Again, thanks for the cheap shares. Barclays Capital analyst Robert Cornell’s understanding is roughly similar. “GE’s liability for the issues in Japan as a supplier are contractually zero we believe,” he wrote in a note. Even if the demand for nuclear reactors takes a dip because of the disaster in Japan, these analysts seem unworried about the potential impact at GE where the business is relatively small. (It’s about 3% of sales, according to Barclays.) There may even be some upside for other areas of General Electric’s business Dray writes:
There will likely be demand in Japan for power gen capacity to replace the damaged nuclear reactors. GE is one of the leading manufacturers of gas turbines, along with Siemens, Alstom, and Mitsubishi. Gas turbines are GE’s largest energy business, representing about 7% of total revenues.
GE currently has contracts for 71 nuclear reactors under construction worldwide. Even if the buyers decide they want to bail my understanding is they are still under contract to pay for a large percentage of what they ordered. Could mean even larger profits for GE without having to produce anything.
The teanderthals here crack me up trying to spread rumors that GE is responsible for the earthquake damaged reactors in Japan. They truly believe to the point of delusion if they repeat a lie enough times it instantly becomes truth.