Recent

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

Joy Global, Inc. Message Board

alphahunter 153 posts  |  Last Activity: Nov 18, 2013 9:44 AM Member since: Jan 29, 2009
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    One child policy

    by alphahunter Nov 13, 2013 6:26 PM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Nov 18, 2013 9:44 AM Flag

    Sure.
    I bought a few that day - punting ahead on a limited change in the policy.
    Some papers say +1.5 million birth / year, equivalent to an increment of 10%, applied to 25% of MJN's to, that's another structural 2.5 p.a. in organic growth. That makes say another 4% to the bottom line p.a., that's probably worth an extra 8% in the company's value. Back of the envelopp etc,...

  • alphahunter@rocketmail.com by alphahunter Nov 13, 2013 6:26 PM Flag

    Surely a change in the one-child policy in China, even if modest, should help MJN tremendously.

  • alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Nov 12, 2013 11:06 AM Flag

    Yes exactly. The thing is, there is no separation of roles between Chairman and CEO, and this case is typically where the main shareholders would have a word with the Chairman to get some sens into his out-of-control, ego-driven CEO. Unlike an independant Chairman. a CEO does not represent shareholders but his job and pay bracket.

  • Reply to

    Lesson learned: China

    by y2k7trillionover Nov 11, 2013 4:25 PM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Nov 12, 2013 10:55 AM Flag

    lesson learned: poor Management at CTB. What is the Chairman doing? Ooops sorry, this is a US inc, where CEOs are also Chairmen.

  • Reply to

    Hearing results shortly

    by razzledazzle5050 Nov 8, 2013 3:22 PM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Nov 8, 2013 6:20 PM Flag

    Erratum: Imperial Energy

  • Reply to

    Hearing results shortly

    by razzledazzle5050 Nov 8, 2013 3:22 PM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Nov 8, 2013 6:18 PM Flag

    I've got to say, the code issued by the take-over panel for the London Stock Exchange would never have let that happen! Reminds me of the take-over of Imperial OIl by remorseful ONCG from India a few years back. They had to cough up in the end, even if they were not happy as the oil price had crashed from $140 to $80 in the meantine.

  • alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Nov 8, 2013 4:59 AM Flag

    I think we've passed that technical point.

  • Reply to

    CTB Any updates today?

    by snarknado Nov 7, 2013 1:44 PM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Nov 7, 2013 3:24 PM Flag

    Appolo ready to pay $200m for the JV = that's out of Appolo's direct pocket and Cooper's shareholders forego another $200m / $3.3/sh to meet the Chineese price + $2.5/sh for the USW, that makes $5.8, or $29.2/shares.

  • Reply to

    Long-Short

    by alphahunter Dec 13, 2012 8:00 AM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Dec 13, 2012 8:03 AM Flag

    Second time kucky?

    Why don't you guys trade a pair,
    Long Joy at

  • alphahunter@rocketmail.com by alphahunter Dec 13, 2012 8:00 AM Flag

    Why don't you guys trade a pair,
    Long Joy at 15x eps or any other European companies geared to the miners' Capex/Opex, such as Flsmidth, Outotec, Metso (a fair chunk of paper capex here), possibly Atlas Copco, or even small UK listed Fen ner (one word), who is tremendously geared to the coal industry, trades at 11.5x eps and has not reset market expectations yet?

  • Reply to

    Shorted yesterday at 58 x 1000 shares

    by philthyesthoodlum Dec 12, 2012 5:15 AM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Dec 12, 2012 8:04 AM Flag

    Can you trade pre-market?

  • Reply to

    Shorted yesterday at 58 x 1000 shares

    by philthyesthoodlum Dec 12, 2012 5:15 AM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Dec 12, 2012 7:40 AM Flag

    I bought some as well yesterday for a long-short pair. Order intake and end-of-year backlog a tad better than Barclay's estimate. EPS 2013 revised downwards by 7%, current PE of 8x gives a safety net.

