Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Southern Company Message Board

  • harleyman1903 harleyman1903 Feb 28, 2000 2:35 PM Flag

    EDDVARDS full of shit with his premier

    utility and management pay for performance
    garbage. SO is so management top heavy its pathetic.
    Obviously, Eddvards probably works for SO because it sounds
    like some of the garbage that they spout off to
    employees about.Look at the whopping negative 15% return
    last year and average 8% return over the last five
    years plus the fact that the 5-6% dividend doesn't
    compare with the better dividends that one can get with
    other sound companies for cheaper share price.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I still don't think you have it right. I don't
      consider myself macho and I don't make fun of EPA, I just
      observe the antics that go on in
      Washington.

      Believe me, they are morons. WOrse than that, they are
      fools with authority. If you don't think that their
      ultimate goal is to close down all the 'dirty' sources of
      pollution in the world, you need to sit in on some of the
      meetings. I could tell you some stories that would be funny
      if they weren't true. More than one company has been
      screwed over by these idiots. And the EPA continues to
      hide behind the defensive tactic that they are doing
      it for the environment. Regardless of anyone's views
      on firearms, it will be very expensive to find
      ammunition for any gun because of the lead laws, and if you
      have ammunition that contains lead, in the future you
      probably won't be able to dispose of it without EPA
      cleanup crews.

    • I believe the EPA suit will be dismissed, SO will
      rise again and this is a good time to buy.

      The
      Clean Air Act became law more than 20 YEARS ago. Did
      the EPA shut their eyes and turn their collective
      backs when these plants were being "repaired" or
      "modified"? Not our Government, No way!! These are ever
      vigilant professionals in the employ of the greatest
      country on earth. They are keenly aware of the difference
      between a boiler, turbine or generator repair/rebuild and
      a "new source" modification. There lies the fault
      with the lawsuit. The EPA had to know and they
      "permitted" the work to proceed.

      Dumas, you are
      correct about the quality of SO's enviromental compliance
      group. They are good and doing the best they can with an
      EPA bent on eliminating coal as a fuel source for
      power plants. These coal burners are the least
      polluting today that they have ever been. Almost all the
      "extensive" modifications done to these plants has been in an
      attempt to comply with the Clean Air Act. It is very hard
      for these plants to meet the requirements, but they
      are meeting them. In some cases, the modifications
      have increase the available power output of a unit
      without increasing the fuel consumption. More power using
      less fuel means less pollution...How can this be bad?


      Repair permits? If SO went before a regulatory
      review for a permit prior to making necessary repairs as
      needed, the power we take for granted when we "flip the
      switch" would surely fail.

      Folks, I am prone to
      being long winded. Must be the coal dust.

    • IMHO, SO should have at the least checked to see
      if (1)a permit was needed if they planned to do
      "repairs" costing a significant % of the initial capital
      cost of the unit, (2) a production increase would
      occur, and (3)EPA might possibly have rules requiring a
      permit for the work. As a stockholder, I wish that the
      facts, as I have been able to understand them from
      secondary sources, were not as they are in this particular
      case. SO has a strong environmental regulatory
      compliance group as well as renowned air pollution control
      specialists. It is difficult for me to believe that they did
      not recommend to top management that these "repairs"
      be cleared with the state and EPA environmental
      regulatory agencies before implementation. Every repair
      project does not need a permit, but it is only good
      business practice to get a regulatory ruling (yes or no)
      if you are going into a gray area. Hind sight is
      always much clearer than foresight. However regulatory
      compliance is no longer optional and has not been for years
      for electric utilities. It seems like top management
      has made a major bet that a permit was not required
      with the stock holders' assets.

    • was not asleep at the wheel...EPA stated that
      with the repairs that there was an increase in energy
      production...however where is this increase with SO?? all they made
      was simple clean-up repairs...if any energy
      production was increased it was due to there being less
      stress on the machines...since when do you need to pull
      a permit to clean house??

    • I agree that you got it right in the subject of
      your post. Unfortunately, that was about all you got
      right. The lawsuit is not groundless. If it was, Tampa
      Electric would not have settled their small portion for a
      billion dollars. Your statement - "If it was illegal to
      run these plants, the Feds would shut them down." is
      not meaningful. The suit is action to take to shut
      the plants down if some arrangement (fine or other
      agreement) can not be reached. For thirty years, I have
      watched the "macho" guys make fun of EPA and talk about
      what morons they are. Well, they are not morons and
      they will cost SO stockholders plenty on this because
      upper management was asleep at the wheel (or country
      club).

    • Not the real problem. Seems SO could not manage
      their problems here at home and then went abroad
      seeking more compensation.

      All these problems will
      be solved when executive management compensation
      packages are increased to reflect performance.

      EPA
      is simply a condition of doing business. You have to
      pay a lot more to get people who can manage the
      business in a complex environment. You have to make it
      worth their while. SO will not take off because of epa.
      They have to figure out what to do with those wasting
      assets. People are wising up to that empty slogan of
      service requirement. That is something that underpaid
      executives brainwash you with as an excuse for poor
      performance. Shame on those taken in by it.

    • Buy SO while it's cheap folks, cause as soon as
      that foul EPA stinky stuff blows away the stock will
      fly. This lawsuit mess is groundless anyway. If it was
      illegal to run these plants, the Feds would shut them
      down. These plants would stay shut down until the
      repairs were made or the public riots from electricity
      deprivation. Wait a minute, if they repair the plants, then
      they're breaking the law. But, they have to repair the
      plants because of their requirement to serve the public.
      Folks, we are in deep dodo and the EPA is leading the
      way. Gives me chill bumps.
      I think I'll go down
      and get a bite.

    • defending a losing record because you declare
      "deregulation" requires foreign investments (which quickly go
      bad), the stock price to go lower, and yet you say you
      tolerate
      huge bonuses for management who make these overseas
      investment losers. In my day, it was normally correct to pay
      a fair days pay for a fair days work, not a fair
      days group of blunders.

    • See you at the Chesterfield. We can discuss the Pink Menace after we trash the "SO Protectorate"!

    • If you're thinking about the dividend yield being
      12 percent at a lower price, think again. I remember
      telling my dad about all the high dividend stocks on the
      value line list. He laughed and said those dividend
      yields won't last for long. In fact, in the case of SO,
      I think a lower price would be justification for
      cutting the dividend yield. And in the management's
      current thinking, it saves the company money. ANother big
      bonus coming to whoever suggests that at the next board
      meeting.

    • View More Messages
 
SO
44.36+1.24(+2.88%)2:51 PMEDT