BS Detector

Comment Stream » BA

Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
  • Time to Buy Boeing?
    "This gives BA a buyback yield of nearly 9%. Add on the 2.7% dividend and you get a net payout yield of nearly 12%."

    You're assuming the market hasn't priced in the buyback yield. It's quite logical and possible that without the recent share buyback the stock would be as much as 9% lower than it is now.

    I'm as big a fan of stock repurchasing as the next guy, but equating this with dividend yields is foolish.
    Sep 24 08:29 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Is Boeing Ready To Take Off?
    Re: the tanker.

    First off, this is a much smaller piece of Boeing's potential future business than seems to be regularly stated.

    Secondly, it is quite likely that the Air Force will reopen the competition, but not from the beginning; USAF has been trying to let a contract to replace this aging fleet for most of a decade, and I suspect the pressure to finish is huge. I expect a tweaking of the requirements to favor EADS (USAF has an interest in fostering competition in this market niche, and clearly still wants to punish Boeing for previous monkey business), and a short (90 day) proposal cycle.
    Jul 09 08:19 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Government Accountability Office Rules for Boeing, but Now What?
    This was a scathing rebuke of the Air Force - read the GAO press release for details. That said, they've been trying to start replacing tankers for seven years now. I don't think they will restart the process from scratch; I think this will now be handled at the most senior levels, and a streamlined recompetition will ensue, with slightly modified requirements that will tilt the table towards EADS but which Boeing will have no problem meeting.

    It wouldn't surprise me if there ended up being two contracts let, which would provide needed competition to Boeing down the line, but which would be politically palatable.
    Jun 19 09:34 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • 5 Stocks to Hedge Against the Falling Dollar
    Oh yeah, but the point here is hedging against "the falling dollar."

    I disagree with the headline - I think the dollar has little if any room left to fall, and owning dollars right now seems wiser than owning euros, pounds, or yen. However, the point remains - in a weak dollar environment, where are the best investments? And the conclusions are correct - U.S. companies that compete with foreign companies are in better competitive positions because of a weak dollar. Manufacturers are a clear choice, be it Boeing, GE, Nucor, or (gasp) Ford or GM.
    May 20 07:39 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • 5 Stocks to Hedge Against the Falling Dollar
    "George W. Bush and his administration have been on a spending binge - mostly to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

    It's a nice talking point, but it's just not true. The Bush administration's spending record is atrocious even without war funding. Since 2001, DOD spending has roughly doubled, an increase of around $300B/yr. Non-defense spending, however, has increased during the same period by almost $600B/yr.

    Facts are stubborn things.
    May 20 07:27 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Industries to Avoid, Industries to Buy

    You're going to be busy, if you insist on trying to respond to everybody. You should just stop and take your lumps for writing a weak piece.

    "Response to Economics Teacher: For you to make such a rash ascertain [sic] tells me you are of the school of traditional economic thought in America – the same school of thought that advocates the Federal Reserve’s destruction of our currency; the same school of thought that believes that a 2-decade plus period of overconsumption is somehow good for the U.S. economy; the same school of thought that promised free trade would bring better jobs to Americans."

    Tell me, which school do you think this is? The Monetarists? Neo-Keynesians? Neo-Classicists? Chicago? Friedman? Galbraith? Mankiw?

    "America is mortgaging off its wealth to foreign nations. And the weakness of the dollar is a reflection of this reality."

    Actually, it's closer to the other way around; the weak dollar makes all US assets less expensive and more attractive, so capital flows into the US to take advantage of higher expected returns.

    But so what? Can you tell me what's bad about foreign investment in the U.S.?

    "Finally, my investment track record speaks for itself..."

    And is irrelevant.


    "Finally, if..."

    Wait, you already had a "finally." How many "finally"s do you think you can have?

    "...if economists really understand the things that enable one to provide valuable investment advice, why is it that I have never heard of an economist who has become wealthy from investing?"

    How about Warren Buffett? MS in Econ from Columbia. And, as I recall seeing somewhere, he's done pretty well.

    "With due respect..."

    You might want to can the attitude - it will bring you nothing but grief. Just a throught.
    May 12 15:42 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Industries to Avoid, Industries to Buy
    Wow, what a rant full of nonsense - I couldn't even get through it all. Just a few nuggets:

    "President Clinton signed NAFTA, which all but ensured the beginning of the end of American manufacturing."

