Recent

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

Magnum Hunter Resources Corp. Message Board

not_a_short 51 posts  |  Last Activity: Sep 28, 2016 12:45 PM Member since: Sep 9, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Industry at 95 (out of 96) in terms of "Timeliness" (lower number is better). I cannot recall an industry that is doing so well being rated so poorly. AAL, UAL,DAL, JBLU, and LUV are all rated 5s (on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is best). I don't think this group rated this poorly even after 9/11.

    When the sentiment turns, we could be in for a powerful rally.

    Not_A_Short

  • Reply to

    New Construct Rating Service

    by not_a_short Sep 26, 2016 12:30 PM
    not_a_short not_a_short Sep 26, 2016 7:07 PM Flag

    Thanks for the correction unc. (Accounting is not really a strong suit for me). The point remains that AAL's rating is lower due to the big GAAP gain and UAL's was not.

    I would disagree that nothing really matter except RASM. The market has not adjusted to the fact that each AAL share represents a much substantially bigger part of the company vs 2 years ago. It will eventually. (trying to predict when is as hard as figuring out the daily fluctuations - futile in my opinion and a waste of time and effort)

    Not_A_Short

  • not_a_short by not_a_short Sep 26, 2016 12:30 PM Flag

    New Construct Rating

    This stock rating service has a Neutral rating for AAL. It appears the chief negative they have is the quality of earnings (10.59 vs 5.59). This is the distortion of earnings has been brought on by the reversal of NOLs that is well known. They rate AAL in the 72nd percentile (out of 3000+ stocks they rate). Oddly they have UAL as Very Attractive – they are not penalized for the quality of earnings though they have a similar adjustment. UAL has a rating in the 99th percentile. LUV is also rated Very Attractive (97th percentile). DAL is rated Attractive (90th percentile)

    I had not heard of this service before. It is available through Scottrade and by direct subscription. Not sure what their track record is like.

    Not_A_Short

  • Reply to

    Jet Fuel avg $1.281/gal

    by unclespeaking Sep 8, 2016 11:21 AM
    not_a_short not_a_short Sep 8, 2016 2:22 PM Flag

    Is that the price AAL paid or an industry average?

    Not_A_Short

  • Reply to

    More Conferences the better

    by unclespeaking Sep 7, 2016 9:35 PM
    not_a_short not_a_short Sep 8, 2016 11:49 AM Flag

    I don't see how the Random Walk applies to yesterday's jump. The greater mystery to me is why the analysts (and market in general) as so down on an industry that is making so much money. The earnings yields are more than double the market (13 - 15 % vs about 5%), yet the analyst have at best tepid support. I guess the most recent metrics are slightly down and that is what they are looking at. If you compare these metrics to 2 years ago and you factor out the fuel stuff, the growth is substantial.

    Not_A_Short

  • Reply to

    Gap Watch

    by unclespeaking Sep 7, 2016 11:32 AM
    not_a_short not_a_short Sep 7, 2016 2:01 PM Flag

    Congrats. I wish had the courage to buy with gusto all the way through the downturn. I only added a little near the lows.

    Not_A_Short

  • not_a_short by not_a_short Sep 7, 2016 12:41 PM Flag

    are having a rough day. I wonder if those that shorted recently are holding on or dumping. If I recall about 6M net shares more were shorted this quarter. All must be in the red now.

    Not_A_Short

  • not_a_short by not_a_short Sep 6, 2016 1:40 PM Flag

    I was reading Barrons yesterday and I noticed how poorly AAL looked to a casual reader. . In the stock table, they showed a very substantial decline in earning this year ($5.43) vs last year (($11.07). The outlook for next year also looks poor ($4.88) - another decline. Of course they were displaying net earnings and not operating earnings for last year and the forward earnings does reflect the substantial stock buyback. .

    This is not the kind of presentation that attracts new investors.

    Not_A_Short

  • This would give me qualms about flying these guys.

    "The Post then compared Allegiant’s record with Delta’s by obtaining and reviewing reports filed by Delta for the same aircraft models for the same period. Delta flies more than twice as many MD-80s and MD-88s and more than four times as many of the Airbus models, but Allegiant had many more serious incidents.

    Allegiant told the FAA that its 50 McDonnell Douglas planes — including DC-9s and MD-80s — had 50 unscheduled landings, five emergency descents and eight aborted takeoffs. From Jan. 1, 2015, through the end of March 2016, Delta reported that its 117 MD-88 aircraft had six unscheduled landings, one emergency descent and no aborted takeoffs."

    Hard to believe FAA has not taken a stronger interest.

    Not_A_Short

  • Reply to

    DOUBLE TOP BREAKOUT achieved

    by jalopysrus Aug 30, 2016 12:00 PM
    not_a_short not_a_short Aug 30, 2016 1:06 PM Flag

    I don't believe in chart stuff, but I realize that those that do often drive the price of a stock. (especially short-term) . It is odd that charts do not account for share buybacks directly. The amount of ownership that a single share of AAL stock represents has changed quite a bit since the start of the year. Charts do not reflect this at all.