    I'm short Fen ner listed in London (conveyor belt, geared to the coal market), which has lower margins, lower ROCE, is more expensive (11x) and has not fully reset market expectations down for 2013.
    It is also only marginally cheaper than two other large European companies geared to maintenance & expansion mining CAPEX that are diversified away from coal.

    Two directors sold some shares in November as well.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=FENR.L

    Alphahunter from London.

  • Reply to

    titan europe failed acquisition

    by ralphw3089 Sep 11, 2008 1:35 AM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Jul 26, 2012 4:35 AM Flag

    Low ball indicative offer.

  • Reply to

    titan europe failed acquisition

    by ralphw3089 Sep 11, 2008 1:35 AM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Jul 17, 2012 6:34 PM Flag

    Lucky this time?

    Date: Tuesday 17 July 2012

    Immediate Release

    Titan Europe Plc

    ("Titan Europe" or the "Company")

    Statement regarding the recent press speculation

    The Board of Titan Europe notes the recent press speculation and confirms that it has received an approach from Titan International Inc ("Titan Inc"), which may or may not lead to an offer being made for the whole of the issued share capital of the Company.

    There can be no certainty that a formal offer will be made for the Company or the terms on which such an offer may be made. As a result of certain of the Directors of Titan Europe being directors of Titan Inc an Independent Committee of the Board has been formed for the purposes of considering any such offer if made.

    In accordance with Rule 2.6(a) of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the "Code"), Titan Inc must, by not later than 5.00 p.m. on 14 August 2012, being the 28(th) day following the date of this announcement, either announce a firm intention to make an offer for the Company in accordance with Rule 2.7 of the Code or announce that it does not intend to make an offer, in which case the announcement will be treated as a statement to which Rule 2.8 of the Code applies. This deadline will only be extended with the consent of the Panel in accordance with Rule 2.6(c) of the Code.

    In accordance with Rule 2.10 of the Code, the Company confirms that, as at the close of business on 16 July 2012, its issued share capital consisted of 87,642,988 ordinary shares with a nominal value of 40 pence each ("Ordinary Shares"). The International Securities Identification Number for the Ordinary Shares is GB0034380518.

    A further announcement will be made in due course, as appropriate.

  • Reply to

    I find JCI expensive

    by alphahunter Mar 18, 2011 10:18 AM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Jan 24, 2012 7:36 AM Flag

    James,

    You bang in line. Buy under $30, that's their view.
    You'll find some answers to your your questions in JCI's conf call. It has always amazed me to see the expected auto margins way out of synch at JCI vs the comps that I highlighted last year.

    GLA

    JCI is no longer expensive, so end of this thread for me here and thanks to the half-witted on this board.

    Alphahuunter
    London

  • Reply to

    I find JCI expensive

    by alphahunter Mar 18, 2011 10:18 AM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Jan 23, 2012 3:08 PM Flag

    Well JPM's downgraded today, and these guys don't use blue-sky 18x PE for their call, more like 11X on $3.20 2013.

    That's more in line with their comps.

  • Reply to

    I find JCI expensive

    by alphahunter Mar 18, 2011 10:18 AM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Nov 1, 2011 3:48 PM Flag

    Laughting out loudly that's the only thing you can do when you are down 30%+.

    It's not your fault, it's the market, the Greeks, the hedge funds, the cyclicals, the Italians, MF Global, the Chinese....

    Still down 30%+ you morron.

    Why did you buy Cyclicals at the top? Chasing the monkey may be?

    Alphahunter, from London.

  • Reply to

    I find JCI expensive

    by alphahunter Mar 18, 2011 10:18 AM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Oct 27, 2011 7:02 PM Flag

    I guess you "failed" to check what price JCI was trading at when I started the thread: $42. The stock plunged to $26 before the recent bounce. That's 38% in ~6 months.

    I make a bit of money by shorting the goody goody conpanies which are overly luuuved by the muppets and make money by being long in companies not sooooo - luuuuved by Joe punters - or is your name Steve?

    For the rest, I leave you to your bad faith.

    Alphahunter, from London.

