive light. GM stock has benefited from a powerful 2025 driven by capital returns, an aggressive buyback, and stronger truck profitability.

However, General Motors’ 2026 story has lost momentum. Q1 2026 delivered an adjusted EPS beat of $3.70 versus $2.62 consensus, yet GM’s U.S. market share slipped to 16.5% from 17.2% and the quarter carried a $1.08 billion EV realignment charge.

General Motors raised its full-year EPS-adjusted guidance to $11.50 to $13.50, but there’s no fresh adjacency story comparable to Ford Energy. With Cruise wound down, the optionality narrative has narrowed even as General Motors’ core truck and SUV business holds up.

Stellantis Lifts Modestly, Still the Structural Laggard

Stellantis stock is up fractionally, but the year-to-date picture is brutal. STLA stock is down 31% in 2026 after a Q4 2025 reset that booked $25.4 billion in unusual charges tied to EV program cancellations and platform impairments.

Stellantis’s Q1 2026 print showed real stabilization. North America swung to a $307.58 million profit from a $633.87 million loss on Ram 1500 HEMI V-8 and refreshed Jeep Grand Wagoneer demand, and adjusted operating income nearly tripled to $1.12 billion. However, S&P downgraded Stellantis’s credit to BBB-, and the 2026 dividend has been suspended.

Stellantis CEO Antonio Filosa acknowledged the cost of “over-estimating the pace of the energy transition.” The recovery thesis is real, but Stellantis has guided to positive industrial free cash flow only by 2027.

Bull and Bear Cases for Ford From Here

The bull case for Ford stock rests on Ford Energy optionality, the Ford Pro software-and-services flywheel, and a 2026 guidance bar management has already raised. The F stock analyst target price sits at $13.70, with a forward P/E ratio of 8x, leaving the stock reasonably valued if execution holds.

The bear case pertains to timing and cycle exposure. Ford Energy deliveries under the EDF framework don’t begin until 2028, and the Q1 report included a one-time $1.3 billion IEEPA tariff benefit that won’t recur. Commodity headwinds of about $2 billion and tariff impacts also remain baked into Ford’s guidance.

Prudent investors may consider moderate position sizing here, given the run in F stock. Watch for whether Ford stock holds today’s gains into the close; also, look out for General Motors’ next earnings catalyst and any strategic update from Stellantis as potential inflection points.

The post Ford Surges 8%, Easily Outpaces General Motors and Stellantis: The Detroit Comeback Has a Clear Leader appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is once again sucking up financial oxygen, with Reddit’s wallstreetbets crowd posting sentiment scores as high as 88 (Very Bullish) on robotaxi, Optimus, and China-deal chatter.

Tesla closed at $404.11 on May 19, 2026, against a trailing P/E of 373 and a forward P/E of 208, with a PEG ratio of 5.9. The stock is down 10.14% year to date, and the underlying business no longer behaves like a hyper-growth story. First-mover pricing power is steadily eroding under intense global competition and heavy discounting. Q1 26 vehicle deliveries grew just 6% YoY after Q4 25 deliveries dropped 16% YoY to 418,227 units. Full-year 2025 net income fell 46.79% to $3.79 billion. The remaining bull case leans on Cybercab, Optimus, and Robotaxi promises that contribute zero to today’s earnings. Tesla pays no dividend and runs no meaningful buyback, leaving investors with a story-driven valuation.

The contrarian play sits in plain sight: three legacy automakers printing cash at single-digit forward multiples.

1. General Motors is buying back stock and raising guidance

General Motors (NYSE: GM) just posted adjusted Q1 26 EPS of $3.70 versus the $2.62 consensus, a fourth consecutive beat, and raised FY26 adjusted EPS guidance to $11.50 to $13.50. Shares trade at a forward P/E of 6 against an analyst target of $93.92, with the stock at $72.63. Management hiked the quarterly dividend 20% to $0.18 in January 2026, authorized a fresh $6.0 billion buyback, and already repurchased $800 million in Q1. Share count shrank from 995 million to 904 million during 2025.

2. Ford’s Ford+ plan is delivering real cash

Ford (NYSE: F) reported Q1 26 EPS of $0.66 on revenue of $43.25 billion, with adjusted EBIT improving $2.50 billion year over year to $3.49 billion. Ford Pro produced 11.4% margins and grew software subscriptions 30% YoY to 879,000. CEO Jim Farley said, “Our strong first-quarter results and raised full-year guidance reflect the momentum of the Ford+ plan.” Shares at $13.06 carry a 4.48% dividend yield and a forward P/E of 7, with the $0.15 quarterly dividend intact through every cycle.

3. Stellantis is deep value with the turnaround in motion

Stellantis (NYSE: STLA) is the cigar butt of the bunch at $7.35, down 32.51% YTD and trading at a price-to-book of 0.32. Q1 26 swung to a $440.9 million net profit from a $452.6 million loss a year earlier. North America flipped from a $633.9 million operating loss to $307.6 million profit, and adjusted operating income nearly tripled to $1.12 billion. Ram, the refreshed Jeep Grand Wagoneer, and the all-new Jeep Cherokee lifted NA market share 80 basis points to 7.9%. Forward P/E sits at 9.

Retirement investors want cash flow, dividends, and a margin of safety. Legacy giants possess massive legacy cash-flow engines from internal combustion and commercial fleets to fund their transition strategies. Tesla bulls are paying $373 of price for every $1 of trailing earnings; Detroit delivers profit per dollar today.

For investors prioritizing cash flow and a margin of safety, GM, Ford, and Stellantis screen more favorably than the Tesla hype trade on current fundamentals.

The post Forget Tesla for Retirees: Here Are 3 Value-Driven Automotive Stalwarts to Buy Right Now appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

In the shadow of the massive SpaceX IPO, the stock of Elon Musk’s other big company is struggling. SpaceX could debut with a $2 trillion market cap as it raises $80 billion. It will need the money. The SpaceX loss in the first quarter was $4.3 billion against $4.69 billion in revenue. The loss was because of Musk’s AI ambitions. The AI division lost $2.5 billion. It hardly matters; Musk controls 85% of the SpaceX voting rights and can do as he pleases.

Musk has also said the future of Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) lies in AI and AI-related products, including its Robotaxi and Optimus robots (Tesla Bot). Musk says there will be 10 billion humanoid robots worldwide by 2040. These will be priced at $20,000 to $25,000. If it works, Tesla will have a revenue bonanza.

But, at least some portion of Wall St. is concentrated on Tesla’s current business, which is mostly EVs. The drop in Tesla’s market share in many parts of the world and the flattening of sales in key markets like the US have made EVs much less attractive as a source of income. Tesla was the clear market leader in China, the US, and Europe for a few years in a row. Last year, Tesla’s EV sales in the EU dropped by double digits. In the US, most measured sales were flat.

In China, the world’s largest EV market by far, Tesla competes with dozens of companies. Some have received government financial assistance. Some have vehicles that are much less expensive than Tesla’s. Many auto experts say that the overall features of some EVs are better than Tesla’s.

Tesla’s stock is down 7% this year. The S&P 500 is up 8%. And America’s worst-run car company, Ford (NYSE: F), has a flat stock price.

Last year, Tesla’s global unit sales were basically flat at just over 1.6 million.

Based on first-quarter revenue, Tesla’s auto division staged some recovery as its revenue was up 16% year over year to $16.2 billion.

Most people who follow Tesla say a jump in the stock will require two things. The first is a rapid growth in its core car business. The second is that there is greater hope that the Robotaxi and Optimus products show signs of being viable and can be sold at scale.

The post Tesla’s Stock Price Problem Refuses To Go Away appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Shares of Ford (NYSE:F) are up 6% in premarket trading Monday, changing hands near $14.21 after a one-two punch of strategic announcements. The move sharply outpaces both legacy peer General Motors (NYSE:GM) and EV leader Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) in the early session.

For context, F stock entered the day with a one-month gain of 4% and a one-year return near 25%. Today’s gap higher would mark its strongest single-session move in some time, with the 52-week high of $14.94 suddenly back in sight.

It’s an unusual setup. Ford isn’t always the leader of this trio, and today the legacy automaker has clearly produced the better story.

Ford Energy Deal Fuels an AI Infrastructure Re-Rating Debate

The headline catalyst is the launch of Ford Energy and a 5-year framework agreement with EDF power solutions North America, announced at 7:00 a.m. ET. The deal covers up to 20 GWh of battery energy storage systems (BESS) over the term, up to 4 GWh per year, with deliveries expected to begin in 2028.

The hook for traders is the customer mix. Ford Energy plans to assemble BESS in the U.S. for utility-scale, data center, and commercial/industrial customers, with the data center exposure offering a direct tie-in to surging AI power demand. Lisa Drake, President of Ford Energy, framed the launch as combining “industrial-scale manufacturing discipline with full lifecycle accountability.”

The flagship product, the Ford Energy DC Block, is a 20-foot containerized 5.45 MWh system using 512 Ah LFP prismatic cells with liquid-cooled thermal management. The bull case is straightforward: Ford stock could re-rate from a cyclical auto name toward an AI-adjacent infrastructure play.

The bear case for Ford, however, deserves equal billing. Deliveries don’t start for nearly two years, execution risk is real, and AI infrastructure narratives have inflated plenty of other stocks beyond their fundamentals.

Europe Strategy Adds a Second Leg

The second catalyst came at 6:00 a.m. ET, when Ford unveiled a comprehensive European product and services rollout in Salzburg under a new “Ready-Set-Ford” global brand platform. Management committed to five all-new passenger vehicles by end of 2029, including a new Bronco family member built in Valencia, Spain from 2028.

The commercial side may matter more for the investment case. Ford detailed the Ranger Super Duty for heavy-duty work and the Transit City all-electric urban van, while Ford Pro keeps building out its software flywheel. Ford’s Q1 2026 worldwide paid software subscriptions rose 30% to 879,000, with gross margins above 50%.

That subscription growth sits on top of an already-strong quarter. Ford reported Q1 2026 revenue of $43.25 billion, up 6% year over year, and raised its full-year adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion.

