Seeking Alpha

GarryGR

GarryGR
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View GarryGR's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Can Boeing's Epic Backlog Drive Future Growth? [View article]
    Only three words are needed to summarize Thomas's screeds: "SELL SELL SELL", to use a famous TV personality's phrase! :-) And it's impossible to debate the issue with him because any facts not supporting his SELL-SELL-SELL screeds, like Boeing's financial records and stock price history, can't penetrate his filters. One does have to wonder who he is; he won't say, of course! ;-)
    Jun 10 07:12 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Can Boeing's Epic Backlog Drive Future Growth? [View article]
    There are a lot of inconvenient truths for Thomas; somehow, he manages to ignore them all! ;-) If, as his posts would suggest, he's been shorting Boeing all this time, he's probably run out of money! Heaven help anyone who's followed his advice.
    Jun 9 03:52 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Airbus estimates more than 1,000 A330neo sales [View news story]
    Repeatedly making statements like "the 787 has only deliver 140 since 2003" clearly shows an irrational bias. The 787 program has certainly had a lot of problems; there's no need to imply that Boeing has been delivering 787s since 2003 to make the numbers look even worse than they are! Boeing didn't manage to deliver a 787 until late 2011 and that was the only 2011 delivery; deliveries didn't really get going until 2012 and then, of course, there were the months long delay resulting from the battery fires. Boeing is still struggling to get the delivery rate up to where it wants it to be, but the 787 definitely is looking much better, with the production rate smoothing out at around 10 per month, now.

    While Airbus has consistently "reported" taking more orders than Boeing for over a decade now (11 out of 13 years, I believe), Boeing has been delivering more planes since 2012. Both Airbus and Boeing should have a number of good years, from here on out. But neither company is in any danger of being put out of business by the other. And, of course, the customers love having too strong competitors, especially when negotiating an aircraft order. ;-)
    Jun 5 04:09 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boeing's Stealth Taxpayer Subsidy [View article]
    SquareHead, this sounds like a Libertarian rant, AKA Tea Party types. Although, this could be one of those areas where the far right and far left agree. The inconvenient truth for Libertarians is that, aside from the US, it's hard to find any other country that has any significant Libertarian political party. To the contrary, almost all countries use their federal governments to very actively promote "Business". The US hoped to curtail that with the WTO but as the lawsuit between the EU/Airbus and US/Boeing showed, there's little hope of that happening.

    The author seems to be unaware that Boeing's commercial aircraft business has only one competitor, that being Airbus, a business created and nurtured by five EU governments. The EU countries will never let Airbus go out of business, whether or not they build competitive products (which they are). Airbus could not have survived without government subsidies which allowed them to lower the price to a point where their customers couldn't resist taking a chance. Airbus is still struggling to become a "true" business that can stand on its own and actually make profits. Although there have been many reports of Airbus being the largest aircraft company, over that last decade plus, based on orders, the financials didn't reflect what the orders projected. But, they are certainly a strong competitor to Boeing, now, thanks to the involvement of the governments of France, Germany, et al. To do that, they had to break a Libertarian law, i.e. governments can't do anything right, they can only make things worse! ;-) You know, the government sin of "picking winners and losers" - Libertarians would have you believe that governments can only pick losers!

    As a previous post pointed out, not mentioning the fact that Export Import Agencies/Banks exist in many other countries, is a pretty ridiculous omission, to say the least!

    List of export credit agencies (from Wikipedia):

    Multilateral export credit agencies[edit]
    ##Multilateral Development Banks - (MDBs) ##Africa - African Development Bank AfdB
    ##Africa - African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank)
    ##Andean Countries - Corporación Andina de Fomento ("CAF")
    ##Arab League - Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development
    ##Asia - Asian Development Bank
    ##Central and Eastern Europe - European Bank for Reconstruction and Development ("EBRD")
    ##Islamic Corporation for the Insurance of Investment and Export Credit ("ICIEC") (part of the Islamic Development Bank)
    ##Islamic Development Bank (IsDB)
    ##Latin America - Inter-American Development Bank ("IADB")
    ##Nordic Development Fund ("NDF")
    ##OPEC Fund for International Development ("OFfID")

    ##Multilateral Financial Institutions ##Central and Eastern Europe - European Union (EU)
    ##Central and Eastern Europe - European Investment Bank ("EIB")
    ##Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (part of World Bank)

    ##Sub-Regional Banks ## Australia - Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)
    ## Austria - Austrian Development Agency (ADA)
    ## Canada - Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
    ## Denmark - Danish Development Agency (DANIDA)
    ## Finland - Department for International Development Cooperation
    ## France - Agence Française de Développement (AfD)
    ## Germany - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH
    ## Germany - Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KFW)
    ## Japan - Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
    ## Netherlands - Netherlands Development Cooperation
    ## New Zealand - New Zealand Official Development Assistance (NZODA)
    ## Norway - Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation
    ## Sweden - Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)
    ## United Kingdom - U.K Department for International Development Cooperation (DFID)
    ## United States - U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)


