Burger King Holdings Inc. (BKC)

All Comments on BKC

  • commenter
    notsosmart
    Aug 21 10:06 AM
    My Website
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    nobody has figured out a way to pave over the ocean. i am a veryhappy fro owner.yield app.18%.my dividends almost paid for the stock.lol @ analysts. Reply
  • commenter
    lee99
    Aug 21 09:52 AM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    re FRO earnings: company reported $4.25, highest qty ever. Where does your $2.18 originate? Reply
  • commenter
    SA Editor
    Eli Hoffmann
    Aug 21 09:13 AM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Thanks kkin365. They are alphabetized by company name. Do you mean by ticker? Reply
  • commenter
    kkin365
    Aug 21 08:50 AM
    My Website
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Excellent coverage as usual. Suggest that you alphabetize earnings report (after close and before open as 2 groups, as now) to facilitate reading. Reply
  • commenter
    bluetea
    Aug 19 06:44 PM
    How Have 'Traditional Defensive Stocks' Done in This Downturn? [view article]
    As a retired Colgate employee who ignored financial advisor's advice and hung on to a lot of company stock , I feel vindicated.
    They are well-positioned globally to grow in all the emerging economies and so far have been able to offset the high commodity prices.     Reply
  • commenter
    Owen
    Aug 15 02:53 PM
    JPMorgan Mortgage Losses - Fast Money Recap (8/12/08) [view article]
    nyka, I was starting to worry about you. It's been over a week since your last comment here, and we just had no idea who of us was losing credibility due to our typographical wrongdoing, or what sins of wordiness we were committing.

    Glad to see you are back at your post, pointing out the transgressions of our copyediting ways.
     Reply
  • commenter
    nyka
    Aug 14 05:35 PM
    My Website
    JPMorgan Mortgage Losses - Fast Money Recap (8/12/08) [view article]
    JPM had said racked up...Confusing; word omitted. Edit your copy so as not to detract from your credibility.
    The financials are rallyling DESPITE THE FACT THAT...WORDY; try rallying, EVEN THOUGH.....
    Two words are better than one; avoid wordiness.     Reply
  • commenter
    Paxdonnaverd
    e
    Aug 13 08:49 PM
    My Website
    How Have 'Traditional Defensive Stocks' Done in This Downturn? [view article]
    Bizonly, thanks for the outlook on fast-food. I don't like the industry for personal reasons but it intrigued me how it would stay steady. Your explanation clears that up. Reply
  • commenter
    bizonly
    Aug 11 07:19 AM
    How Have 'Traditional Defensive Stocks' Done in This Downturn? [view article]
    in the seventies i attended a pillsbury meeting that explained that in a recession people traded down to fast food and of the top twenty things they cut- fast food was 17 -with traveling #1-

    pillsbury owned burger king at the time-all my money has been safely
    parked with bkc for over a year'turns out that meeting saved me
    over 250k     Reply
  • commenter
    mkreisel
    Aug 10 12:40 PM
    How Have 'Traditional Defensive Stocks' Done in This Downturn? [view article]
    JNJ is at its all-time high and still dirt cheap! Reply
  • commenter
    Larry
    Bellehumeur
    Aug 10 10:58 AM
    How Have 'Traditional Defensive Stocks' Done in This Downturn? [view article]
    Thanks for the question, 174242. I wanted to show the results without and without the worst performer, to eliminate a Single Companies operational issues from throwing off an entire sector's results. The other way that I could have done it was to use many more examples per sector (perhaps as many as 10), but that would have made the article too long. A good example is Wendy's which moved the entire sector down several spots on the chart.

    The results at the bottom DO include the worst performer....

    Cheers
    Larry     Reply
  • commenter
    User 174242
    Aug 10 08:30 AM
    How Have 'Traditional Defensive Stocks' Done in This Downturn? [view article]
    What is the rationale for removing the worst performer when calculating the results? Reply
  • commenter
    Jake
    Huneycutt
    Aug 08 07:01 AM
    Los Angeles Declares War on Colonel Sanders (and Your Portfolio) [view article]
    The problem with the solution is that fast food is not the culprit. Rather, sprawled out cities, overdependence on the automobile, and a lazy way of life are the real culprits behind rising obesity.

    You can eat "fast food" and be relatively healthy. It might be a good idea to keep away from french fries drenched in transfats, Colonel Sander's chicken, and donuts, but having a burger from BK or Wendy's isn't going to be that much different from having a burger at home (except that the latter will probably taste better).

    To be honest, I disagree with the nonsensical view that "private" dominance over our lives is somehow automatically better than "public" (i.e. government) dominance. The problem is that the private sector is not capable of acting in unison in a way that would fix our most major problems (since private actors tend to focus on the micro- view rather than the macro- view) while the public sector is run by a bunch of incompetent boobs elected precisely because they will not "rock the boat" or come up with anything other than the most trite solutions (you can't simply ban anything that's bad; it never works).