GM and Tesla Provide the Contrast

General Motors has no comparable catalyst today, and GM stock comes into the session flat for the day and down 8% year to date despite a recent Q1 2026 adjusted EPS beat of $3.70 versus a $2.62 estimate. Analysts still carry an average target near $93.92, but the tape isn’t rewarding GM stock this morning.

Tesla stock, meanwhile, is slightly down for the session following Barron’s reporting that Tesla’s CFO is selling shares. Polymarket data shows bullish conviction fading, with the $465 May target sitting at just 16% implied probability and a 26% weekly decline in conviction.

The divergence sharpens Ford’s narrative. On a day when the EV leader is fending off insider selling and GM has nothing fresh to offer, Ford stock is the one moving on a real catalyst.

What to Watch

The first test arrives at the 9:30 a.m. ET open, where momentum traders will determine whether the premarket spike holds. Analyst response is the next signpost, given that consensus on Ford stock still skews neutral with 15 Hold ratings versus 5 Buy or Strong Buy ratings and an average target near $13.70.

Prudent investors weighing this story should keep their Ford stock position sizing measured. The re-rating thesis is intriguing, yet a 2028 delivery timeline leaves plenty of room for the market to second-guess today’s enthusiasm before any battery ships.

The post Ford Rises 6%, Easily Outpaces General Motors and Tesla appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Shares of Ford (NYSE:F) are getting hit hard in mid-morning trading on Friday, down 7% intraday and changing hands around $13.50 after closing at $14.48 on Thursday. The drop essentially erases yesterday’s 7% auto-sector rally, and Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) is sliding alongside it.

Tesla is off 4% on the session, giving back a chunk of a recent run that had carried the stock 22% higher over the prior month. The move looks like a sentiment-driven unwind of two recently hot trades rather than a fundamental break. Heading into Friday, Ford stock had ripped 20% in just one week.

Profit-Taking Hits a Pair of Hot Names

Ford’s reversal lines up with classic post-rally profit-taking. After last week’s surge and Thursday’s 7% pop, momentum traders had a wide cushion of gains to lock in, and Friday’s tape gave them a reason to do it. The operational story (F-Series strength, the Pro commercial business with 11% Q1 2026 margins) hasn’t shifted overnight.

Bear in mind, Ford’s management raised its full-year guidance just last month, lifting the FY2026 adjusted EBIT range to $8.5B to $10.5B after a Q1 report that delivered $43.25B in revenue and $2.55B in net income. Today’s slide doesn’t square with that fundamental backdrop, which is why “car wreck” overstates the damage on a thesis level.

Tesla Caught in a Broader High-Beta Unwind

Tesla stock’s 4% pullback is smaller than Ford’s, but it pushes Tesla stock deeper into negative territory for the year. Through Thursday’s close, TSLA was already 1% in the red year to date.

Tesla trades largely on the AI and robotaxi narrative rather than on auto-cycle fundamentals, which is why the stock often moves with broader high-beta sentiment. On a generally risk-off day, Friday is seeing parallel weakness in chip names and crypto-linked stocks.

Tesla’s valuation leaves little margin for sentiment air pockets. The trailing P/E ratio at 399x and the forward P/E ratio at 208x are quite elevated, against an analyst target of $412.25.

Retail Crowd Isn’t Panicking

Despite the sharp moves, Reddit sentiment around Ford stock actually improved into Friday morning, with the score climbing from 75 Thursday evening to 78 by 6:00 a.m. ET. Top-trafficked posts in r/WallStreetBets focused on long-horizon Ford wins, not capitulation.

A sentiment reading on Friday came in at 78 (bullish) for Tesla, driven by an r/options post titled “TSLA Musk-China Hype Week: Turned Blood into Bucks!” Retail traders appear to be treating the dip as tactical in nature.

What to Watch Into the Close

The key question for Ford stock is whether buyers defend the 50-day moving average near $12.09, which would keep the multi-week uptrend technically intact. The analyst target of $13.70 sits right around current trading levels.

For Tesla, the 50-day moving average of $386.45 is the next obvious line to watch if the high-beta selloff intensifies. Friday afternoons often bring de-risking into the weekend, so keep an eye on whether either name stabilizes by the closing bell.

The takeaway: two-day whipsaws of this size in large-cap automakers like Ford are unusual, but the fundamental setup hasn’t changed. Prudent investors may want to wait for sentiment to settle before chasing either direction.

The post Car Wreck: Ford Falls 7%, Tesla Slides 4% appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

With the S&P 500 yielding under 2% and money-market rates drifting lower as the Fed signals easing, income investors are hunting for higher-yielding alternatives with room for capital appreciation. Stocks under $30 can offer that combination, especially when they pair attractive payouts with analyst support. The key is finding names where the yield is funded by real cash generation, not stretched payout ratios.

Here are three top-rated dividend stocks trading under $30 heading into May.

AGNC Investment (NASDAQ: AGNC)

AGNC Investment (NASDAQ:AGNC) is the largest pure-play Agency mortgage REIT, holding a $94.70B portfolio of government-backed mortgage securities. Shares ended April well inside the $30 ceiling and up 43.79% over the past year.

The draw is income. AGNC pays a $0.12 monthly dividend, or $1.44 annually, held steady since January 2020. Trailing EPS of $1.28 supports a forward P/E of 7, and the analyst target sits at $11.44 with 5 buy or strong-buy ratings against 9 holds and zero sells.

The bull case rests on improving spread economics. Q1 2026 net spread and dollar roll income rose to $0.42 per share from $0.35, and net interest spread expanded 25 basis points to 2.06%. FY2025 delivered a 22.7% economic return on tangible common equity.

The risk is book value volatility. AGNC posted a Q1 net loss of $0.17 per share as Middle East geopolitical turmoil widened MBS spreads and pushed tangible book value down 5.6% to $8.38. For income-focused buyers willing to tolerate volatility, the monthly check remains the draw.

Blue Owl Capital (NYSE: OWL)

Blue Owl Capital (NYSE:OWL) is an alternative asset manager focused on private credit, real assets and GP strategic capital. Shares trade at $9.75, down 33.38% year to date, pushing the yield up sharply.

Blue Owl announced a 2026 annual dividend of $0.92 per share ($0.23 quarterly), up from $0.90 in 2025 and $0.72 in 2024. The forward P/E of 10 is meaningfully below its trailing multiple, and analysts carry a $12.83 target with 10 buy or strong-buy ratings versus 5 holds.

Fundamentals diverge from the chart. Q4 2025 EPS of $0.24 beat the $0.22 consensus, revenue of $755.60 million grew 19.7% YoY, AUM crossed $307 billion (+22% YoY), and FRE margins expanded to 61.6%. Co-CEO Marc Lipschultz noted, “During the fourth quarter, we crossed $300 billion of AUM, a big milestone for the firm.”

The risk is the disconnect between operating performance and stock price. FY2025 GAAP net income fell 28% on acquisition costs, and investor concerns around liquidity and legal challenges have weighed on shares. The $0.92 payout and $326 million in prospective annual fees from undeployed AUM provide a sturdy floor for the dividend.

Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F)

Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) builds the F-Series, Bronco, Explorer and Maverick, and runs a fast-growing commercial business through Ford Pro. Shares are up 26.78% over the past year.

Ford pays a $0.15 quarterly dividend, yielding 4.84%, with the next payment due June 1, 2026. The forward P/E sits at 8, and the analyst target of $13.78 implies modest upside backed by 5 buy or strong-buy ratings.

Q1 2026 was a turning point. Ford reported EPS of $0.66, revenue of $43.25 billion (+6% YoY), and adjusted EBIT of $3.49 billion. Management raised full-year adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5B to $10.5B and free cash flow guidance to $5.0B to $6.0B. Ford Pro margins expanded to 11.4%, with software subscriptions +30% YoY to 879,000.

Risks remain real. Ford flagged ~$2 billion in commodity headwinds and ~$1 billion in tariff impacts, Model e lost $777 million, and Q1 free cash flow ran negative $1.874 billion. CEO Jim Farley framed the quarter: “Our strong first-quarter results and raised full-year guidance reflect the momentum of the Ford+ plan.” For dividend hunters, $0.66 of quarterly EPS comfortably covers the $0.15 payout.

A low share price alone is not a thesis. Each name carries genuine risk, from MBS spread volatility at AGNC to legal overhang at Blue Owl to tariff exposure at Ford. Use this list as a starting point for your research, weigh payouts against underlying cash generation, and size positions to fit your income and risk profile.

The post The S&P 500 Barely Yields 2%. These 3 Dividend Stocks Under $30 Are Doing Much Better Than That appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Shares of Ford (NYSE:F) are up 8% on Thursday morning, trading near $14.60 after closing yesterday at $13.57. The move extends a second straight session of decisive outperformance versus the Detroit and Austin peers.

For context, Ford stock climbed 6% yesterday, and the two-day rip has been decisive. Ford’s market cap sits near $57 billion, and the rally has flipped the stock’s year-to-date scoreboard from laggard to leader in just two trading sessions.

Meanwhile, General Motors (NYSE:GM) stock is up a modest 3% to around $78.25, and Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) stock is essentially flat at $445.18. Ford’s outperformance now looks like a clear two-session leadership rotation.

Earnings Momentum Plus a Rotation Bid

The fundamental backdrop for Ford remains the late-April catalyst. The company posted Q1 2026 EPS of $0.66 on revenue of $43.25 billion, and management raised full-year adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion.

Ford Pro continues to anchor the bull case. Software subscriptions in that segment grew 30% year over year to 879,000, and Ford Blue posted EBIT of $1.94 billion on F-Series, Bronco, and Expedition demand. Ford CEO Jim Farley stated the quarter reflects “the momentum of the Ford+ plan.”

When a stock rips this hard in two sessions, momentum traders and short covering both amplify the tape. The dividend dynamic also matters here. Ford’s next payout of $0.15 per share is payable June 1, and as yield-seeking flows rotate back into autos, Ford stock and GM stock benefit in ways TSLA stock simply does not.

