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

Lowe's Companies, Inc. Message Board

  • spectracide spectracide Sep 21, 1999 11:46 AM Flag

    Damaged LOW stores???

    Does anyone know if and/or how many LOW stores
    were damaged (and maybe shut down) as a result of the
    flooding in the Carolinas. After all, this is where LOW
    has largest concentration of locations. While the
    flood will cause a TREMENDOUS surge in sales at LOW
    (and HD), if several LOW stores were closed/damaged as
    a result of the flood, we could see a very short
    term hit (like today). Thanks. I emailed IR, others
    ought to do the same.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Investor Relations very quickly (thank you)
      responded to my email and noted that one store was damaged
      by the floods and has not reopened; additionally
      several other stores were shut down for a couple of days
      due to mandatory evacuations, but are back in
      business with very little damage.

      Thus we probably
      have a short term hit to sales which will be more than
      offset by the rebuilding process.

      Good luck.

      • 1 Reply to spectracide
      • We are down nearly three dollars on one store
        closing because of flood damage when we know LOWES is
        going to sell all the plywood they can get their hands
        on for the next two months because of hurricane
        season..... I figured we would be up ten dollars by the end
        of the week..... but down 2 5/8 is a huge hit
        considering that it will take a couple of days to get it back
        up... and we should be moving the other direction
        anyway! Can anyone explain the big drop on such small
        news???? I expected to be at 60 by the end of OCTOBER!

    • IR is not telling the truth. I have personaly
      seen 3 stores on the local news that have been
      damaged. Two were under about 8 feet of water and the
      other was at about 3 feet. The flooding is very serious
      and I fear there are more than just the 3 I have seen
      on the news.

    • Lowe's has 533 stores as of the end of last
      quarter. If its 1 store or 3 stores or even a few more
      that are temporarily shut down, it just isnt enough to
      make any real impact on sales.

      This storm
      impacted the entire east coast, from South Florida to New
      England. I am sure the increased sales in all those stores
      will far offset any loss from a temporary closing of a
      few stores. Besides those stores that did get damaged
      probably sold a ton of stuff before the storm

      A benefit that I havent heard yet is that this
      storm probably cleared out much of Builders Square's
      inventory. They recently said they wont even try to
      reorganize under bankruptcy. They are going to liquidate
      everything instead and close all the stores. That was good
      news for LOW's and HD long term but there was/is some
      concern that over the short term there would be some lost
      sales since Builders Square was expected to liquidate
      their inventory at fire sale prices. But my guess, and
      its just a guess, is that Builders Square was able to
      unload much of their inventory during the storm, at
      least the lumber, which is their main product.

    • I agree with your findings that there are four
      possible ways of characterizing the validity of my theory
      on linkage of stock price to dollar value. I do
      believe their is a perception that many goods sold in our
      large retail outlets come from Asia.
      A change in the
      yen may be viewed as a threat that precedes a
      regional change in other currencies. Also an increase in
      interest rates may make it more expensive for LOW to build
      at the pace their earnings growth is pegged to. I
      have no real vested interst, having bought Eagle at
      17. It seems like the stock will come back when the
      dollar does and interest rates ease

    • Veerrryy hypocritical!!!!! Let's look at a few
      messages you have posted in the past few weeks:

      follow both HD and Lowes. If you are looking for
      short-term value, I think Lowes has more short-term
      potential simply because it appears to have been unjustly
      discounted over the past 2-3 months." - #3459

      "If I
      were made to trade all of my HD for Lowes I would not
      be overly concerned about my investment (i.e., I
      thing Lowes will perform quite nicely)." -

      "HD and LOW long-term holders will both do great.
      Which will do better over the long-haul - who really
      knows. I tend to agree that over the short-term (i.e.,
      3-6 months) LOW's appears to have more upside
      potential than HD simply due to the beating it took over
      the past couple of months." - #3411

      "Lets face
      it. Over the long-haul, both HD and LOW should
      provide their owner's with considerable returns. Both
      have room to grow both domestically and
      internationally. The choice between the two may just be personal
      preference." - #3397

      When you start talking out of both
      sides of your mouth; you lose all your credibility! I
      think Lowes scares you, and it seems that whenever it
      hits its support levels you try and beat it down
      further. But on the way up you talk about how LOW is a
      great company with nothing separating it and HD except
      personal preference. YOU KNOW IT'S GOING UP - and by
      attacking LOW you simply show your fear.


    • ...BIG buying opportunity.

      When your enemies praise you; you know they are watching you.

    • Fixer,

      I just reread each post you
      included on your message. From review, those do not sound
      hypocrytical. In fact they every one of those posts says LOW
      should perform quite nicely in fact probably better than
      HD over the short-term. Please explain to me what is
      hypocrytical in my posts.



      PS -
      Tulsa is a great town (I have many Oklahoma State
      buddies living there).

    • Fixer,

      In reference to losing my
      credibility, I don't post on Yahoo message boards to try and
      gain "credibility" from a group of people I don't even
      know. This a forum for posting your thoughts on a
      particular stock and/or its competitors. My thoughts are
      exactly what I've posted. If you think they are worthless
      and hypocrytical, then simply skip over any posts
      that are made by me. At least this board and the HD
      board are not full of idiots using foul language and
      making personal attacks in every other message. Go try
      reading some other boards like PCLN sometime and see what
      I mean.


    • "The McDonald's $0.99 menu is more "attractcively
      valued" than what I can get at other restaurants,
      however, that does not mean it is better than what I can
      get at other restaurants. People need to remember
      that current price (P/E ratios) is not the only way to
      compare company values (i.e., LOW vs. HD). Also, is more attractively valued that Ebay right now
      as well but I don't think I would go buy any" - #3483


      "HD and LOW long-term
      holders will both do great. Which will do better over the
      long-haul - who really knows. I tend to agree that over the
      short-term (i.e., 3-6 months) LOW's appears to have more
      upside potential than HD simply due to the beating it
      took over the past couple of months." -

      If you feel LOW's has more potential and that it
      will do great of the short-term; why are you implying
      that LOW is not undervalued? This is the hypocracy I
      was refering too.

    • Fixer,

      Read my post. I never said LOW was
      not undervalued. I simply said that many people only
      look at a stock PE's in determining whether it is
      undervalued. This is too simplistic of an approach. Often
      times there are underlying factors that are causing the
      PE ratio to be significantly lower as compared to
      other similar companies. All I am implying is that
      people should perform more due diligence than simply
      comparing PE ratios and saying one is a better value than
      the other because all other things may not be equal.

      I, however, never said or even implied this was the
      case between HD and LOW. I simply made an anology that
      one cannot simply compare on price alone.

      Read the post I was replying to. Nowhere did that
      individual even attempt to explain why LOW was more
      attractively valued than HD other than having a lower PE. I am
      sure you agree that this is too simplistic of an
      analysis to solely make an buy descision.


    • View More Messages
70.65+0.76(+1.09%)Oct 21 4:02 PMEDT