    So I guess I'm saying I agree with you and don't at the same time.     Reply
  • commenter
    Joseph
    McSpadden
    Aug 04 01:04 PM
    My Website
    Los Angeles Declares War on Colonel Sanders (and Your Portfolio) [view article]
    Bearfund -

    The fact that one pays taxes does not give that person the right to dictate how others run or should run their lives. Paying taxes gives one the right to use services provided to the public and to participate in the government process.

    Instead of punishing ALL people who may like the occasional piece of fried chicken or order of french fries, why not target the true reason behind this law... obese people. Not sure how this would be done other than eliminate certain public benefits for those who are above certain BMI's, but even this has serious flaws.

    There is no easy solution to the obesity problem, but moving us one step closer to socialism should not be a solution at all.     Reply
  • commenter
    gashouse
    gorilla
    Aug 02 02:08 PM
    Los Angeles Declares War on Colonel Sanders (and Your Portfolio) [view article]
    Dylan, that's a classy first response. As to your subordinate's response (which you're adopting), I'll respond.

    >> Where did he ever insult the citizens of LA?

    Implicitly. Not explicitly. Which is no worse than what LA did. Let's review.

    According to Dylan, LA thinks some of its constituents make poor eating decisions. Well, also according to Dylan, we must help parents educate children or educate themselves about making better dining choices. So, you see, Dylan and LA are in agreement about one of the problem's root causes: some people don't know better.

    Now, nowhere does LA come out and call their people "stupid", "dense", etc. But, you READ THESE INSULTS INTO IT. Over what? Over the same observation Dylan made? Be careful: The fact that you suggest different policy prescriptions doesn't make a difference regarding the "insults". The fact is: you, too, Dylan, think some people need "help" making better decisions. LA hasn't been any more "insulting" to its citizens than you. If you want to read insults into it, then do the same with your piece.

    And then there's Dylan's reference to retarded people, the "people riding the little yellow buses". (Don't anticipate that I misread Dylan's explicit statement, because I didn't.) Yes, I read your statement "everyone you, Dylan, knows" knows junk food is junk food. Explicitly, you're saying "there isn't anyone who doesn't know just how bad junk food is" and, therefore, "I, Dylan, am not calling anyone retarded". But, as I said, if one of YOUR solutions is "education", then one of the problems is "lack of information". By definition, that means some people really DON'T know junk food is that bad for them. That contradicts your earlier statement. You DO believe some people lack information to make better decisions. Worse, LA never compared these people to retards. But, YOU DO. Not explicitly. But, this seems implicit to me.

    I'm sure you didn't (and maybe still don't) see it that way, or else you wouldn't have written the piece exactly this way. I understand.


    >> What he is saying is that citizens ARE smart enough to make their own decisions - especially when given proper financial incentives

    If they're "smart enough", then why do they need "financial incentives"? Don't you see the implicit contradiction here?

    >> For starters your suggestion that he replace "instead of" with "addition to" completely ignores

    Not "completely"... Yes, my one point doesn't address his whole sermon. But, it should provide cause for you to calm down.

    Dylan kept repeating "instead of, instead of, instead of". Some of his outrage comes from his *apparent* interpretation of LA's decision as "the only thing LA is going to do to combat the problem is this stupid law" (my paraphrasing). But, restricting fast food outlets isn't the only thing LA wants to do to help its citizens eat better.

    "Instead of" implies exclusive alternatives. If that wasn't the message intended, then perhaps Dylan's article should be edited to improve/refine his message. (Come to think of it, since you have his login, maybe that was part of your job? Would that explain why your response is hostile and even personal?)

    >> the basic premise of the article which is to get government out of the lives of citizens.

    If you want to get "government out of the lives of citizens", then why are you recommending "financial incentives" to get people to eat the food you want them to eat? I don't live in LA. But, to use an analogy that affects me greatly, is not the bailout of Fannie & Freddie "getting into my life", even though it's "only" a financial action?

    >> (i.e. tax breaks for certain kinds of food joints, tax breaks for parents of children deemed to be in good health, etc).

    So, restricting permitting to favor certain outcomes *IS* "the nanny state in action" but rigging the tax code to favor these same outcomes isn't?

    ...

    By the way, I heard on the radio yesterday that more and more LA urbanites have picked up GARDENING, so they can feed themselves healthier food. Land is somewhat fungible. So, when LA prevents the opening of new fast food outlets, some plot of land somewhere will become available for more gardening.

    LA's mayor has been encouraging this. So, you see, LA is doing more than just restricting the opening of new fast food outlets. I don't follow this story closely. But, I doubt that's the only thing either.

    Can/should they do more? Maybe you can help them brainstorm. If not now (because you're presently gainfully employed), then perhaps in the future.

    Good luck, Dylan and crew.
     Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: