Well worth the read, and relatively insightful:

http://www.streetauthority.com/a/3-reasons-why-small-cap-could-return-200-456480

WARNING: Any units that could return 200 percent plus could also cause you to lose up to all you invest. Just sayin'

When they get that $1.8 billion in debt paid it should have a good return. It may not be in our lifetime but it could happen.

Interesting article. Given past performance which is never a great indicator of future performance, the stocks price could at least double in our lifetime to the level it was at just a couple of years ago with a similar debt/assets ratio. Of course all it takes is one covenant or bankruptcy and that return is nada.

Interesting article. Given past performance which is never a great indicator of future performance, the stocks price could at least double in our lifetime to the level it was at just a couple of years ago with a similar debt/assets ratio. Of course all it takes is one covenant or bankruptcy and that return is nada.

And sometimes, all it takes is the "right" leader at the top, no matter how troubled the company, to make a huge difference. Just a few years ago, Ford Motor was drowning in debt, suffering the effects of decades of lackluster products, and collapsing along with the larger US auto industry. A new CEO (Alan Mulally) was brought in, mapped out a plan, and is now reaping the success of their planning. Their stock price is currently around $11-$14 a share, up from less than $2 a share less than two years ago.

Dick Kinzel was the right guy to lead CF through the '90s. His time has long passed, and I hope that the board sees that sooner rather than later.

Given who was instrumental in picking the majority of that board, that seems very unlikely, at least in the short term. Longer term? That is the q.

This is one of many reasons I have never understood "technicians" in the stock markets. I am very much a "management matters, operations matter, economic conditions matter, political environment matters...even weather matters" kind of guy.

The Motley Fool sees limited downside:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/08/24/cedar-fair-shareholders-having-fun.aspx

I agree that the downside is limited. Any fool knows that it can only go down to 0. It also has unlimited upside.

FUN is close to the lows of the year on support and in oversold on the long term. If the market is up it's possible FUN may go with it.

Okay, that's twice this morning I've been illuminated!

Terp...things are more like they are now than they were when I got here.

Should that dividend ever be re-instated to an amount easily coverable by FUN's cash flow, then the downside is ever more limited. And the growth should be more in line with the decade before the stock drop, all else equal.

The stock certainly looks more attractive than it did just 8 months ago, of course, recessions tend to do that to stocks