Another tripping RCCB

[Cryingdick]

30 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I think I have made my position very clear. If you don't understand that says a lot about your preconceived ideas.

 

Have a great day.

 

Well it's good to know you are intelligent enough not to outlaw stock buy backs. Have a wonderful life.

[robblok]

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Research money may begin to dry up if nobody buys stocks because there is not enough reward.  This whole debacle is sleazy for sure but what you suggest is not the answer. A better way to do it would be to make sure that regulations are enforced and that the people overseeing it all are actually competent. Share buybacks didn't cause the planes to crash.

 

Another poster suggests Boeing did this to save money. I think that's also a little off. Boeing has enough money to buy anything they want this was more a matter of doing this to get to market quickly.

 

Obviously they have fierce competition with Airbus and getting a new plane out earlier can pay off huge sums to secure contracts. I am not justifying it but it wasn't about money so much as time. Boeing would willingly pay a king's ransom to get planes to delivery faster. 

 

 

Boeing should be punished harshly and fined hugely to bring them in trouble. This is the only way for them to learn. You said its not about money but it is, getting a plan out earlier is about money. You think its time.. time is money. So it was purely financial and they did not do the right checks. 

 

Really bad it just shows how some American companies think. Always people are talking about Thais and money. This shows Americans and money, money is king. I really hope people will use Airbus more and boeing will pay a high price for this.

 

These managers should be held criminally liable.  As for buyback of stock I don't see the problem does not have much to do with this. Greed was the problem and i bet  that was not adressed. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You are advocating making something such as buy backs illegal. Under what authority do you propose to do so? The proper channel is the government to do their job. Not blaming the boogeyman and whatever else. Why not just limit profits? No company can make more than $10 million a year.

 

The government has a role to play but where does it end? You limit corporate flexibility you will stifle innovation. All these big tech companies that innovate, many of them are actually not profitable. Yet they trade at nose bleed valuations despite that. You limit that and companies like Uber, AirBNB etc go out of business.

 

You may or may not like those companies but there are so many more that raise cash through issuing bonds and buying back shares. You would effectively kill off R&D for cancer, AIDS, space exploration ... on and on. 

 

Big dreams require big dollars. The Boeing case is becoming pretty egregious but any idea of limiting how companies leverage themselves would leave the USA at a huge disadvantage and essentially make China our new overlords.

 

 

Your assertion that outlawing share buy backs somehow limits company flexibility and that somehow limits innovation is without foundation.

 

That non profitable businesses are trading at ‘nose bleed’ valuations is an example of market mechanisms having been replaced by gambling (sorry, speculation).

 

For the record, I do not knowingly hold any Boeing stock, can you say the same thing?

[stevenl]

20 minutes ago, robblok said:

Boeing should be punished harshly and fined hugely to bring them in trouble. This is the only way for them to learn. You said its not about money but it is, getting a plan out earlier is about money. You think its time.. time is money. So it was purely financial and they did not do the right checks. 

 

Really bad it just shows how some American companies think. Always people are talking about Thais and money. This shows Americans and money, money is king. I really hope people will use Airbus more and boeing will pay a high price for this.

 

These managers should be held criminally liable.  As for buyback of stock I don't see the problem does not have much to do with this. Greed was the problem and i bet  that was not adressed. 

Agree with your post, except for the stock buyback. Stock buy back props up the share price, leading to bigger bonuses for the management and higher dividends. Also stock buy backs tend to benefit short term investors in stead of investors looking for long term value.

 

I would not say they had a direct effect in this case, but are symptomatic of the corporate mentality here.

Edited October 31, 2019 by stevenl

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 10/29/2019 at 7:42 AM, webfact said:

He added that "regulators should approve the return of the MAX to the skies only after they have applied the most rigorous scrutiny, and are completely satisfied as to the plane's safety.

 

If the hapless FAA had done that the FIRST time around, we probably wouldn't have had the two fatal crashes, hundreds dead, and a major international commercial jet grounded for who knows how long...

 

Who's to say the Trump Admin. FAA is going to do any better job of oversight the second time around?  After all, the mantra is less government regulation, less interference in companies doing their own business....

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[robblok]

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agree with your post, except for the stock buyback. Stock buy back props up the share price, leading to bigger bonuses for the management and higher dividends. Also stock buy backs tend to benefit short term investors in stead of investors looking for long term value.

 

I would not say they had a direct effect in this case, but are symptomatic of the corporate mentality here.

Sure they are symptomatic of the corporate mentality but i see no direct link. But it does show how the management is thinking and its all about money so hiding stuff like they did is a result of their mentality. I really hope criminal charges are filed. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

What company doesn't want longevity? One isn't exclusive of the other. If you are saying share buy backs took enough money out Boeing's pocket that it made this result the only way it could have gone you are simply wrong. 

 

You should attack dividends ahead of that. The simple truth is Boeing did some dodgy things to get to market faster. If I had an invention that shaved one month off delivery dates I would be a multi-billionaire. 

 

Boeing at least until lately had huge amounts of free cash flow it isn't like it took food off the corporate table to buy back stock. I am sure you have studied the fundamentals and can tell me how much Boeing has paid out in dividends and buy backs in the last decade.

 

What would have prevented these crashes would have been competent, thorough, oversight from the relevant regulatory agencies. That didn't happen.

I’m not sure you understand the role of the regulators or indeed the part played by industry lobbying in neutering regulators.

 

Boeing didn’t ‘simply do some dodgy things to get in the market faster’.

 

They made a decision to ignore the most basic principles of design safety and did so for commercial reasons, that decision has resulted in hundreds of people being killed.

