Recent

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

Beazer Homes USA Inc. Message Board

not_a_short 35 posts  |  Last Activity: Apr 29, 2016 12:10 PM Member since: Sep 9, 1999
  • not_a_short by not_a_short Mar 7, 2016 4:58 PM Flag

    The world is truely awash in oil. Despite this, oil producers are still pumping far above the current demand. It would take a couple of years to get inventories in balance with demand IF producers cut back to meet current demand. In the meantime, the airlines (and any other big oil user) will enjoy substantially higher than normal profits.

    The collective action of the oil producers to pump all out is the dumbest thing I have seen in recent memory.

    Not_A_Short

  • Reply to

    Delta and American

    by gregocamp Feb 29, 2016 1:01 PM
    not_a_short not_a_short Mar 7, 2016 4:51 PM Flag

    Most US Airlines took trips through bankruptcy recently wiping out shareholders. Recapitalized, they are making solid money for the first time in a decade. I believe shareholders (esp those that rebought shares after being wiped out) should enjoy the rewards for now.

    If employees want a share of the profits, they should put their own capital at risk, like shareholders.

    Not_A_Short

  • not_a_short by not_a_short Mar 7, 2016 4:40 PM Flag

    Anyone out there know whats going on? Is this just short covering?

    Not_A_Short

  • for long-term shareholders. The toxic environment for pharma stocks is due to politics. The result is that GILD get buy its stock back cheaply and if it does an acquisition, it will pay less.

    Very unlikely whoever is president will get price control put on drugs no matter what they say they will do. They would have to get it though congress and that would be very difficult. Frankly, I doubt either of the leading candidate really care much. They are using the issue to get votes.

    Not_A_Short

  • Reply to

    Lock-Out over.

    by sinbadger Mar 2, 2016 9:37 AM
    not_a_short not_a_short Mar 2, 2016 1:15 PM Flag

    Good to hear. Long and bitter labor disputes help neither workers,management, or shareholders.

    Not_A_Short

  • I was surprised about the 1% to charity decision. I do support the idea of a policy to give to charitable causes in general, but I am reluctant to combine two things that do not have a natural relationship. Corporation primarily exist to make a profit. What should be done with that profit is up to each shareholder. They really should have asked the shareholders (the owners) before doing this. (What does senior management think? We are not giving enough to society? We already pay enormous amount of taxes at the corporate level.)

    A far better solution, in my opinion, would have been a program where a shareholder could direct (some or all) of their dividend to a charity. At least the shareholders could enjoy the tax deduction for their sacrifice.

    Not_A_Short

    ps. I have invested in Target Corp in the past and they donate 10% of pre-tax earnings to charity.

  • Reply to

    What is wrong with DAL today? ? ?

    by accmanager Feb 26, 2016 3:22 PM
    not_a_short not_a_short Feb 26, 2016 7:23 PM Flag

    The Decision to give 1% of profit to charity I suspect is the cause. I am not sure I agree about this (not against giving to charity - just the forced nature of it all) . I would have asked shareholders in the next proxy. (They are, after all, the real owners).

    Not_A_Short

  • Used the phrase "whiff of desperation" to describe AMZN stock buyback.

    Not_A_Short

  • not_a_short by not_a_short Feb 11, 2016 3:22 PM Flag

    If AMZN declared a dividend equal to all of its earnings for the past year, the yield would be .25%. I think this yield (called the earnings yield) is a much better measure of how expensive a company is (as opposed to the PE ratio). You can easily compare it interest rates, bond yields and dividend yields. There are well-run established businesses with current earning yields of over 15% (WDC, AAL, GM, MGA).

    Such an small yield highlights just how expensive AMZN is (even after falling about $200 YTD).

    Not_A_Short

  • Reply to

    Buyback Question

    by ss_realtor Feb 11, 2016 1:41 PM
    not_a_short not_a_short Feb 11, 2016 3:12 PM Flag

    I think the buyback is foolish. However, I think they may be able to fund it out of cash flow (which is substantially higher than reported earnings) if they spread the buyback over a couple of years.

    One of my favorite methods of evaluating management is whether a stock buyback makes sense. AMZN management has failed here. A Company with an ultra high PEs (over 100) should never buyback stock.

    Not_A_Short

  • This buyback will reduce the share count by about 10 million shares. (If it actually happens) Given that AMZN has issued about 4 million shares a year through stock options, this will only offset about 2 1/2 years worth of dilution.

    Buying back stock when your PE is over 100 is foolish.

    Not_A_Short

  • Reply to

    Time to accumulate Magna

    by magna_out Feb 8, 2016 9:50 PM
    not_a_short not_a_short Feb 10, 2016 2:22 AM Flag

    I agree. The earnings yield is 16.3% (for 2016). That is a substantial margin of safety.

    Not_A_Short

  • not_a_short not_a_short Feb 10, 2016 2:06 AM Flag

    While it is often true that companies mismanage stock buybacks, there are cases where they are done well. The most important factors are how inexpensive the stock is and the durability of its earnings. A strong case can be made for buying back stock when the PE is well under 10 and earnings are not expected to fall substantially.

    AAL stock buyback meets this criteria. The PE is around 5.

    Not_A_Short

  • not_a_short by not_a_short Feb 9, 2016 1:23 PM Flag

    I think this company is being run by people who have attention deficit syndrome.

    Not_A_Short

  • not_a_short not_a_short Feb 5, 2016 6:08 PM Flag

    It is not uncommon for company's PE to rise when it goes through a downturn.

    Not_A_Short

BZH
8.22-0.01(-0.12%)Apr 29 4:02 PMEDT