Recent

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

Alcoa Inc. Message Board

wgrsh 327 posts  |  Last Activity: 14 hours ago Member since: May 11, 2005
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Good Quarter to see

    by unclespeaking Jan 5, 2015 11:22 AM
    wgrsh wgrsh Jan 5, 2015 12:54 PM Flag

    Did the IR site say essentially the same thing?

  • Reply to

    Filled the gap from about 7 days ago.

    by prj3553 Jan 28, 2015 4:36 PM
    wgrsh wgrsh Jan 28, 2015 4:57 PM Flag

    My charts don't show a gap then. I do remember the day and thought there was going to be a gap, but somehow my charts showed trading that filled the gap ... spooky

  • wgrsh wgrsh Jan 28, 2015 11:00 PM Flag

    unc ... all is true about LUV ... and you have to pay up to own it.

    Just a side note ... AAL had a higher domestic PRASM increase in Q4 than LUV did in Q4.

  • Reply to

    Short end increase or Long end increase?

    by wgrsh Jan 28, 2015 4:14 PM
    wgrsh wgrsh Jan 29, 2015 12:08 AM Flag

    Money supply is (printed money X velocity of money). An economy of a given size needs a certain money supply to maintain it (or risk deflation or inflation). During the financial freeze the velocity of money collapsed and therefore the Fed did QE1, and that wasn't enough and QE2 was done ... most, but not all, of QE3 was to stimulate, I agree, but disagree with your interpretation of 1 & 2. 1 & 2 solved the velocity problem. I suppose saving the economy from deflation could be called a stimulation, but really it was to maintain.

    I'm sure if velocity started to increase and the maturing rate of the Fed's balance sheet wasn't enough to counter the velocity, the Fed wouldn't hesitate to start selling. But some of the Fed balance sheet is there just for stimulating reasons and that could be sold off regardless of velocity.

    It would depress long debt ... but we didn't need this current rise in bonds anyway at least not for economic reasons. It would also give the Fed room to raise short term rates without flattening the yield curve, which the yield curve is doing right now. I have not finished running the impact of that through the rest of the world though ... so still thinking about it, and that is why I brought it up on the board ... just to get some thoughts. Thanks

  • Reply to

    Less Personal Space Comment

    by wgrsh Jan 29, 2015 7:45 AM
    wgrsh wgrsh Jan 29, 2015 9:04 AM Flag

    Can't imagine Vicki Bryant, an airline analyst, saying something that is so wrong. Of course when I realize the "negative" analysts don't know what they are talking about, it's not so bad.

    That extra "roomy" capacity is almost CASM free ... right to the bottom line as the seats are filled ... only a potential positive to revenue.

  • wgrsh wgrsh Jan 12, 2015 5:01 PM Flag

    // lowered margins & raised expenses estimates //

    I thought they lowered expenses (lowered expenses $127 million)

  • Reply to

    LUV has 9% higher Revenue for January

    by unclespeaking Feb 9, 2015 10:36 AM
    wgrsh wgrsh Feb 9, 2015 11:13 AM Flag

    Airlines are down in sympathy? What a nice bunch of stocks ... airlines still trade with oil. So, until that settles down, fundamentals are meaningless ...

    One day oil will settle down ... maybe we can hope for turnaround Tuesday ... or some other day.

  • Reply to

    $38-$42

    by mv3guy Feb 9, 2015 11:08 AM
    wgrsh wgrsh Feb 9, 2015 11:33 AM Flag

    // Predictions are worthless. Now if you post what you currently own and at what price, I will find you more believable. //

    Really bears ... this is a yahoo message board ... what makes anything more believable ... predictions or holdings? At least with predictions, one can look at fundamentals and technicals, etc. Holdings are completely unverifiable.

  • Reply to

    Seattle or New England?

    by dilo133 Jan 29, 2015 3:08 PM
    wgrsh wgrsh Jan 29, 2015 3:39 PM Flag

    I'll have to see if I'm going to drink Starbucks or Sam Adams ... have to say Alaskan Amber is pretty good.

