Markrt test

3 Comments

    • ON: Thu Apr 10th 20:50 PM
      Commented on:
      Wal-Mart's International Surge
      "The firm's Sam's Club chain posted a 0.7% drop because of losing a day of sales to Easter closures."
      ...................
      One of my favorite retailing lines. Was COST closed on Easter, too? (and does that mean COST's results were relatively that much better?). And the Walmart's non-Sams retail sales - I presume they didn't use that excuse because they didn't need to? And in April will they remind us that last year April lost an Easter sales day and that this year they had that extra day?

      Anyway, my point is that the calendar is the retailer's selective excuse (like remembering this year's snow days but forgetting last year's). Or our time-honored favorite - selling days between Thanksgiving and Christmas (though I guess there there is some supporting data on that).

      Anyway, that's my retail excuse rant. Use the rationalizations when you need them, right?

      Thanks
      View article »
    • ON: Tue Apr 1st 00:22 AM
      Commented on:
      Tata Targets Jaguar and Land Rover for Long-Term Returns
      My suspicion was that Tata didn't want Jaguar, but it was part of the deal, so they got it for nothing. Jaguar may bleed for awhile, maybe a lot.

      I believe Tata was after:
      1. LR technology, specifically, and
      2. a fully intact management that could engineer, design, source, manufacture world-market cars

      As you noted, Tata bought JLR for what Ford paid for just J or LR alone years ago. But when Ford bought both J&LR they were starving, with models at the ends of their cycles (or past their expiration) and not really much in development.

      Jaguar is launching their new S-replacement right now, and the new XK next year -- Ford had to have spent a $1 billion developing these new Jaguar models that Tata will now launch, plus Tata gets LR's model pipeline, whatever that is now. Based on Tata's actually outlay, they should have a relatively low breakeven point for these models (if you want to look at it that way)

      Getting to that stage in their life-cycle -- in engineering, and brand development, and experienced management -- would have taken them decades. It took Toyota maybe a decade and billions to launch Lexus. Tata immediately has two luxury brands.

      Currently Mercedes dominates the Indian luxury market, but if Tata gets national pride behind their two new brands they could have a big home market for Jaguar AND LR. Maybe they'll fail in autos, it's high risk. But now they can go global if they want. JLR already knows how to make cars that are developed-world-legal and relatively desirable. And like I said, they can perhaps own the home luxury market now.

      Looking at Tata, I think the Indian labor aspects are over-played. And Tata makes me wonder whether our world labor assumptions are correct. Tata - the group - employs at least 50,000 engineers, they have a huge consulting business, and yet they effectively outsource production around the world. They outsource watch manufacturing to Switzerland, for example; telecom to the US (I believe); and now cars to the British --a tendency that British unions noticed, endorsing Tata over other bidders.

      With this - JLR, their ex-Tyco Global Network acquisition, Tetley Tea - they get instant brands that play into their existing large-but-unbranded businesses.

      Anyway, I think you are correct that now is the time to look more closely at the Tata group (and especially Tata's non-auto segments).
      View article »
    • ON: Mon Mar 31st 20:51 PM
      Commented on:
      SFAS 157: Market Prices Too Low? Just Ignore Them!
      I read the offending passage - before reading the criticisms - and interpreted it to simply mean that you don't use liquidation sales that may have taken place in the market as comps (excuse me, 'guideline transactions') in arriving at own valuations.

      Not to mean that you altogether skip re-assessment of your own holdings if they are in foreclosure. The paragraph could have been more clearly worded.

      But re-read just the passage without the commentary and see if you agree -- it's saying that liquidations aren't market transactions for the purposes of determining fair value.

      If that's not what it means, then Norris is right, they really are idiots.

      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»