    Not_A_Short

  • Reply to

    Ual stock rise

    by dca1186 Aug 30, 2016 11:31 AM
    not_a_short not_a_short Aug 30, 2016 12:00 PM Flag

    I think he did get credit for his work at AAL. The UAL response is more of addressing a concern that the senior guy was not an airline guy and now he has another respected senior manager with deep airline experience. Having a senior with outside perspective is just what the UAL needs. The UAL boss is really trying to change the culture there.

    AAL stock has not been hurt since they are viewed as having good depth in management. Parker is a big part of it, but I am certain that within the ranks of the old AAL, there are quite a few quality mid-level managers ready to move up.

    Not_A_Short

  • Reply to

    Kirby

    by not_a_short Aug 30, 2016 11:13 AM
    not_a_short not_a_short Aug 30, 2016 11:48 AM Flag

    Parker is 54. Isom at 53 would not be viewed as a successor (maybe as a backup). The next leader will come from the ranks of the guys who are now in their late 30s/early 40s. These are the guys they want to retain. Their path to the top looks much easier today than it looked yesterday.

    Not_A_Short

  • not_a_short by not_a_short Aug 30, 2016 11:13 AM Flag

    His departure is probably due to his age. He is too close in age to Parker to be a successor. They usually want someone 10-15 years younger for next leader. I doubt Parker is going retire anytime soon and by the time he hangs it up, Kirby would be close to 60 - not exactly the age they want for the job. I suspect this was done to give hope to the many talented underlings that covet the job.

    Also, this gives Kirby a chance for the top spot at United. Given Munoz's health problems, I doubt he will stay at the top for a long time. It sounds like Kirby he did a good job at AAL and I expect he will be missed. I wish him well.

    Not_A_Short

  • Reply to

    Share Buyback

    by not_a_short Aug 24, 2016 10:48 AM
    not_a_short not_a_short Aug 28, 2016 11:56 PM Flag

    Ok. Thanks. I have not heard the Aircraft Rent being considered debt before.

    Not_A_Short

  • Reply to

    Share Buyback

    by not_a_short Aug 24, 2016 10:48 AM
    not_a_short not_a_short Aug 24, 2016 9:29 PM Flag

    Where did you come up with the "Adjusted Total Debt" figure of $31.4B?

    Not_A_Short

  • not_a_short by not_a_short Aug 24, 2016 10:48 AM Flag

    should be running out of authorization soon. If I recall correctly, they only had about $800M left at start of quarter and were buying at a good clip (over $100M per week). The recent labor agreement talked about a lump sum payment and that may have slowed to buyback a bit.

    I hope they authorize another substantial buyback. The current stock price is 10% below the average price paid during the last 2 years yet each share bought today represents about 1/3 more of the company than it did at the start. Pretty compelling.

    Not_A_Short

  • not_a_short not_a_short Aug 18, 2016 11:56 AM Flag

    For traders, I imagine Wall Street does look like a casino. For the longer-term investor, the results are not chance.

    Not_A_Short

  • not_a_short by not_a_short Aug 15, 2016 12:04 PM Flag

    was completely due to reduced fuel prices. AAL reported passenger revenue decline of 399M year over year. They also reported reduce fuel and fuel taxes of 460M in Q2 (again year over year). This means that passenger revenue (excluding the impact of lower fuel prices) actually increased.

    I realize that everyone would like a single metric to look at to evaluate the health of a company. PRASM is probably a good way to measure the health of an industry in a stable fuel price environment. With fuel prices so volatile, any metric that does not take this into account is bound to mislead at times. That is the case here.

    Not_A_Short

  • not_a_short by not_a_short Aug 15, 2016 11:47 AM Flag

    from 48.3M on July 15 to 49.8M as of July 29. AAL has bought back around 10M shares over this time period (assuming buyback rate of early July has continued)

    I consider the short interest a gauge of the amount of short-term (most technical) traders. It is hard to imagine a long-term, fundamental-based investor picking AAL to short at these levels. A long term short investor typically picks over-valued or over-leveraged companies with poor earning prospects for their shorts. They often target companies with questionable accounting practices or outfits where seniors management is enriching themselves at shareholders expense. I do not think AAL fits that profile at all.

    Not_A_Short

  • Reply to

    49,773,951 Shares

    by unclespeaking Aug 11, 2016 3:37 PM
    not_a_short not_a_short Aug 12, 2016 11:43 AM Flag

    I guess you don't care the the baseball analogy (BTW you never refer to the score as point - it is painful to baseball fans). Yet the time-frame to evaluate an investment is an important consideration. I have been managing my own portfolios for about 20 years and ignoring short term fluctuations is important. I have seen many investors quit good investment situations due to price fluctuation.

    Not_A_Short

MHR
0.0000(0.00%)