that is certainly part of it. Copper is the driver. But, if they can get oil and Gas contributing then it adds to 2 important fronts. 1) it actually contributes to the bottom line after the inflated purchase price being digested. 2) it creates a higher valuation for those operations. And that is very important as these are most likely the next sales candidates. So they can either bottom line positive contributions or raise the selling price based on higher cash flows and earning power.
But there is little doubt there is energy in the metals space right now.
interesting observation. Obviously each trades on its own supply & demand metrics. But copper might be the most misunderstood metal among the group due to the change on collateral rules in China a couple years back. Seems no one has a good handle on what the demand is for and where the supply is. No doubt a good deal of hoarded copper is being bled out into the markets confusing the real demand. But -- I believe the leaders of the copper companies when they venture out into the future stating that copper supplies are very low. I'll bank on that. Copper will get back to $5 some day. Oil will go back to $100 some day. Gas will get back to $4. And Gold will be north of $1600 again. And likely all in the same time frame of inflation or supply / demand imbalance from the dearth of Capex over the last couple of years.
With that -- now that FCX survival is assured, it does seem plausible that the days of $40 + stock are indeed out there when you start considering EPS of $5 + with these commodity prices. My bet -- its not as far off as many believe. I think $20's are in store for next year
the acquisitions over the last 5 years were to diversify the commodity operations and take the spikes out of the business. Selling low performing mills to curb the global glut and right size operations was the plan in place. And now to separate them and isolate the commodity altogether amidst the glut and frankly add cost to the total operations with new administrative support functions all the while telling investors this enhances overall value simply doesn't fly. How can it ? Efficiencies are lost. Diversification is lost. Scale is lost. ANd for Klaus to be jumping ship to he 'better' of the businesses and telling investors its all good is bogus. He's done some good things at Alcoa --- but this one unravels much of the good --- and the permanent nature of this has put this once again on its heels. This was a bad move IMO
good post --- and good dialogue here. All this money will casue lift. BUt will it be 1 for 1 ? More or less ? That is the big question. Many here believe $1 invested reaps more than $1 in return. My view is that it is less than $1 so therefore find another alternative for that $1. My point is made by declining margins, pricing in its core business, and real earnings. Im not down on the business, Im down on how its run with regard to the cash. No secret there.
Its an intriguing story because its being invested in heavily by the company who has fat margins but a declining base. Its also starling to see executives spend massive cash hoards of company money to buy stock and yet sell their own grants as quickly as they get them. That has always confounded me. They spend all that cash to buy it with shareholder money --- and yet they sell their own to the point where their personal stakes are minimal (until they get more grants). Id be more compelled to change my theory towards long term returns if they weren't so quick to cash in. good thread !
you have more energy than me for this board. I commend your stamina. There are a few that put forward good or provocative posts --- but they are few and far between. Weeks is lucky to have such a passive investor group
you are so right hobo. Read what Weeks and company just said regarding their biggest business LCD glass. Continued moderate price decreases . . . . . means continued erosion of both top and bottom lines in their core business. So, its profitable and they are in it to stay, but continuing to plow buybacks into decreasing revenue and profit streams via buybacks is not smart. Investors buy future earnings and growth. Since the core business has no growth, they should acquire new growth with their cash bounty. ITs how public companies satisfy the never ending thirst for growth and future cash flows. BUying more of declining businesses is effectively paying a premium today for something that will certainly be smaller tomorrow. Good business. Bad leadership