    Official export credit agencies by country[edit]
    ## Australia - Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC)
    ## Austria - Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG (OeKB)
    ## Belgium - Office national du Ducroire/Nationale Delcrederedienst (ONDD)
    ## Canada - Export Development Canada (EDC)
    ## China - Export-Import Bank of China (CEXIM), China Export & Credit Insurance Corporation (SINOSURE) ## Hong Kong - Hong Kong Export Credit Insurance Corporation

    ## Colombia - Banco de Comercio Exterior de Colombia (Bancóldex)
    ## Czech Republic - Export Guarantee and Insurance Corporation (EGAP), Czech Export Bank
    ## Denmark - Eksport Kredit Fonden (EKF)
    ## Estonia - Kredex Krediidikindlustus (EST)
    ## Finland - Finnvera and its subsidiary Finnish Export Credit Ltd (FEC)
    ## France - Compagnie Française d'Assurance pour le Commerce Extérieur (COFACE), Direction des Relations Economiques Extérieures (Ministère de l'Economie) (DREE)
    ## Germany - Euler Hermes Kreditversicherungs-AG, AuslandsGeschäftsAbsic... der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
    ## Greece - Export Credit Insurance Organisation (ECIO)
    ## Hungary - Hungarian Export Credit Insurance Ltd (MEHIB), Hungarian Export-Import Bank
    ## India - Export-Import Bank of India, Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India (ECG)
    ## Iran - Export Development Bank of Iran,(EDBI)
    ## Israel - Israel Foreign Trade Risks Insurance Corporation, (ASHRA)
    ## Italy - SACE S.p.A. Servizi Assicurativi del Commercio Estero
    ## Japan- Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), Nippon Export and Investment Insurance (NEXI)
    ## Jordan - Jordan Loan Guarantee Cooperation (JLGC), Loan Guarantee & Export Credit Guarantee
    ## South Korea - Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (K-SURE), The Export-Import Bank of Korea (KEXIM)
    ## Luxembourg - Office du Ducroire (ODD)
    ## Mexico - Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior (Bancomext)
    ## Netherlands - Atradius
    ## New Zealand - Export Credit Office (ECO)
    ## Norway - The Norwegian Guarantee Institute for Export Credits (GIEK)
    ## Poland - Korporacja Ubezpieczén Kredytów Eksportowych (KUKE)
    ## Portugal - Companhia de Seguro de Créditos
    ## Russia - Export Insurance Agency of Russia
    ## Slovakia - Export-Import Bank of the Slovak Republic (Eximbank SR)
    ## Sri Lanka - Sri Lanka Export Credit Insurance Corporation (SLECIC)
    ## Spain - CESCEwww.cesce.es(Mini... de Economía)
    ## Sweden - Exportkreditnämnden (EKN)
    ## Switzerland - Swiss Export Risk Insurance (SERV)
    ## Turkey - Export Credit Bank of Turkey (Türk Eximbank)
    ## United Kingdom - Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD)
    ## United States - Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank)
    Jun 3 04:01 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Norwegian Air halts talks for 20 787 planes [View news story]
    OK, so if we take a look at the NASDAQ Boeing Company (The) Stock Research - Analyst Summary (http://bit.ly/1m3wG5c), or most any other list of analysts that follow Boeing, we see a very different picture than what Thomas would have you believe, not that anyone who's familiar with Thomas would find that to be news! ;-)
    $160 12-Month Price Target Range (Consensus)
    13 Strong Buy
    01 Buy
    06 Hold
    00 Underperform
    00 Sell
    Apr 28 07:15 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Mad Money Recommends Boeing: So Is It Time To Sell? [View article]
    As Thomas pointed out, the "Boeing 777: Cracks and Cabin Pressure" does not apply to the MH 370 777, it did not have the antenna installed referred to by the FAA order. This was reported early on and I'm surprised to see it, once again, referred to as one of the multiple possible causes of the MH370 incident.
    Apr 1 09:24 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Will Dreamliner Hairline Cracks Cost Boeing First Place? Probably Not, But It Cannot Afford Delays [View article]
    The complexity of these machines is, well, so extreme that it is truly amazing they are as safe as they are. Although, much credit has to go to the regulators (NTSB / FAA), who keep the manufacturer's honest, the safety of flying is an example of government showing it can provide a very beneficial service.
    Apr 1 09:07 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Buy Boeing on the dip, Sterne Agee says [View news story]
    The markets go up and down, but long term, obviously, they go up. If that were not true, the "market" would cease to exist. The long term trend is always up therefore Bears are only happy during the short term down turns; it's much more fun to be a Bull! Although, apparently, some seem to enjoy bad news far too much, to the point of only highlighting negatives while ignoring any positives! ;-)
    Apr 1 08:01 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boeing to end pension plans for non-union employees [View news story]
    HMmmm, I didn't know there were any non-union pensions left. I retired in 2008 and our Boeing pension contributions were eliminated in 2001, I think. I have a pension but it's just not as large as it would have been had the Boeing contributions continued. Boeing added 2% to my 401K contributions after that.