  • Reply to

    I find JCI expensive

    by alphahunter Mar 18, 2011 10:18 AM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Oct 27, 2011 6:58 PM Flag

    I guess you "failed" to check what price JCI was trading at when I started the thread: $42. The stock plunged to $26 before the recent bounce. That's 38% in ~6 months.

    I make a bit of money by shorting the goody goody conpanies which are overly luuuved by the muppets and make money by being long in companies not sooooo - luuuuved by Joe punters - or is your name Steve?

    For the rest, I leave you to your bad faith.

    Alphahunter, from London.

  • Reply to

    CS note on BP - Part 1

    by alphahunter Sep 15, 2011 4:55 AM
    alphahunter@rocketmail.com alphahunter Sep 15, 2011 4:56 AM Flag

    Little incremental; Facts well known: We believe there is little incremental information in the Coast Guard report compared to previous official reports, e.g. the National Oil Spill Commission report from January and the preliminary Coast Guard report published in April. We do not believe this report adds material new findings that would shift the pendulum one way or another for BP (on gross negligence) relative to what we knew before today. The causes of the accident have been well documented by now - a failure in the cement barrier allowed oil and gas to flow up the production casing to the wellbore and
    the rig, causing the explosion.


    BP, RIG and HAL incriminated: As expected, the report's tone is highly critical of BP and its contractors, and concludes that "increased vigilance and awareness by BP, Transocean and Halliburton personnel at critical junctures during operations at the Macondo well would have reduced the likelihood of the blowout occurring." The report cites evidence that BP,
    Transocean and Halliburton violated several federal regulations and industry practices.


    But BP not shown in a good light: BP appears to be singled out more frequently than its contractors. Out of 52 direct or contributing causes to the accident, 35 causes were from BP alone or BP together with a contractor - 18 from BP alone (including causes related to the failure of the cementing job, a crucial reason for the blowout), 15 from the Deepwater
    Horizon rig crew including BP and Transocean personnel, and 2 from BP and Halliburton. Of these failures.

    The most significant in our view include:

    (1) BP and HAL's failure to perform an adequate production casing cement job;
    (2) BP'sfailure to properly evaluate risks, including the decision not to run a cement bond log;
    (3) BP's cost or time saving decisions without considering contingencies;
    (4) BP's and RIG's misinterpretation of the negative-pressure test, linked to the companies' failure to have a common approach to well control;
    (5) the failure of the rig crew (BP and RIG) to identify the hydrocarbon influx and shut in the BOP quickly, arising from the crew's lack of training in well control and safety
    procedures.


    Awaiting settlements in 2012: Our view is unchanged - we continue to think that BP and well partners APC/Mitsui could settle with the DoJ on fines/penalties around February 2012 (when the multi-district litigation in New Orleans takes place), as we think all parties involved have an incentive to expedite the case resolution before the US election season. Separately,
    we believe APC could settle with BP on OPA 90 costs possibly before a DoJ settlement. In a similar fashion to Mitsui, this could be done in the form of a contribution to the escrow fund. Finally, we would expect BP and HAL to eventually drop charges against each other and settle, but only after a DoJ ruling or settlement as we suspect HAL will fight harder than
    APC.


    Valuation: We factor in $57bn of pre-tax costs for BP in our NAV valuation, including $16bn of CWA fines (assuming gross negligence), $9bn in punitive damages, $14bn of clean-up/legal costs and $18bn for OPA 90 costs (Feinberg's escrow fund). We do not assume cost recovery from partners beyond the payments from Mitsui and Weatherford. We continue to believe that factoring in gross negligence and punitive damages is conservative, as a settlement with the DoJ is a more likely outcome in our view.


    BP trades at a 45% discount to our base case NAV of 700p / $67/ADR, the largest discount in the sector. We continue t see BP as undervalued as Macondo and Russia are more than priced in, in our view.

    We rate BP Outperform, with a TP 610p / $59/ADR.

JOY
18.68-0.32(-1.68%)May 5 4:01 PMEDT