Peers Lag as the YTD Scoreboard Flips

The relative tape tells the story. Ford stock is now up 11% year to date (YTD), while Tesla sits at -1% and General Motors trails at -4%. That’s a meaningful gap as Ford started May as the weakest of the three.

Tesla has its own AI and robotaxi narrative, and the stock is still up 26% over the past month. However, it has traded sideways during Ford’s two-day surge, which suggests capital is rotating into value-priced auto names rather than chasing high-multiple EV exposure. Reddit chatter on TSLA over the past week skewed bearish, with retail focus drifting toward Trump-Xi summit headlines.

General Motors has its own positives, including a Q1 2026 beat and a J.P. Morgan Buy rating with a $97 price target. Yet GM stock’s strategy pivot away from next-generation EV trucks and toward V-8 production has not, so far, translated into the kind of two-day price action Ford has just delivered.

What to Watch Next

The bull case for Ford rests on F-Series demand, Pro commercial software growth, and capital discipline alongside the dividend. The bear case is real, too: aluminum-led commodity headwinds of roughly $2 billion, Model e losses guided to $4 billion to $4.5 billion, and competitive pressure from Chinese EV makers.

Insider activity from earlier this spring offers some comfort. Executive Chair Bill Ford was a net acquirer in February and March, picking up 140,000 Class B shares at $13.8175 alongside large common-stock blocks. That positioning aligns with management’s raised guidance tone.

Watch for whether Ford stock holds above $14.50 into the close. A clean finish at the highs could confirm the rotation thesis, while a fade back below yesterday’s close may signal that the two-day move was largely short covering rather than fresh institutional buying.

The post Ford Zooms 8% Higher, Easily Outpaces General Motors and Tesla appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Shares of Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) are up roughly 7% in Wednesday morning trading, climbing to about $12.82 from a prior close of $11.99. The move is the stock’s sharpest single-day gain in weeks, and it stands out against a generally quiet automotive tape.

By comparison, Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) stock is up 3% to around $446.70, while General Motors (NYSE:GM) stock is barely changed at $76.88. On a single-day basis, Ford stock is decisively leading the Detroit-plus-Austin group.

The backdrop is calm. The VIX is sitting at 17.99, well inside its normal range, which suggests today’s gap between Ford and its peers reflects company-specific and sector dynamics rather than a broad risk rotation.

Ford Carries Q1 Momentum Into May

Ford’s late-April quarter remains the most recent fundamental catalyst, and it continues to set the tone. The company posted Q1 2026 EPS of $0.66 on revenue of $43.25 billion, up 6% year over year (YoY), with adjusted EBIT of $3.49 billion that included a $1.3 billion one-time International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariff benefit.

Management also raised full-year adjusted EBIT guidance to a range of $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion, up from the prior $8 billion to $10 billion range. Ford CEO Jim Farley stated that the results “reflect the momentum of the Ford+ plan,” pointing to cost and quality gains as the foundation for the next leg.

Ford Pro continues to be the standout segment, generating $1.69 billion in EBIT with paid software subscriptions reaching 879,000. Ford Blue contributed $1.94 billion in EBIT on $23.9 billion in revenue, and the Model e loss narrowed to $777 million. That mix keeps Ford’s commercial and fleet franchise the most reliable profit center, and it’s the part of the story investors appear to be leaning into.

GM and Tesla Are Trailing on the Day

General Motors is the more direct comparison, and its sluggish session looks like a pause after a strong one-year run. GM stock is up 56% over the past year through Tuesday’s close, easily outpacing Ford’s 19% and Tesla’s 36% over the same window.

The fundamentals aren’t the issue for General Motors. Q1 2026 adjusted EPS came in at $3.70 versus the $2.62 consensus, a 41% beat, and management raised full-year adjusted EPS guidance to $11.50 to $13.50. Investors appear to have already priced much of that in.

Tesla, meanwhile, moves on its own clock. The stock trades at a P/E ratio of roughly 429x and reacts more to Full Self-Driving (FSD), robotaxi, and energy storage milestones than to the same truck and commercial demand cycle that drives the legacy Detroit names.

YTD: Tesla Is the Relative Leader

Zoom out and the headline question gets more nuanced. Through Tuesday’s close, Tesla was down 4% year to date (YTD), GM was down 6%, and Ford was down 6%, with Ford the laggard of the three in 2026.

In other words, “leader” YTD really means “least negative.” Today’s move helps Ford close the YTD gap with Tesla, but it doesn’t flip the longer-term scoreboard on its own. The whole sector remains under pressure on tariffs, EV economics, and demand normalization.

The structural divide matters, too. Ford and General Motors trade as traditional auto cyclicals, where pickup demand, dealer inventories, and incentive spend drive the earnings model. Tesla still trades on an EV-plus-AI-plus-robotaxi narrative that draws a different shareholder base, which helps explain why a single-day catalyst can move Ford sharply without pulling Tesla along.

The dividend dynamic also separates the legacy names. Ford declared a $0.15 Q2 2026 dividend payable June 1, and General Motors continues to pay $0.18 per share, while Tesla pays nothing and reinvests in autonomy, energy, and AI compute.

What to Watch

Keep an eye on whether Ford stock can hold the $12.75 area into the close. A clean break above recent range highs would put the YTD deficit versus Tesla within reach, while a fade would suggest today’s pop is more about positioning than a fundamental re-rate.

From here, the next concrete catalysts are May U.S. Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate (SAAR) data, any updates on the Novelis aluminum recovery, and Q2 results this summer. Reddit traffic on the names has stayed measured, with Ford sentiment scores recently in the 58 to 68 range, so today’s bid appears institutional. Momentum traders may keep Ford active into the afternoon, though the broader auto sector setup still favors stock-picking over a blanket sector trade.

The post Ford Is Up 7% Today: Is It Outperforming Other Car Stocks Like General Motors and Tesla? appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE: F) CEO Jim Farley has signaled the company’s direction: “We need to do a great job as a brand, and as an industry, to make our vehicles more affordable. I think you’re certainly going to see that at Ford over the next couple of years.” For a stock held largely for its 4.9% dividend yield, that comment cuts two ways.

The Setup: A Quarter Strong Enough to Raise Guidance

Farley spoke from a position of strength. Q1 2026 delivered EPS of $0.66 on revenue of $43.25 billion, up 6% YoY, with adjusted EBIT of $3.49 billion. Management raised full-year adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion. Importantly, $1.30 billion of the quarter came from a one-time IEEPA tariff benefit, so momentum is more modest than headlines suggest.

Farley framed the road ahead: “We are well-prepared to deliver for our customers and shareholders as we enter one of the most intensive product, software, and physical services rollouts in our history.”

The Bull Read on Affordability

Cheaper vehicles defend share against Chinese exporters and Tesla price cuts while expanding the buyer pool. Ford is funding the pivot directly, with about $1 billion in incremental Model e investment to support the new Universal EV platform and a Ford Energy ramp backed by $1.5 billion of planned capex.

Ford Pro, the commercial truck and software franchise, posted an 11.4% EBIT margin on $14.7 billion in revenue, with paid software subscriptions reaching 879,000, up 30% year over year. And Ford Blue ran hot at $23.9 billion in revenue, up 14%, on F-Series, Bronco, and Explorer demand.

The Bear Read

Auto margins are thin, and affordability without cost takeout is margin erosion. Ford guides to roughly $2 billion in commodity headwinds, led by aluminum, plus about $1 billion of tariff impact excluding the IEEPA benefit. Model e is guided to lose $4.0 billion to $4.5 billion this year. The 2025 backdrop was uglier: a $10.7 billion Model e impairment, $3.2 billion BlueOval SK charge, and full-year GAAP net loss of $8.16 billion.

Affordability likely means simpler trims, more hybrids, lower-content trucks, and a smaller, scalable EV built on the Universal platform. The preliminary University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment reading for May 2026 is 48.2, deep in pessimistic territory, which validates the strategy while capping pricing power.

What It Means for the Dividend

The board declared a $0.15 quarterly dividend payable June 1, 2026, held steady since 2022. Free cash flow guidance of $5.0 billion to $6.0 billion covers the payout comfortably at current levels, but Q1 was a $1.87 billion free cash flow use, and Farley’s 2029 target of an 8% adjusted EBIT margin assumes affordability lifts volume without crushing per-unit economics. That tradeoff is what retail income holders should track.

Shares trade at about $12.22, down 6.6% year to date but up 19.2% over the past year, with analysts setting an average target of $13.70 and a forward P/E of 9.

The post Jim Farley Has Promised Cheaper Fords. Here’s What That Means for Investors. appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE: F) left the EV business for dead earlier this year. It does appear it will enter again, on a small scale, next year. At the same time, Toyota (NYSE: TM), which sells about as many cars in the US as Ford does, is pressing to expand its EV fleet. Someone is making a mistake.

According to the FT, “We think 2026 is going to be the starting point for Toyota’s full electric shift.” Masahiro Akita, an analyst at Bernstein, wrote. And then added, ‘Most global carmakers had “cancelled or wound back EV targets and booked large losses. On the other hand, Toyota, which was criticized as the biggest laggard in this area, is now ramping up their EV adoption.”’ The paper also noted that Toyota’s unit sales are a fraction of Tesla’s, and, as often pointed out, By the way, Toyota is the largest car company in the world by unit sales at 10 million. The only company that is close is VW, which has also struggled mightily with its EV plans.

What does Toyota see? First, its plans appear to be to develop a lineup across EVs, gas, plugins, and hydrogen. That means no base is left uncovered

However, Toyota must be looking further into the future. Its EV decision comes just as anxiety about global oil supply surges. And, based on geopolitics, this may not change. The future may be one of $ 100-a-barrel oil.

Toyota has to know it needs to do at least moderately well in China. It is the world’s largest EV market, but it is also the most crowded. There are dozens of EV companies there. Not all will last, but the battle for market share means discounting.

The EU and UK are also promising markets. Over 90% of the new cars sold in Norway are EVs. The region is choking because most of its oil and gasoline are imported. While the US is the world’s largest producer of crude and largest exporter, Europe is oil-poor

The problem Toyota cannot solve is the lack of EV sales in the world’s second-largest car market, which is the US. Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is the only car company with substantial EV sales in America; Toyota’s path to EV success in this country will be extremely difficult.