 

As you point out, Boeing is awash with money, so this wasn’t a decision forced by a financial imperative, it was a decision to put safety and other people’s lives behind even more profit. AKA Greed.

[gk10002000]

What would have prevented these crashes would have been competent, thorough, oversight from the relevant regulatory agencies. That didn't happen. "

 

The FAA has a system where individuals that do NOT work for the FAA or the Government can apply to and can become DER Designated Engineering Representatives.  The are then tasked with monitoring things.  They do have a certain level of signature authority.  But typically they are just the ones that spend time reviewing documentation, wandering through the labs, reading test reports, attending status briefings, etc.  The actual FAA rarely witnesses the low level details

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

Sure they are symptomatic of the corporate mentality but i see no direct link. But it does show how the management is thinking and its all about money so hiding stuff like they did is a result of their mentality. I really hope criminal charges are filed. 

‘Hiding stuff’ is not simply a window into the management’s mentality, when the courts hear the cases brought against Boeing ‘hiding stuff’ will be regarded as evidence of conscious culpability.

[robblok]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

‘Hiding stuff’ is not simply a window into the management’s mentality, when the courts hear the cases brought against Boeing ‘hiding stuff’ will be regarded as evidence of conscious culpability.

Ill believe it when I see it. Sorry I dont really believe that the US will be fair in this case. They got an image to uphold. This is a national company, the face of a nation. So I will see it when I believe it.

 

But I agree hiding things should mean tough punishment. I just don't think it will happen. Perhaps Thrump will even interfere he loves Boeing.  

[Cryingdick]

50 minutes ago, robblok said:

Boeing should be punished harshly and fined hugely to bring them in trouble. This is the only way for them to learn. You said its not about money but it is, getting a plan out earlier is about money. You think its time.. time is money. So it was purely financial and they did not do the right checks. 

 

Really bad it just shows how some American companies think. Always people are talking about Thais and money. This shows Americans and money, money is king. I really hope people will use Airbus more and boeing will pay a high price for this.

 

These managers should be held criminally liable.  As for buyback of stock I don't see the problem does not have much to do with this. Greed was the problem and i bet  that was not adressed. 

 

Are you willing to pay 4 times what a ticket costs now to punish them?

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Are you willing to pay 4 times what a ticket costs now to punish them?

Airbus is there to take up the slack of Boeing, maybe then those greedy people over there will learn. Its not as if there are no alternatives. I guess you would fit right in there given how you respond. 

[Cryingdick]

34 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agree with your post, except for the stock buyback. Stock buy back props up the share price, leading to bigger bonuses for the management and higher dividends. Also stock buy backs tend to benefit short term investors in stead of investors looking for long term value.

 

I would not say they had a direct effect in this case, but are symptomatic of the corporate mentality here.

It also pays back investors when companies like Tesla raise money through bonds or issue new shares. That dilutes the shares. So normally they make a bond like Netflix is doing now to raise money.

 

When they buy those shares back assuming they dodge a margin call is the thanks for supporting their latest adventure into space or whatever it is. How else do you raise money to do such things?

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Are you willing to pay 4 times what a ticket costs now to punish them?

Where did you find that figure of ‘4 times’?

 

No, please don’t tell me, I’m about to have lunch.

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

It also pays back investors when companies like Tesla raise money through bonds or issue new shares. That dilutes the shares. So normally they make a bond like Netflix is doing now to raise money.

 

When they buy those shares back assuming they dodge a margin call is the thanks for supporting their latest adventure into space or whatever it is. How else do you raise money to do such things?

Issuing new shares (raising money) is not the same as share back buying (spending money). That is what is under discussion, not your deflection attempt.

[Cryingdick]

9 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Issuing new shares (raising money) is not the same as share back buying (spending money). That is what is under discussion, not your deflection attempt.

 

One is dependent on the other. If you dilute your shares (by offering new shares) no shareholder likes it. If you are not allowed to issue shares or make a bond you will have a very hard time raising capital.

 

It's like a loan. Issue new shares and dilute the stock. The stock goes down at that point. Later you buy it back. It's real simple stuff.

 

That's basically how every modern facility we have in the USA was founded.

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by Cryingdick

[Why Me]

Boeing was apparently under tremendous pressure from airlines to upgrade the 737. There were threats to cancel hundreds of orders and switch to the A320 which was significantly more fuel efficient.

 

Hence the quick fix to retrofit the existing crafts with larger newer engines that had to be relocated on the wings leading to instability in the air.

[Cryingdick]

21 minutes ago, Why Me said:

Boeing was apparently under tremendous pressure from airlines to upgrade the 737. There were threats to cancel hundreds of orders and switch to the A320 which was significantly more fuel efficient.

 

Hence the quick fix to retrofit the existing crafts with larger newer engines that had to be relocated on the wings leading to instability in the air.

Airbus wouldn't have been able to produce the planes anyway. There is a ten year waiting list.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Cryingdick

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

One is dependent on the other. If you dilute your shares (by offering new shares) no shareholder likes it. If you are not allowed to issue shares or make a bond yoraise money, these buy back shares because they have too much money.u will have a very hard time raising capital.

 

It's like a loan. Issue new shares and dilute the stock. The stock goes down at that point. Later you buy it back. It's real simple stuff.

 

That's basically how every modern facility we have in the USA was founded.

 

Nonsense, you're confuting companies like Tesla, Facebook etc. with financially well established ones like Apple and the one at hand here, Boeing. They don't issue shares to raise money, these buy back shares because they have too much money. All short term interest.

Edited October 31, 2019 by stevenl