    I believe that pensions came into being during the wage freeze times of the war and after, not because of union negotiations. I asked a reporter once about that but she said she couldn't determine whether Boeing initiated the pensions unilaterally or if the unions negotiated for them; I believe it's likely Boeing did what other companies were doing, i.e. adding pensions as a recruitment enticement. The IAM unions negotiated increases to the pensions but I don't think they can (as they did) claim that they came up with the pension idea.

    Anybody know how and when Boeing's pensions came to be?
    Mar 6 04:28 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sterne Agee: Boeing Q1 deliveries slower than expected [View news story]
    link for the Dreamliner Lawsuit Dismissal didn't work for me but I found it (Boeing Dreamliner Lawsuit Dismissal Upheld on Appeal:
    http://bit.ly/1hQSU9z

    interesting, there's much too much of this kind of lawsuit being filed against large companies just because of a possible big payout. Hopefully, the court will penalize the lawyers for their greedy attempt at enriching themselves. Fragment from that article:

    The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago also asked a trial- court judge to consider punishing lawyers for the City of Livonia Public Employees’ Retirement System in Michigan for failing to adequately investigate statements allegedly made by a confidential source they relied on. . . . .

    “Noting that none of the plaintiffs’ lawyers had met or talked to Singh until six months after they filed the second amended complaint, even though the first amended complaint had alleged reliance on internal Boeing communications, the judge thought their failure to attempt to verify the allegations in the investigator’s notes amounted to a fraud on the court,” the appeals court said today
    Mar 6 03:54 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boeing: Take Profits Now [View article]
    As far as investing in EADS/Airbus goes, being a novice investor, I find it difficult to find basic info for Airbus. EADS/Airbus (now just Airbus), last I heard, is listed on 4 exchanges, the NYSE NOT being one of them. So, when you pull up EADS on most of the financial web sites I'm familiar with, there's a lot of missing information, e.g.:
    P/E -
    Div/yield -
    EPS -
    Shares -
    Inst. own -

    I think P/E is an important number to watch and while the Airbus share price has done quite well recently, that increase has driven their P/E up over 30. They'll have to grow a lot to "grow" into their current share price. Boeings P/E is also high but not in the30s (25). Then there's the matter of dividends. Airbus has only very infrequently paid any dividends while Boeing has consistently paid them. Dividends really do add up, long term, for any long term investor; that's definitely not been true for Airbus.
    Jan 21 02:59 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Boeing: Take Profits Now [View article]
    Orders are not a good measure for comparing Boeing and Airbus. Airbus has made it a top priority to win that race and will do almost anything to win. Normally, one would expect a company consistently winning more orders to also be relatively more profitable and delivering more product than their competitors. But, in the decade leading up to 2012, Airbus built up a much larger order backlog than Boeing. And yet, in 2012 and again in 2013, Boeing delivered more planes than Airbus did!

    As to the A350, Airbus's initial A350 offering was publicly ridiculed by one or the largest aircraft customers, because is wasn't competitive with the 787. Airbus went back to the drawing boards but decided not to match all the innovations in the 787, fearing a much to long lead time for the 787. Airbus is hoping to produce 4 A350s by the beginning of 2015 (end of 2014) while Boeing is currently producing 10 B787s / month and expects to increase that rate, going forward. Airbus partisans expected Airbus to sell lots of A350s at the last Dubai air show; Airbus even did a A350 fly by, to help sell the A350. But then Boeing sold more 787s than Airbus sold A350s.

    It seems like Airbus is always going to overtake Boeing; but, of course, that'll happen sometime in the future, like maybe 2012 and 2013. OOPS, what just happened! ;-)
    Jan 21 12:52 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boeing sued over Asiana 777 crash [View news story]
    A lot is known as to why the crash occurred but the NTSB will evaluate all the evidence, including the human factors, relating to the pilots. We do know, for example, that the pilots thought they had set the auto throttle on but had only turned on one of the two switches and that there were red warning lights on, warning about the low speed and that the pilots were preoccupied with "stabilizing" the plane. It's also known that no problems were found with the plane itself.