If EV sales in the US ever pick up, Toyota make have a footprint in a market Ford, and other legacy car companies have given up on,

The post Ford Exits EVs As Toyota Move In appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) and Ford (NYSE: F) just reported first quarter results that crystallize the EV split. Tesla leaned into autonomy, AI compute, and humanoid robots while squeezing more margin from its existing fleet. Ford leaned on F-Series trucks, commercial fleets, and software subscriptions to bankroll a costly EV reset. Same industry, very different playbooks.

Robotaxis Carry Tesla. Trucks and Vans Carry Ford.

Tesla’s automotive gross margin expanded to 21.1% from 16.2% a year ago, helped by lower material costs and higher selling prices. EPS came in at $0.41 on revenue of $22.387 billion, with 1.28 million active FSD subscriptions, up 51% year over year. That subscription engine is doing real work. Services revenue jumped 42%, while energy storage slipped 12%, a reminder that battery pack capacity remains the bottleneck.

Ford’s quarter looked nothing alike. EPS hit $0.66 on revenue of $43.25 billion, lifted by Ford Blue’s 14% revenue growth and a $1.3 billion one-time IEEPA tariff benefit. Ford Pro’s commercial software base reached 879,000 paid subscribers, up 30%. Model e still bled, posting a $777 million loss on barely growing sales.

Disruptor Doubles Down. Legacy Triages.

Tesla launched unsupervised Robotaxi rides in Dallas and Houston in April, taped out its AI5 inference processor, and is preparing an Optimus line at Fremont designed for 1 million robots/year. R&D climbed to $1.95 billion. That is a long-duration bet with real burn risk if autonomy timelines slip.

Ford’s response is more surgical. CEO Jim Farley said the quarter reflects “the momentum of the Ford+ plan” as the company enters “one of the most intensive product, software and physical services rollouts in our history.” Management raised full-year adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion, even with commodity headwinds running near $2 billion.

The Next Test Is Autonomy Revenue and EV Discipline

I will be watching whether Tesla can turn unsupervised Robotaxi pilots into recurring revenue before AI capex strains free cash flow further. The University of Michigan consumer sentiment index sat at 53.3 in March, a pessimistic backdrop for any premium vehicle.

Keep an eye on whether Ford’s Universal EV platform can shrink Model e’s expected $4 billion to $4.5 billion 2026 loss while Ford Pro keeps compounding software ARR.

Why I Lean Toward Ford for Cash Flow, Tesla for Optionality

Personally, I think both can work, just for different investors. If you want a steadier setup with a 4.97% dividend yield and a forward P/E around 8, Ford fits. The Ford Pro margin at 11.4% and 879,000 paying software users tell me the recurring revenue thesis is real, even as Model e drags. Negative free cash flow of $1.874 billion in Q1 keeps me cautious.

If you can stomach a $1.468 trillion market cap pricing in autonomy that has not scaled yet, Tesla offers the optionality. Reddit’s wallstreetbets crowd is openly leveraged on it, with one widely upvoted post titled “Going Full regard on TSLA. Borrowed 300k+”. I would wait for clearer Robotaxi unit economics before adding exposure.

The post Tesla vs Ford: One Is a Disrupter While One Is Quietly Building Legacy appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

The Wall Street Journal asked Hyundai Motor CEO José Muñoz if American car companies can make EVs to compete with Chinese ones. “It is impossible, unless they are subsidized by the government,” he said. The chances that the US government will do that are zero. It would have to hand out billions of dollars like it was candy. A new Wall Street Journal profile of Ford’s semi-secret EV project shows that Muñoz is absolutely correct.

The Ford (NYSE: F) plan is yet another blunder by CEO Jim Farley, who has led Ford through failed EV projects since his company said in 2021 that the No. 2 car company would invest $20 billion by the end of 2025. The goal was to reach 40% of Ford’s sales from EVs by 2030. Farlay said when the plan was announced, “This is our biggest opportunity for growth and value creation since Henry Ford started to scale the Model T, and we’re grabbing it with both hands.”

Farley has been involved in this process, which led to Doug Field’s departure as the chief EV, digital, and design officer last week. Someone had to take the blame for Ford’s failure. Executive Chairman, Bill Ford, and Farley were not on that list. It is astonishing that Bill Ford has been chairman since 1999. At any company that is not family-controlled, he would have been gone in the early 21st Century.

The latest plan is to replace the manufacturing process Ford has used for decades in one form or another. Aiming at Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is not enough. Ford wants to go up against Chinese EV companies, which, by many admissions, are years ahead of legacy car companies worldwide. Farley has one thing right. The Chinese EV firms have benefited from government support there. That said, their production costs are low, and their vehicles are extraordinary. What is saving Ford, for the time being, is the 100% tariffs on Chinese cars. Without it, Ford would be gone in a matter of a few years, or less. If Farley keeps his job, he can go down with the ship.

For some reason, Ford believes that because its EV revolution will be run by executives from Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) and Tesla, this will make a difference. Legacy car companies have looked to people with similar skills. This has not made a difference in any cases

Legacy car companies have largely returned to their excellence in building hybrids and gas-powered vehicles. Ford, on the other hand, keeps banging its head against the wall.

The post Ford’s New EV Plan Already Doomed appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Our 24/7 Wall St. price target for Ford (NYSE:F) is $14.59 over the next 12 months, implying 22.78% upside from the current price of $11.88. Our recommendation is buy, with a confidence level of 90%. Ford’s raised full-year guidance, expanding Ford Pro software base, and deeply discounted forward multiple form the foundation of our call.

24/7 Wall St. Price Target Summary

A Choppy Year Built on a Strong Q1

Ford has gained 22.6% over the past year, but year-to-date the stock is down 8.49% and slipped 4.04% in the past week. The 52-week range runs from $9.53 to $14.80, leaving F roughly 7% off the high.

Q1 2026, reported April 29, 2026, was the catalyst. EPS came in at $0.66 on revenue of $43.25 billion (+6% YoY), with adjusted EBIT of $3.49 billion. Management raised full-year adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion and free cash flow to $5 billion to $6 billion.

RBC Capital Markets raised its price target from $11 to $13, keeping a sector perform rating. A separate 179,000-vehicle Bronco and Ranger seat recall tempered enthusiasm into early May.

Why Bulls See a Breakout to $15+

The bull case rests on Ford Pro and Ford Blue. Ford Blue posted $23.9 billion of revenue in Q1 (+14%) on F-Series, Bronco, Explorer, and Expedition demand. Ford Pro generated 11.4% margins, and paid software subscriptions grew 30% YoY to 879,000, a high-quality recurring stream.

CEO Jim Farley stated: “Our strong first-quarter results and raised full-year guidance reflect the momentum of the Ford+ plan.” If commodity costs ease and the Universal EV platform launches on time, our bull-case scenario points to $15.18 within 12 months. A 4.97% dividend yield pays investors to wait.

The Risks Worth Watching

Bears point to the Model e segment, which lost $777 million in Q1 and is guided to $4 billion to $4.5 billion of full-year losses. Commodity headwinds of $2.0 billion (led by aluminum) and tariff impacts of $1 billion compress 2026 earnings, and the Q1 result included a non-recurring $1.30 billion IEEPA tariff benefit.

Wholesale units fell 4% YoY. Bulls argue the Model e drag reflects deliberate investment in the Universal EV platform that should narrow losses in 2027 and beyond. Our bear-case scenario lands at $12.79.

Why I’d Buy Ford Here

Our 24/7 Wall St. price target of $14.59 and buy rating reflect a stock trading at a forward P/E of 8 with a 4.97% dividend, raised guidance, and a high-margin software business in Ford Pro. Confidence is 90%.

I’d be a buyer if commodity pressure peaks in the second half and Ford Pro margins hold above 11%. I’d stay on the sidelines if Model e losses blow past the $4.5 billion ceiling or if the SAAR slips below the 16.0 million floor.

Ford Price Prediction 2026-2030

Looking ahead, here is where our model projects Ford could trade in the coming years, assuming current growth trajectories and a gradual recovery in EV economics.

These projections assume Ford executes on the Ford+ plan and Universal EV ramp. Significant upside or downside could result from EV adoption pace, tariff policy shifts, or a U.S. recession.

The post Ford Stock Poised for 22% Jump appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) is the stock everyone wants to talk about right now, riding a tidy turnaround narrative and a 30.01% one-year gain that has rekindled the old American auto trade.

But here is what you should actually be watching.

Forget Ford. The better trade right now wears a hard hat and digs copper out of the Arizona desert, and the global oil shock unfolding in real time is quietly making its case for it.

The Ford Story Looks Better in Headlines Than in Filings

Ford’s most recent quarter included an $11.10 billion GAAP net loss, mostly from $10.70 billion in Model e EV asset impairments and a $3.2 billion charge tied to the BlueOval SK joint venture. That is the company quietly admitting it overbuilt the EV business at the wrong moment of the cycle.

Adjusted Q4 EPS of $0.13 came in missing estimates of $0.1738. Trailing twelve-month EPS sits at -$2.04, the operating margin is -6.69%, and shareholders’ equity fell roughly 20% year over year.

Management’s headline target is an 8% adjusted EBIT margin by 2029. Three years is a long time to wait while a $1.0 billion tariff headwind compounds and EV pricing keeps grinding lower. Investors need a thesis, not a hope.

The Better Bet Is Copper, and the Vehicle Is Freeport-McMoRan

Freeport-McMoRan (NYSE:FCX) is the quiet beneficiary of every macro story actually playing out right now. WTI crude touched $114.58 per barrel on April 7, 2026, almost double the $59-65 range of April 2025. Iran tensions and Strait of Hormuz disruption fears are pushing every developed economy back toward electrification with a fresh sense of urgency. Every EV, every grid upgrade, every AI data center built in response runs on copper wire.

