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

Oshkosh Corporation Message Board

  • jongeol jongeol Sep 8, 2009 4:42 PM Flag

    Effect of FMTV stoppage

    OSK share price was in the high $20s when the initial phase of the FMTV was awarded. I doubt we would retrace even half way back on just a temporary stoppage to evaluate the protest. OSK stated on 8/13, prior to the award, that it believed it could deliver a bid lower than the "incumbent" program, so I don't see why the Army would be forced to cancel a vehicle program just because it costs less (but this is the government!!!!)

    I thought about selling, but I'd rather live with a drop of a dollar or two than miss out on the next bump of 10-15% when the FMTV contract is re-validated, or another phase of the M-ATV is announced, or some unexpected contract is announced. And over the next several months, it's hard to see this stock not pushing into the mid to high $30s.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Sorry, you are correct.


    • You are confusing M-ATV with FMTV. Two totally different contracts.

      The FMTV contract is being protested not the M-ATV.


    • Actually the first 45 were to be delivered in July. If you will
      look carefully at past headlines I think you will find April
      2010 is the completion time.


    • Huh ?? The first FMTV deliveries are not scheduled until mid 2010. How is that going to affect the quarter?


    • Your right! I think BAE got too comfortable in those nice long tasty gov't contracts and didn't keep their operationing costs in line and got beat plain and simple and now they want to muddy the water. SORE LOSERS!! I hope OSK will come out with a statement soon to give confidence to the market and shareholders.


    • Reality check: they way underbid just to win the contract. It is illegal to bid under cost. Large FINE$$$!!! Possibly barred from bidding on future DOD contracts. This means management is desperate to avoid bankruptcy, which isn't off the table.
      You want to hold on to the bag, be my guest but don't say we didn't warn you.

      • 3 Replies to omo_senza_nome
      • I've got 3 major objections to your statements.

        #1 While any company can go bankrupt, one that just raised $350 Million through a public offering is probably not my first candidate. especially not right now. They may not be "flush" with cash, but chapter 11 is still a long ways off.

        #2 Using a defense focused competitors bid to determine OSK's cost structure is absurd, they weren't quoting to the same blue prints who knows how OSK's design compares to BAE's, much less their business models.

        #3 Make up your mind, did they underbid the contract, or are they in collusion with the Obama administration. It would take a world class moronic management team to waste presidential meddling in an army contract on a money losing contract. I've never heard of using govermental influence to help you win a negative margin job.

      • IMO, There is no way OSK underbid their costs. If the costs were out of line the contracting officials would have caught it as it would have been a huge red flag. Believe me... They just don't award a contract to the lowest bidder without ensuring that the work can be performed at that price. Since OSK bid was supposedly 30% lower than the incumbent, I'm sure the contracting officials double checked the bid pricing to see if it was realistic and workable.


      • < It is illegal to bid under cost. Large FINE$$$!!! >

        I don't mean to question you. But what you said is so significant that I would like to ask you, if you don't mind, on what basis do you say that. In other words, how certain are you that it is illegal to bid under cost?


54.44+0.09(+0.17%)Aug 26 4:02 PMEDT