    Nonsense. NAFTA was enacted at the beginning of 1994. Between 1993 and 2007, U.S. motor vehicle and parts manufacturing output increased by 50%. For comparison, in the 14 years ending in 1993, motor vehicle and parts manufacturing increased 27%. Overall US manufacturing profits rose by 154% between '93 and '06, while from '77-'93 they rose only 46% (Economic Report of the President, Tables B-53 and B-92).

    "Soon, styling and reliability combined with the toxic effects of unfair trade drew a larger market share."

    Unfair trade? You mean how certain foreign manufacturers were able to produce cars much more efficiently than others? Or do you mean like the ridiculous import duties assessed on light trucks that punished consumers and protected the auto industry?

    "...it's a poor consumer decision to buy a hybrid given the poultry benefit..."

    I think your analysis of this is fowl.

    "The MPG listed on U.S. autos has been proven to significantly underestimate the actual MPG for a variety of reasons. This has fooled consumers into thinking that their truck or SUV gets better gas mileage than in reality."

    You make this sound like US cars were given a marketing advantage here. ALL car manufacturers have been overstating their mileage for years, which is why a new standard is coming out this year.

    "How many of you drive only 12,000 miles per year? [T]he average annual mileage driven in the U.S. is about 25,000 miles..."

    Nonsense - I know very few people who drive 68.5 miles per day, and know lots who drive much less; cite some sort of evidence. Here are a few that put it at much closer to 12k than 25k: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/r..., www.epa.gov/oms/climat..., msl1.mit.edu/Mar2Lectu....

    "How is it possible that oil companies are recording record profits under record oil prices? The only way it's possible is if they're keeping the same profit margins amidst the oil crisis."

    First: nonsense. It's certainly possible for profits to increase as margins decrease. Ever hear of Wal-Mart? But even so, how could they NOT have record profits in such a market? Those companies are in business to MAKE MONEY; this is called capitalism. If management is not maximizing returns for its owners (shareholders), management should be replaced.

    "Since oil is absolutely needed for consumers and businesses, doesn't [it] seem as if during a crisis, oil companies should absorb some of the pain and reduce profit margins? Why should oil companies be permitted to earn record profits while the rest of the economy gets abused?"

    "Permitted"? Seriously? Why stop at oil companies - what about grocery stores? What about drugstores? What about banks? Why not control ALL industries with a product that's "absolutely needed"?

    "The distribution of basic necessities should be controlled by the government or at least highly regulated to minimize consumer exploitation."

    Nonsense. The marketplace for such things should have the smallest degree of regulation necessary to foster efficiency and competition. This is a far cry from government control. Much as I hate it when folks throw this phrase around, yours is the socialist path, and it ALWAYS results in a less efficient, more expensive marketplace.

    "We already saw what happened to the utilities industry when Washington let the free markets take control – Enron."

    And we already saw what happened when the government broke up AT&T - WorldCom. Oh yeah, and that pesky Internet thing.

    "If you permit for-profit companies control the distribution and sale of a basic necessity, should you allow these companies to hoard profits during the most severe oil crisis in the history of the U.S.?"

    So just let me understand this - we need to add "petroleum distillates" to food, water, clothing, and shelter in the "basic necessities" category? Funny, in my history books, there seem to be a lot more years leading up to the internal combustion engine than following it. Are automobiles on the "basic necessities" list as well, so the government should be controlling that industry? It's a slippery slope, isn't it - where do you draw the line?

    "In conclusion, America's oil industry resembles a monopoly."

    Nonsense. The "oil industry" is quote varied, with many kinds of businesses from exploration to refining to transport to wholesale and retail. NONE of them behaves like a monopoly. Oligopolies, perhaps. But there is not a single segment of the industry with a single dominant player.

    "Before government deregulation in the late '80s, there were over 200 U.S. airlines... That was at a time when you had a lot of competition."

    Nonsense. If there had been "a lot of competition," there would not have been such a significant drop in airfares following deregulation. The one source I researched places the savings to customers due to deregulation at between 10-18% (www.econlib.org/librar...).

    "Friends, you won't find a person that embraces the free markets more than me."

    Nonsense.

    From what you've written here, I'd place you to the left of Obama and Clinton.

    Do you get paid for this? How do I get one of these gigs?
    May 12 15:23 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

BS Detector's Comments Stream Stats

  • 299 Comments, 65 , 55
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 10