1. Structural Demand You Cannot Engineer Around

Copper was added to the USGS Critical Minerals List in November 2025. S&P Global projects copper demand reaching 42 million metric tons by 2040, a 50% increase, driven by electrification, AI, defense modernization, and data centers. Over 65% of the world’s copper already moves through electricity delivery infrastructure. And here is the part the battery debate misses entirely. Sodium-ion, solid-state, potassium-ion, magnesium-ion, whatever chemistry wins the next decade still needs copper. The battery chemistry war leaves copper demand intact and may actually increase it.

2. Pricing Power and a Buyback Doing Real Work

FCX just posted Q1 2026 adjusted EPS of $0.57, beating estimates of $0.47, the fourth straight quarterly beat. Realized copper jumped to $5.78 per pound from $4.44 a year ago and gold ran to $4,889 per ounce. Operating income nearly doubled. Management has $2.9 billion remaining on a $5.0 billion buyback and pays a base-plus-variable dividend that scales with the cycle. Forward P/E sits at 22x, which for a company compounding earnings at this pace is reasonable.

3. Tariffs Help This Trade Instead of Hurting It

The 50% U.S. copper import tariff that took effect August 1, 2025 is a moat for the dominant American copper producer and a punishment for foreign suppliers. The September 2025 Grasberg mud rush in Indonesia has Freeport running at roughly 65% capacity through the second half of 2026, with full recovery expected by late 2027. That is your contrarian entry, a temporary operational issue against a structural tailwind that is going nowhere.

The market has already noticed some of this. FCX is up 58.14% over the past year and 15.15% year-to-date, even after a recent pullback that left it well below its 52-week high of $70.97. Analysts carry an average target of $68.04, with 18 of 21 covering the name at Buy or Strong Buy.

For retirement-focused investors tired of being three steps behind every headline, the more interesting research question may not be Ford’s multi-year turnaround but the copper miner the world cannot electrify without.

The post Forget Ford: Buy This Stock Instead as Oil Prices Soar Worldwide appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE: F) sells trucks, SUVs, and commercial vehicles, with Ford Pro and Ford Blue carrying the profit load while Model e bleeds cash. Shares trade near $12, and management just declared another $0.15 quarterly dividend. With an $8.2 billion net loss in 2025 on the books, the key question is whether this dividend payout holds.

Dividend Snapshot

FCF Easily Covers the Regular Payout

Ford paid $2.99 billion in dividends in 2025 against $3.51 billion in free cash flow and $21.28 billion in operating cash flow. For 2026, management guides adjusted FCF of $5.0 billion to $6.0 billion, comfortably above the roughly $2.4 billion regular dividend run rate.

Q1 2026 FCF was −$1.87 billion, a negative result consistent with seasonal patterns in prior years.

Liquidity Buffer Is Substantial, Leverage Is Heavy

Ford ended Q1 2026 with $17.65 billion in cash, plus a renewed $18 billion corporate credit facility. Equity stands at $37.45 billion, against $244.95 billion in liabilities, much of it Ford Credit financing receivables. Interest expense was $1.25 billion in 2025, manageable against EBITDA of $8.53 billion.

The Track Record Has Scars

Ford cut the dividend in 2008 and suspended it in March 2020, reinstated in Q4 2021. The regular rate has held at $0.15 per quarter since mid-2022, with special dividends of $0.18 in 2024 and $0.15 in February 2025. With no dividend growth streak to defend, there is paradoxically less pressure to cut the payout.

Farley Frames a “More Resilient Ford”

CEO Jim Farley said on the Q1 2026 call: “Our strong first-quarter results and raised full-year guidance reflect the momentum of the Ford+ plan. We built the foundation for a more modern, resilient Ford.” Capital returns also included $311 million in Q1 buybacks, signaling confidence in the cash profile.

Verdict: Safe for Now, Specials Are the Variable

Dividend Safety Rating: Safe (regular), Moderate Risk (specials).

The $0.60 regular dividend looks well covered by guided FCF and a deep cash cushion. Ford looks attractive as an income holding if Ford Pro margins hold near 11.4% and consumer sentiment (currently 49.8) stabilizes. Caution is called for if Model e losses exceed the $4.0 billion to $4.5 billion guide or tariffs deepen. The base payout holds. The bonus checks may not.

The post Income Investors Can Rely on Ford’s Dividend: Here’s Why the Payout Is Secure appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

The CBOE Volatility Index (^VIX) is hovering near 18 on Wednesday morning, up roughly 1% as traders position ahead of the Federal Reserve’s afternoon policy decision and mega-cap technology earnings. The fear gauge closed at 17.83 on Tuesday, sitting inside the historically normal 15 to 20 band but well off the 31.05 peak hit on March 27. After a month in which the S&P 500 set fresh all-time highs, a small uptick in implied volatility signals Wall Street is alert. The CBOE Volatility Index (^VIX) has traded in a wide range of approximately 17.40 and 28 in the month of April alone.

Why fear is creeping back

Three forces are nudging volatility higher. The Federal Open Market Committee announces its rate decision today with the upper bound of the federal funds target at 3.75%, unchanged for more than five months after 75 basis points of cuts since September 2025. The 10-year Treasury yield has crept back to 4.35%, pressuring growth multiples. Earnings risk is concentrated: 722 companies report today, including Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), Ford (NYSE:F), and Chipotle (NYSE:CMG), which report after the close.

JPMorgan flagged the setup heading into this week, noting that “options are pricing above-average earnings volatility this quarter. Implied moves are elevated.” The desk pegged Meta (NASDAQ:META)’s expected one-day move at over 7% and Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL)’s at 2.2%. Sentiment also took a hit from chatter around OpenAI’s revenue trajectory falling short of internal targets, a reminder that the AI capex story powering the Nasdaq must keep delivering.

What the price action is actually saying

The whipsaw label fits the week’s price action. The Nasdaq 100 ETF gained 2% over the past week and is up nearly 17% over the past month, while the Dow proxy was essentially flat and the Russell 2000 ETF was roughly flat. Mega-cap tech ripping while small caps stall is exactly the kind of narrow leadership that keeps options traders bidding for protection.

What it means for investors

A VIX near 18 reflects ordinary caution. It prices in a few binary events into the close. The gauge has retraced roughly 43% in a month and now sits at the 56th percentile of its 12-month range. For long-term investors, hedging is cheaper than it was in late March but no longer dirt cheap. Position sizing, not panic selling, is the right move.

Keep an eye on Powell’s tone at the post-meeting press conference and after-hours reactions to Amazon. Either could push the VIX out of its current range before Thursday’s open.

The post VIX Climbs as Fed Decision and Mega-Cap Earnings Keep Investors on Edge appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) and Ford Motor (NYSE:F) just delivered earnings reports that read like dispatches from two different industries. Tesla posted Q1 2026 results powered by AI, autonomy, and margin recovery. Ford closed out Q4 2025 with a heavy EV writedown and a turnaround pitch built around trucks, vans, and software for fleets.

Margin Snapback at Tesla, Cleanup Quarter at Ford

Tesla’s quarter was about the auto business healing. Automotive gross margin expanded to 21.1% from 16.2% a year ago, helped by lower material costs, higher selling prices, and one-time warranty and tariff gains.

Non-GAAP EPS came in at $0.41 against a $0.359 estimate, a 14.14% beat. Services and Other revenue jumped 42% to $3.75 billion, with active FSD subscriptions reaching 1.28 million. Energy storage, oddly, slipped 12%. Inventory days crept up to 27, worth watching.

Ford’s print was uglier on the surface and more interesting underneath. Adjusted EPS of $0.13 missed expectations by 25.20%, and a $11.05 billion GAAP loss reflected $15.5 billion in special charges, including $10.7 billion tied to Model e impairments and EV cancellations.

Yet the underlying business is doing real work: Super Duty had its best year since 2004, up 10%, and Ford Pro paid software subscriptions grew 30% in 2025. CEO Jim Farley told investors Ford “made difficult but critical strategic decisions that set us up for a stronger future” while reiterating an 8% adjusted EBIT margin target by 2029.

An AI Factory vs. a Truck and Van Franchise

Tesla is spending like a software company that happens to make cars. Cybercab, Tesla Semi, and Megapack 3 are all guided to volume production in 2026, and Optimus lines at Fremont are being designed for 1 million robots/year. Unsupervised Robotaxi rides launched in Dallas and Houston in April.

Ford is doing the opposite: narrowing focus to what already prints cash. Ford Pro is guided to $6.5 billion to $7.5 billion EBIT in 2026, with Ford Credit adding roughly $2.5 billion.

What Decides 2026

For Tesla, the question is whether AI capex translates into revenue before patience runs thin. Polymarket traders give a Robotaxi rollout in California by June 30 only a 13.5% chance and Optimus a release by year-end just 15.0%. Shares are down 16.33% year to date even after a 45% one-year gain.

For Ford, the test is margin discipline. I will watch Ford Pro software attach rates and whether Model e losses actually narrow toward the guided $4 billion to $4.5 billion range.

How The Two Theses Stack Up For Different Investor Profiles

Tesla offers exposure to AI, autonomy, and robotics backed by a strong balance sheet, though it trades at a 345 P/E and the 32 insider transactions skewed to selling are worth noting alongside the margin recovery.

Ford represents a cash-flow, dividend, and turnaround story that can be underwritten with a spreadsheet. Insiders are buying, the analyst target sits at $13.85, and Ford Pro is shaping up as a quietly compounding asset. The next two quarters should clarify which thesis is working.

The post Tesla’s AI Bet vs. Ford’s Truck Fortress: Two Paths to Profitability in 2026 appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE: F) CEO Jim Farley has been on a press binge, talking, alternatively, about China’s car joint ventures and the importance of the US government keeping China’s EVs out of America. Left out of the conversation is that Ford recalled 19.5 vehicles from April 2025 to March 2026. That is more than all other car companies that sell vehicles in the US combined. It is a staggering number.

iSeeCars did the math. It reviewed vehicle safety recall campaigns as of April 2, 2026, from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for cars from model years 2017-2025. The research reported, “This company-wide trend is reflected in high lifetime recall projections for vehicles from Ford and its luxury brand, Lincoln.”