    Re the suit against Boeing: suing Boeing for this crash is about like suing the Asiana because they stopped short of the gates, inconveniencing the disembarking passengers! We seriously need to make the now common practice of filing frivolous lawsuits very expensive for those law firms. Anyone who needs a court date to resolve a legal issue, has a long wait ahead of them. In the meanwhile, we have these frivolous lawsuits, which take up a huge chunks of court time, clogging up the judicial system.
    Jan 20 08:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boeing 787 in Japan probed on smoke seen during repairs [View news story]
    Airbus claimed more orders than Boeing 9 out of the 10 years before 2012, accumulating a bigger order backlog than Boeing. But then in 2012 and again last year, 2013, Boeing delivered more planes than Airbus did, and those were some of those future years one would have expected Airbus to deliver more planes than Boeing, based on those orders, right? So for a number of years, orders have not been a good metric to comparing Boeing and Airbus, especially when it come to revenue and earnings.

    The only way I can explain the order/delivery discrepancy is that Airbus has taken orders for deliveries that are further out than Boeing's orders, on average. If that were not the case, I'd expect to be reading about Airbus missing delivery schedules, but I've not seen any reporting to that effect? Instead, most reporting about late / missed delivery schedules is attributed to Boeing, mostly 787s, of course.
    Jan 15 02:23 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Airbus Vs. Boeing: Who Has The Airplane Of The Future? [View article]
    I made the below comment to an analysis, with lots of nice charts, that Confero (http://bit.ly/1m1ozrh) did. Confero replied "You're right that it's worth looking into the order books. I'll do that when I have some time to spare (it was already on the short list). It might pop up some surprises". I, for one, am looking forward to that analysis. It's been something I've been pointing out for a long time but the "Business Press" keeps ignoring the discrepancy between what the orders imply and what reality shows(the financial numbers), much to Airbus's delight, I'm sure. ;-)


    One of my reply's to Confero:
    The order numbers have favored Airbus for some time now, many years, actually. Airbus has made it a priority to beat Boeing, which they accomplished, sometimes, with some very creative "math". But, the huge order backlog "advantage" Airbus has over Boeing didn't just happen; it's been happening for over a decade now. So, if the order numbers are a good indicator for future success, how come the future that is now, hasn't proven that? For example, Airbus claimed more orders than Boeing 9 out of the 10 years leading up to 2012,and as the charts show, Airbus had a huge advantage in "claimed" order backlog, by then. But then in 2012, Boeing delivered more planes than Airbus did and is expected to do so again this year (now confirmed). This is why the revenue chart has such a huge disconnect with the order backlog chart; the bulk of the revenue occurs at delivery time.

    My impression is that, in order to beat Boeing's numbers, Airbus has taken orders with delivery dates much further out than Boeing’s orders. The further out the delivery date for an order is, the less meaningful, that order is. If that were not the case, it seems to me we should be reading that Airbus is late with deliveries. But it's the other way around; Boeing is missing delivery dates.

    I think that unless we can get more details on those order numbers, namely, how many of those orders are to be delivered this year, next year, etc., that the order numbers are not that meaningful. After all, they are not independent numbers, Airbus gets to decide what their numbers are and in general, they've been deciding that their numbers are going to be bigger than Boeing's! ;-) Why else does Airbus always wait for Boeing to announce their numbers before they announce theirs, sometimes with a rather significant delay?! ;-)

    Airbus is doing just fine and, I'm sure, will continue to do well. But, I've now read that Airbus has an advantage over Boeing in their lineup (aircraft), having previously read the opposite and I find the arguments for Boeing having the advantage more convincing. Because . . .

    It's commonly reported that the A350, being newer than the B787, has newer technology. But it's actually the reverse of that. Airbus made a disastrous first attempt at responding to the 787 and was publically ridiculed, by one of the largest aircraft customers, for that offering's design. In the end, they settled on a compromise, not matching the 787 but keeping the delivery gap smaller than it would have been, if they had tried to match all the innovation in the 787 (or course, they and Boeing had no idea how long it would take Boeing to get the 787 program under control). Customers were not real happy with that but had to go with it; it's not like Boeing could suddenly double their production rates (or Airbus, for that matter). Some (Airbus partisans) were surprised when Boeing took in more orders for the 787 than Airbus did for the new "fly by" A350, at the Dubai Air Show. Doesn't make sense if you believe that the A350 is better than the 787, especially considering that the wait for the 787 is quite long (although that's also true for the A350). And, the 787 program appears to be smoothed out now, with production rate at 10/month and those rates will further increase. I haven’t read much about the A350 program. Last I heard, Airbus hopes to be producing 4/month by the end of 2014. Obviously, it’ll be a while before Airbus can deliver very many A350s, compared to the 787 deliveries, which means Boeing will probably have earlier delivery dates for the 787 than Airbus has for the A350.

    Also, the Boeing 777X will again be a superior offering, assuming all goes well? Airbus is considering a larger A350 as a competitor, but there are limits to how much you can "stretch" a plane and retain the operating SPECs you need. These are some of the arguments I've read for Boeing having the better line up.
    Jan 14 04:05 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
161 Comments
93 Likes