In an “expected 30-year lifetime recall” analysis, Ford had 10 of the top 25 by the same measure. And, the trend is bound to affect Ford’s sales. “Car owners universally dread recall notices and the process of addressing them,” said iSeeCars Executive Analyst Karl Brauer.

Ford’s recalls have cost it hundreds of millions of dollars, undermining earnings. Ford took a $600 million charge last year for a fuel injector recall. In February, Farely said, “This is costing the company billions of dollars and ticking off a lot of customers.”

The magnitude of the recall issue is colossal. At 19.5 vehicles recalled, it dwarfed second-place Toyota (NYSE: TM), which had 4.2 million.

Farley says the greatest threat to the company is if the federal government lets Chinese cars into the US. At the same time, he expressed hope that Chinese joint ventures would help his company advance in the EV sector. However, Farley told Fox News on Monday: “We should keep them out of our country.”

Farley is worried about the effect of an open door for Chinese EVs in the US. They are less expensive, better-made, and offer more features than the EVs from legacy car companies. However, the cost advantage stems from the Chinese government’s underwriting of much of its success. One has to go back to 2009 when the federal government last saved the US car companies financially.

Farley may lobby Washington to successfully keep China’s EVs out of the US for now. However, his greatest single challenge for the time being is the poor quality of Ford’s cars.

The post Ford’s Staggering 19.5 Million Vehicle Recalls appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) CEO Elon Musk has publicly taunted rivals: “What happened to all the Tesla killers?” With Tesla holding over 54% of the U.S. electric vehicle (EV) market share in Q1 2026, the taunt carries weight. But the competitive landscape is more nuanced than a single market share figure suggests. The answer, stock by stock, follows.

Rivian: Limping but Still in the Race

Rivian Automotive (NASDAQ: RIVN) is the most credible domestic EV pure-play challenger, though the numbers are humbling. Q4 2025 revenue fell 25.8% year over year to $1.29 billion, driven largely by a collapse in regulatory credits from $299 million to $29 million. The company did cross one meaningful threshold: full-year 2025 gross profit reached $144 million, up 112% year over year, marking the first full year of positive consolidated gross profit.

CEO R.J. Scaringe framed the next chapter around the R2 launch: “It’s incredibly exciting to see the early strong reviews of the R2 pre-production builds, and we can’t wait to get them to our customers next quarter.” First deliveries are targeted for Q2 2026. The R2 will eventually carry a base price around $45,000 with a cost structure less than half that of the R1. Polymarket puts the probability of Rivian announcing bankruptcy before 2027 at 16.5%. Verdict: the R2 launch is the make-or-break moment.

GM and Ford: Retreating, Not Advancing

General Motors (NYSE: GM) absorbed $7.2 billion in EV capacity realignment charges in Q4 2025 alone, on top of $1.59 billion in Q3 and $330 million in Q2. CEO Mary Barra pointed to operational resilience: “GM’s strong brands and winning vehicles, as well as our technology-driven services and operating discipline, have delivered consistently strong cash generation.” But that language describes the legacy internal combustion engine business, not an EV offensive. Full-year 2025 net income fell 55.11% year over year to $2.70 billion. Verdict: the EV killer thesis is dead at GM for now.

Ford (NYSE: F) recorded $10.70 billion in Model e asset impairments and EV program cancellations in Q4 2025, contributing to a GAAP net loss of $11.10 billion for the quarter. CEO Jim Farley called them “difficult but critical strategic decisions” and pointed toward an 8% adjusted EBIT margin target by 2029. Ford Model e is still projected to lose $4.0 billion to $4.5 billion in 2026. Verdict: dead as a near-term Tesla killer.

Pony AI: The Most Credible Long-Term Threat

Pony AI (NASDAQ: PONY) competes in autonomous mobility, where Tesla’s robotaxi ambitions live. The Chinese company grew robotaxi revenue 159.5% year over year in Q4 2025 and achieved citywide unit economics breakeven in Guangzhou and Shenzhen. CEO James Peng set a concrete 2026 target: “We will accelerate top-line growth at faster speed, scale up fleet size to over 3,000 and expand operational areas to deploy Robotaxis in more than 20 cities globally.”

Prediction markets assign only a 10.5% probability to Tesla launching its robotaxi service in California by June 30, 2026. Tesla’s FSD subscriptions grew 38% year over year to 1.1 million, but Pony AI is already generating fare-paying rides at scale in China with a Toyota-backed production pipeline of 1,000 Gen-7 vehicles secured for 2026. Verdict: the most credible threat to Tesla’s autonomous future.

The post ‘What Happened to the Tesla Killers?’ Elon Musk Taunts, but One Rival CEO Is Playing Offense appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford Motor (NYSE:F) is drawing fresh attention from two major Wall Street firms. UBS upgraded F stock to Buy from Neutral, while Goldman Sachs trimmed its price target but kept a Neutral rating. Together, the calls frame a stock at a crossroads: real earnings power building beneath the surface, with near-term headwinds still in play.

UBS analyst Joseph Spak upgraded Ford to Buy from Neutral with an unchanged price target of $15, citing a credible path to meaningful earnings growth. Goldman Sachs analyst Mark Delaney lowered the firm’s price target on Ford to $13 from $15 while keeping a Neutral rating, pointing to softer near-term conditions across the auto sector.

The Analyst’s Case

UBS envisions a compelling earnings recovery story unfolding at Ford. The firm sees a “credible path” to Ford earning over $2 in earnings per share in 2027, or 17% above consensus. That’s a bold call relative to where the Street currently sits.

Beyond 2027, UBS believes Ford should head toward $3 in earnings per share power, driven by its product portfolio, a “more lenient” U.S. regulatory backdrop, and a “more pragmatic” electric vehicle strategy. The firm also argues that concerns over higher gasoline prices and higher aluminum prices are overdone in Ford shares.

Goldman Sachs takes a more cautious stance. Auto OEMs and suppliers are expected to deliver in-line to softer results this quarter due to rising input costs and weak Q1 auto sales in China. That context explains the target trim, even as Goldman stops short of a downgrade.

Company Snapshot

Ford reported strong operational results in 2025 despite EV write-downs. Full-year revenue came in at $187.27 billion, with operating cash flow of $21.282 billion, up 38% year over year. The balance sheet carries $23.356 billion in cash and equivalents.

Ford Pro remains the crown jewel. Ford Pro paid software subscriptions grew 30% in 2025, and Super Duty pickups posted their best volume year since 2004, up 10%. Management is targeting an 8% adjusted EBIT margin by 2029, a significant step up from current levels.

Why the Move Matters Now

F stock is trading at $12.71, well below both the UBS target of $15 and the broader analyst consensus target of $14.04. The forward P/E ratio sits at 8x, suggesting the market is pricing in continued uncertainty rather than the recovery UBS envisions. For investors watching the price target debate, check out Tuesday’s top Wall Street analyst research calls.

Ford also carries a dividend yield of 5% at current prices, with $0.60 in annual dividends per share. For income-focused investors, that yield offers a tangible return while the earnings recovery thesis plays out.

What It Means for Your Portfolio

The divergence between UBS and Goldman Sachs captures exactly where Ford stands. UBS sees an underappreciated earnings recovery; Goldman sees near-term friction warranting patience. Both views are defensible.

If you believe Ford’s product cycle, Ford Pro momentum, and a pragmatic EV pivot can drive earnings toward $2 or more per share in 2027, the current valuation looks attractive. That said, tariff headwinds, quality costs, and ongoing EV losses are real risks. If the long-term recovery thesis plays out, a position sized accordingly could reward patient investors more than a short-term trade.

The post Ford Gets a Rare Double Upgrade From Goldman Sachs and UBS: Is a Major Comeback in the Cards? appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Pre-Market Stock Futures:

The futures are trading mixed this morning, after what started as another week of the same old song and dance yesterday, before stocks turned around before noon, and it was an off-and-running, risk-off Monday, with all the major market indices posting strong gains and finishing the day higher. Once again, the small-cap heavy Russell 2000 was your winner, finishing the day up up 1.31% at 2, 665, while the Nasdaq also came in strong, finishing up 1.23% at 23,183. The S&P 500 closed higher for the 8th straight day at 6,886, up 1.02%, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 48,218, up 0.63%. Wall Street pundits cited hopes for an early end to the Iran war and the start of the first-quarter earnings season, which Goldman Sachs kicked off with huge Q1 results, despite shares falling, as reasons for the solid start to the week.

Treasury Bonds:

Except for the shortest-maturity governement debt, yields were down across the curve as buyers returned for the safe haven provided by U.S. sovereign bonds. The 30-year bond closed Monday at 4.90%, while the 10-year benchmark Treasury note was last seen at 4.30%. 

Oil and Gas:

Despite the failure to achieve any meaningful results at the ceasefire talks, the narrative over the energy complex took a significant turn, as President Trump vowed to block the Straits of Hormuz. This has caused a massive shift, with oil tankers bound for Iran changing course and heading straight to the Gulf of Mexico and South America, where they are loading and departing with zero oil from Iran. Brent Crude closed Monday at $98.24, up 3.19%. West Texas Intermediate finished the day at $97.97, up 1.45%. Natural gas closed Monday at $2.63, virtually unchanged. 

Gold:

The precious metals slumped out of the gate, opening slowly on Monday as much of Wall Street and the rest of the investing world settled in to see the first-quarter opening numbers.  For gold investors, many analysts in the sector continue to note the trading consolidation territory the stocks have been in since the beginning of the year, and being patient may be a great move now. The last price for spot Gold was unchanged at $4,4740, while Silver closed trading on Monday at $73.76.

Crypto:

The Cryptocurrency markets traded lower on Monday, initially driven by “risk-off” sentiment following the collapse of US-Iran peace talks and a sharp rise in oil prices. However, when the markets reversed midday, selling slowed, and prices stabilized. Coinbase analysts noted that, despite lower cryptocurrency trading volume than earlier in the year, the overall market cap has recently increased, with significant, localized volatility in altcoins. That is a huge positive for a sector that has been cut in half since last fall.  At 8 AM EDT, Bitcoin is trading at $74,400, while Ethereum is quoted at $2,377. 

24/7 Wall St. reviews dozens of analyst research reports daily to identify new investment ideas for both investors and traders. Some of these daily analyst calls cover stocks to buy. Other calls cover stocks to sell or avoid. Remember that no single analyst call should ever be used as a basis to buy or sell a stock. 

Here are some of the top Wall Street analyst upgrades, downgrades, and initiations seen on Tuesday, April 14, 2026.  

Upgrades:

• Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB) was upgraded to Overweight from Neutral at Piper Sandler, which raised the target price for the biotech giant to $214 from $177.
• Birkenstock Holdings Plc. (NYSE: BIRK) was upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Seaport Research, which has a $52 target price for the shares.
• Eastman Chemical Company (NYSE: EMN) was raised to Buy from Neutral at JPMorgan, which lifted the target price for the shares to $80 from $70.
• Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) was upgraded to Buy from Neutral at UBS with a $15 target price.
• Tesla Inc. (NASDAQ: TSLA) was raised to Neutral from Sell at UBS, with a $352 target price objective.

Downgrades:

• Fastly Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLY ) was downgraded to Hold from Buy at Craig-Hallum, with a $24 target price.
• Monday.com Ltd.  (NASDAQ: MNDY) was downgraded to Neutral from Overweight at Piper Sandler, which dropped the target price for the stock to $85 from $100.
• Omega Healthcare Investors Inc. (NYSE: OHI) was downgraded to Underperform from Neutral at UBS, which lowered the target price for the stock to $46 from $52.
• Quiagen NV (NYSE: QGEN) was cut to Equal Weight from Overweight at Barclays, which lowered the target price to $44 from $58.
• Revvity Inc. (NYSE: RVTY) was downgraded to Equal Weight from Overweight at Barclays, which chopped the target price to $95 from $118.

Initiations:

• J.M. Smucker Company (NYSE: SJM) was initiated with a Buy rating at BTIG, which has a $120 target price for the shares.
• Lennox International Inc. (NYSE: LII) was started with a Neutral rating at BNP Paribas, with a $535 target price.
• Netskope Inc. (NASDAQ: NTSK) was started with a Buy rating at Rosenblatt, which has set a $15 target price for the stock.
• SanDisk Corp. (NASDAQ: SNDK) was initiated with an Outperform rating at Evercore ISI, with a $1,200 target price objective.
• Vertiv Holdings Co. (NYSE: VRT) was initiated with an Outperform rating at BNP Paribas, with a $345 target price.

The post Here Are Tuesday’s Top Wall Street Analyst Research Calls: Biogen, Birkenstock, Fastly, Ford, Lennox International, Netskope, SanDisk, Tesla, and More appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) and Ford (NYSE:F) closed 2025 with results that crystallize their diverging futures. Tesla reported fourth quarter earnings leaning into autonomy and AI while Ford showed a massive EV write-down but its commercial truck business posted its best numbers in years.

Robotaxis and Regulatory Credits vs. Super Duty and Software Subscriptions

Tesla’s automotive story is complicated. Vehicle deliveries fell 16% year-over-year to 418,227 units in Q4, and full-year revenue declined 2.93% to $94.827 billion.

Margin recovery and non-automotive growth saved the quarter. The Energy Generation and Storage segment grew 25% year-over-year with record Q4 deployments of 14.2 GWh, while Services and Other rose 18% year-over-year. Automotive gross margin climbed to 20.4%, or 17.9% excluding regulatory credits. Full Self Driving subscriptions reached nearly 1,100,000 globally, with Tesla transitioning to subscription-only this quarter.

Ford’s headline looked awful. A GAAP net loss of $11.10 billion in Q4 driven by $10.70 billion in Model e asset impairments and EV program cancellations dominated coverage. The underlying business delivered on multiple fronts.

Super Duty pickups had their best volume year since 2004, up 10%. Ford Pro paid software subscriptions grew 30% in 2025. Ford Credit full-year earnings before taxes rose 55% year-over-year to $2.6 billion.

One Is Building a Chip Fab. The Other Is Building Margin to 8%.

The strategic gap has never been wider. Tesla is spending heavily on infrastructure that does not yet generate revenue. CapEx guidance for 2026 exceeds $20 billion, funding six simultaneous factory ramps including CyberCab, Tesla Semi, Optimus, and AI compute.

Musk described a domestic semiconductor fabrication facility called TeraFab, noting “currently, there are no advanced memory fabs at scale in the United States. There are zero, literally zero.”. The AI5 chip design is, per Musk, “arguably the number one most critical thing to get done.”

Ford moves in the opposite direction. The company wrote off its old EV ambitions, guided for 2026 adjusted EBIT of $8 billion to $10 billion, and set a long-term target of 8% adjusted EBIT margin by 2029.

Ford Pro is the engine: Ford Pro EBIT guidance for 2026 sits at $6.5 billion to $7.5 billion. The Model e segment will still lose $4 billion to $4.5 billion in 2026, but Ford treats that as a managed wind-down rather than a growth bet.

Robotaxi Approval and Margin Recovery Will Decide Both Stories

Tesla’s robotaxi regulatory progress is critical. Prediction markets currently assign only 10.5% probability to a California robotaxi launch by June 30, 2026.

Musk said Tesla expects “fully autonomous vehicles in probably somewhere between a quarter and half of the United States by the end of the year, pending regulatory approval.”. That caveat carries enormous weight. Optimus production at scale before year-end is uncertain: prediction markets put the probability at just 20.5% by December 31, 2026.

For Ford, the test is simpler. Farley’s 8% margin target by 2029 requires Ford Pro to keep growing software revenue while Blue holds its hybrid ground. Watch whether tariff exposure disrupts the truck supply chain, since Ford explicitly flagged protectionist trade policies as a key risk.

Analyst consensus on Ford targets $14.09 with 15.68% upside from current levels, far more grounded than Tesla’s analyst target of $416.15 against a current price of $343.25.

Why Ford Looks More Honest Right Now

Tesla’s vision is exciting, and the energy business is becoming a real second act. But the stock trades at a P/E of 324x while deliveries fall and robotaxi timelines depend on regulators in dozens of jurisdictions.

The stock is down 23.67% year-to-date and 21.9% since the earnings filing date. Insider activity shows net selling across 31 recent transactions. That is substantial execution risk priced at a premium.

Ford is a restructuring story with a clear scorecard: margin targets, truck volume, and software subscription growth. Insider activity at Ford shows net buying across 167 recent transactions, a meaningful contrast.

For investors wanting a defined path and real assets, Ford fits better. Tesla fits if you believe robotaxi and Optimus timelines are real and regulatory friction clears faster than markets expect.

The post Tesla vs. Ford: Don’t Buy Either Stock Until You Read This appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford Motor (NYSE:F) shares rose 6% today, climbing from $11.52 to more than $12, while Toyota Motor (NYSE:TM) stock rallied 6%, moving from $203.66 to $215. Both moves are happening midday Wednesday, and together they’re sending a clear signal: consumer demand for vehicles remains alive and well despite a rough macro backdrop.

It’s worth noting that neither stock has had an easy 2026. Ford shares were down 11.26% year-to-date heading into today, and Toyota stock was down 4.86% over the same stretch. Today’s gains don’t erase those losses, but they do suggest investors are finding reasons to step back in.

Ford: F-Series Demand Holds the Line

The primary catalyst for Ford Motor Company’s move today is continued resilience in F-Series truck demand. The F-Series remains the best-selling truck in America, and steady consumer appetite for Ford’s flagship lineup is reassuring investors who have been watching the stock slide this year.

That confidence is grounded in real fundamentals. Ford reported full-year 2025 revenue of $187.27 billion, and its Super Duty lineup posted its best volume year since 2004. Ford Pro paid software subscriptions grew 30% in 2025, adding a high-margin recurring revenue layer on top of the commercial vehicle business.

The headwinds are real, though. Aluminum tariffs and production bottlenecks have weighed on the stock year-to-date, and Ford’s Model e segment is guiding for a loss of $4 billion to $4.5 billion in 2026. For a deeper look at the pressures facing the F-150 specifically, our team published a detailed breakdown today that’s worth reading alongside this update.

Even so, Ford’s 2026 guidance of adjusted EBIT of $8 billion to $10 billion gives the bulls something to work with. CEO Jim Farley asserted, “Ford delivered a strong 2025 in a dynamic and often volatile environment. Moving forward, we’ll continue building on our strong foundation to achieve our target of 8% adjusted EBIT margin by 2029.”

Toyota: Taiwan Sales Data Lifts Sentiment

Toyota’s surge today is tied to positive regional sales data out of Taiwan, where vehicle sales rose 5% in March. Toyota remains a leading player in the Taiwan market, and the broader uptick in regional demand is boosting sentiment around the stock as investors look for signs of international auto market health.

The timing matters. Toyota has been navigating a tough stretch, with tariffs carving approximately $7.54 billion from operating income across the first nine months of fiscal 2026. North America operating income compressed to $596 million from $1.08 billion over that same period. Any data point suggesting regional demand is holding up carries real weight right now.

There’s a longer-term story building here too. Toyota’s BEV retail sales surged 49.8% year-over-year in its most recent quarter, and electrified vehicles now represent 46.9% of retail sales. The company is also expanding to seven EV models by 2027, including two U.S.-made units, backed by a $1 billion investment in its Kentucky and Indiana plants.

New Toyota CEO Kenta Kon, who assumed the role on April 1 after serving as CFO, brings a financial discipline focus to a company that raised its full-year revenue guidance to $314.1 billion even while absorbing significant tariff pressure. Toyota’s trailing P/E ratio sits at 11x, which looks reasonable for a company of its global scale.

Two Stories, One Takeaway

What’s notable about today is that Ford and Toyota shares are moving higher together, and for different reasons. Ford is drawing on domestic truck demand strength, while Toyota is getting a lift from international market data. That’s a healthy combination, and global auto demand appears to be holding up from multiple directions at once.

The shared headwinds haven’t gone away. Tariffs, EV cost pressures, and production challenges are still live risks for both companies. I’d watch for whether today’s gains hold into the close as a gauge of conviction, and keep an eye on any further regional sales data that could extend Toyota’s momentum into the rest of the week.

The post Ford and Toyota Surges 6%: Two Auto Giants Prove the Global Car Market Is Alive and Well appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford (NYSE: F) is exceedingly proud that its F-Series (including the F-150) has been the best-selling truck in America for 49 years. And, it has been the best-selling vehicle of any kind for 44 years. Last year, unit sales topped 800,000. The only potential drawback is that the F-Series was 37% of Ford’s US sales in 2025. That means anything that significantly hampers sales troubles Ford’s bottom line.

In an exclusive article, The Wall Street Journal reported, “The Trump administration has so far rebuffed requests from Ford Motor and other U.S. automakers for relief from aluminum tariffs after fires at a major American factory created supply bottlenecks for vehicles including the F-150 pickup, according to people familiar with the talks.”

Since the Trump Administration has not changed its position, it could go on indefinitely. It is part of a larger “war” with Canada.

What the Wall Street Journal does not say is the extent to which F-Series production could be hampered. The aluminum from Canada is part of the core of the F-Series construction. It is used on the pickup’s exterior. Few people know if Ford has a supply of this that has not been tapped. If not, it is in a bind

Ford’s F-Series sales would need to fall a great deal for it to be caught by the No.2 best-selling vehicle in America, which competes with it directly. This is the Chevy Silverado. Its unit sales were 570,000 last year. And, Chevy may have the same Canada import problem Ford does.

Even if Ford maintains its lead and retains it significantly, an F-Series production slowdown will hurt its bottom line. The US is its largest market by far, so earnings will get hit.

The post Ford F-150 Is In Trouble appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F) closed 2025 with a $10.70 billion impairment charge tied to Model e asset write-downs and EV program cancellations, crystallizing one of the most expensive pivots in automotive history. The company taking shape after that reckoning looks less like a traditional automaker and more like an industrial infrastructure play built around software, commercial fleets, and battery energy storage.

The EV Stumble, by the Numbers

Ford’s Q4 2025 GAAP net loss reached $11.10 billion, driven by $15.50 billion in total special charges that included a $3.20 billion BlueOval SK joint venture disposition charge. The Model e segment posted a full-year EBIT loss of $4.81 billion. In Q1 2026, Model e lost another $777 million, and Ford guides for a total Model e loss of $4.0 billion to $4.5 billion for the full year. The EV bet has not paid off on the timeline projected.

CEO Jim Farley framed the write-downs as necessary surgery. “We made difficult but critical strategic decisions that set us up for a stronger future,” he said. Ford’s Q1 2026 results showed some progress: revenue reached $43.25 billion, up 6% year over year, with EPS of $0.66 and adjusted EBIT of $3.49 billion. Management subsequently raised full-year adjusted EBIT guidance to $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion and free cash flow guidance to $5 billion to $6 billion.

Ford Energy: Repurposing the Factory Floor

The most consequential move in Ford’s restructuring is Ford Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary formally launched in May 2026. The business manufactures U.S.-assembled battery energy storage systems for utilities, data centers, and large industrial customers. Ford is repurposing battery manufacturing capacity at BlueOval Battery Park in Glendale, Kentucky, targeting 20 gigawatt-hours of annual capacity by late 2027. The capital commitment is approximately $2 billion over two years.

The flagship product is the Ford Energy DC Block, a standardized 20-foot containerized BESS built around 512 Ah lithium iron phosphate prismatic cells. It comes in two configurations: the FE-250 (a two-hour system) and the FE-450 (a four-hour system). Ford holds a cost advantage through its CATL licensing agreement for LFP chemistry, an edge over rivals relying on imported cells or more expensive lithium chemistries.

Ford Energy already has its first major customer. In May 2026, the subsidiary signed a five-year framework agreement with EDF Power Solutions North America under which EDF can procure up to 4 GWh of DC Block systems per year, for a potential total of 20 GWh. Deliveries are expected to start in 2028. Ford Energy president Lisa Drake described the deal as validation that the market needs “a BESS supplier” with industrial-scale manufacturing discipline and full lifecycle accountability.

Farley described the scale of the opportunity directly: “The growth for battery storage for both data center build-out and grid stability, places like California, Texas, and Florida, is exploding.” The data supports that view. The U.S. is expected to add roughly 24 GW of new utility-scale battery storage in 2026 alone, nearly double the record 15 GW installed in 2025, with industry projections pointing to more than 600 GWh on the U.S. grid by 2030.

The strategic logic goes beyond pure volume. “We don’t want to be a contract manufacturer of batteries,” Farley said. “We want to have end-to-end solutions for customers where Ford Energy people will be calling, fulfilling, not just a sales contract, but servicing those customers over the long term.”

The Caterpillar Parallel

Investors looking for proof that a legacy industrial company can make a genuine pivot to AI infrastructure power demand need look no further than Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT). Its Power Generation product line posted revenue of $3.238 billion in Q4 2025, up 44% year over year, capping a full year of accelerating demand. In Q1 2026, Power Generation revenue rose another 41% year over year to $2.817 billion, fueled by data center engine and turbine orders. The company’s order backlog hit a record $63 billion in Q1 2026, up 79% year over year, and Caterpillar raised its long-term power generation revenue target to more than three times the 2024 baseline by 2030. The stock has risen roughly 191% over the past year.

Ford’s path differs in form but mirrors the underlying logic: use manufacturing scale, existing infrastructure, and established customer relationships to capture the energy demand created by the AI buildout.

Ford Pro Anchors the Transition

While Ford Energy is the new growth vector, Ford Pro remains the financial engine of the company. The commercial segment guides for $6.5 billion to $7.5 billion in EBIT for 2026, with paid software subscriptions growing 30% in full-year 2025 and reaching 879,000 subscribers by Q1 2026. Ford holds over 42% Class 1-7 market share in the U.S., a position that competitors cannot replicate quickly.

For comparison, General Motors (NYSE: GM) also absorbed $7.10 billion in EV capacity realignment charges in Q4 2025, but its pivot centers on combining Cruise and technical teams for autonomous driving rather than energy infrastructure. GM guides for $13.0 billion to $15.0 billion in adjusted EBIT for 2026.

What Investors Should Watch

Analyst consensus on Ford currently stands at approximately 4 Buys, 16 Holds, and 1 Sell among 21 analysts, with an average price target near $14.41. Ford’s forward P/E stands at 8x, and the stock yields roughly 5%. The valuation remains modest relative to the potential upside if Ford Energy scales as planned and Ford Pro margins hold above 11%.

Key milestones include Ford Energy’s Kentucky plant conversion timeline, whether the EDF deliveries begin on schedule in 2028, and whether Model e losses narrow as the Universal EV Platform launches in 2027. Ford’s raised 2026 adjusted EBIT guidance of $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion and its long-term 8% adjusted EBIT margin target by 2029 both hinge on execution across all three segments.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to reflect Ford Energy’s formal subsidiary launch in May 2026, its EDF Power Solutions framework agreement for up to 20 GWh of BESS deliveries, the revised capital investment figure of approximately $2 billion over two years, Ford’s raised full-year 2026 adjusted EBIT guidance of $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion following Q1 2026 results, and Caterpillar’s Q1 2026 Power Generation revenue growth of 41% year over year alongside its record $63 billion order backlog.

The post How Ford Is Reinventing Itself as an AI Infrastructure Play After Its EV Stumble appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

A new Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) Model 3 with All-Wheel Drive has a base price of just $50,000. A similarly featured Model Y costs about the same. Each is priced below the industry average for a new EV, which is $60,000. One of the barriers to EV adoption in the US is price.

Tesla has begun addressing the EV price hurdle by offering used versions of its cars at its stores. It risks competing with its new cars, and Tesla may recognize that the market is flooded with used EVs, some of which are coming off two- and three-year leases.

A number of the used Teslas are priced below $25,000. Those sold by Tesla carry less risk than those sold by another dealer or an individual. “Your pre-owned Tesla vehicle comes inspected and refurbished by Tesla technicians, so you know your vehicle is road-ready.” That should give buyers a sense of comfort. These cars also come with a limited warranty, which is another advantage over those sold elsewhere.

Tesla’s sales in the US have been slow. The big EV company produced 408,383 and delivered 358,023. That puts it in the same bind as the industry. The $7,500 federal tax benefit is gone. There is still anxiety about range and charging time. Tesla does have one edge. Competition from most major car companies is gone as manufacturers like Ford (NYSE: F) and GM (NYSE: GM) exit the market. Tesla’s US market share should improve based on that alone.

Tesla’s founder and CEO likes to say Tesla is no longer primarily a car company. Investors should value it based on AI development and robotics. However, the used-car discounts show that the car part of the firm has not disappeared.

Whether used cars cannibalize sales of new ones aside, Tesla wants to sell cars

The post Used Tesla For $25,000 appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..

The SEC requires companies to disclose the relationship between the CEO’s pay and the median annual compensation of the company’s workers. Ford (NYSE: F) CEO Jim Farley made $27,519,557 in 2025. The worker’s pay on that basis (less his) was $93,397

Farley’s 2024 comp was $24,861,866. Executive Chairman Bill Ford (William Clay Ford, Jr.), who signs the shareholder letter on the proxy and whose family controls the board through a special class of shares, made $20,276,466 last year.

In terms of the Ford control of the company, the proxy states, “Publicly traded common shares carry one vote per share, while the voting power of each Class B share is adjusted annually to provide Class B shareholders (members of the Ford family) with an aggregate of 40 percent of the total voting power, and thus considerable influence over all matters requiring shareholder approval.”

The Ford control may be why Alexandra Ford English and Henry Ford III are on the board, even though they lack qualifications for those positions.

What did Ford shareholders get for this compensation? For one thing, a $19.5 billion write-off for its failed EV business, and a company that lost $8.2 billion.

The post Ford CEO Makes 295 Times Its Worker Pay appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..