  • Reply to

    Mr. Market wants me to make more money

    by iahphx Feb 3, 2015 9:55 AM
    wgrsh wgrsh Feb 3, 2015 12:18 PM Flag

    // What's new about that? //

    unc ... you have to read for context ... I didn't say there was anything new about that. I was saying the rig count figure showing a reduction in physical rigs didn't saying anything about the capabilities of the remaining rigs. i.e. the remaining lower rig count may very well be capable of producing more oil than the higher rig count and for less money. I was just saying the info about "rig reduction' is not clear ... there is probably more to the story.

  • Reply to

    oil

    by bperfett Feb 3, 2015 5:57 PM
    wgrsh wgrsh Feb 3, 2015 10:57 PM Flag

    The 23% portion of the increase would have been in the guidance, wouldn't it have been?

  • Reply to

    Daily savings

    by bearsrunfrombulls Jan 7, 2015 10:51 AM
    wgrsh wgrsh Jan 7, 2015 11:45 AM Flag

    Yes, that's good too ... multiply the savings times the gallons used per year. Actually, I use that way more often. It's just that AAL put out a cost/gallon that probably looked at least at 11 months of $2.90. Using AAL's numbers (cost/gallon) you would have to take into account some fixed costs if you figure the drop from $2.90. This is all a fine point ...

  • Reply to

    More bad weather

    by markusgzee Feb 14, 2015 3:21 PM
    wgrsh wgrsh Feb 15, 2015 3:28 PM Flag

    // 150 closer to 200 for wti by the time election time rolls around it will be close to 200 dlrs a brl //

    Oh greatone, are you the only one predicting this? If that happens the world economy shuts down. What do you see that would cause that?

    As a matter of fact I think the main reason why our economy has had problems growing since 2008 was that we were trying to adjust to $100 oil. Our economy, as most were, was built for lower oil. The higher oil was taking its toll ... a real drag. As unc said, "drill baby drill, ship baby ship", and at levels not too much higher than today. Some of the adjustments forced by higher oil are in place, which only adds more downward pressure on oil ... and that won't stop either, regardless of the price of oil.

    At least the airline industry has learned how to cope in that environment.

  • Reply to

    American and the peanut flap

    by dormie18 Jan 14, 2015 1:28 PM
    wgrsh wgrsh Jan 14, 2015 3:24 PM Flag

    I'll have to talk to my family doctor again ... peanuts aren't nuts, so which one is giving you the allergy?

  • Reply to

    PRASM OUTLOOK

    by cavalier2015 Jan 27, 2015 9:57 AM
    wgrsh wgrsh Jan 27, 2015 10:57 AM Flag

    // Can't just Pick what you Want to See. //

    There are lots of color in a headline number like PRASM. I see yield too ... more important, and also remember to consider YOY percentages. Got to get a pencil out and work with the real PRASM computed from Q1 2014, etc., etc. Looking forward to their cost guidance filing.

    Ex-fuel it also looks like things improve after Q1, and Q1 will still be good. Fuel ... just have to wait and see.

  • Reply to

    air travel

    by a42unateinvestor Jan 27, 2015 2:22 PM
    wgrsh wgrsh Jan 27, 2015 2:58 PM Flag

    // Maybe we all are not seeing something //

    I think markus hit on it ... just those selling it that bought AAL only as a hedge against oil and not interested in the company per se.

  • Reply to

    PRASM on continuing operations

    by wgrsh Jan 14, 2015 10:42 AM
    wgrsh wgrsh Jan 14, 2015 11:21 AM Flag

    I agree unc that you want to see PRASM growth, and that will come with economic growth. At this point there a resetting of the point that growth will happen. It's not often that a company (industry) resets its "no growth" profit level by 50-100%. When economic growth and PRASM growth occur, maybe the airlines will get something higher than a "no growth" PE.

  • Reply to

    Watch Today...

    by toddawalker123 Jan 15, 2015 9:16 AM
    wgrsh wgrsh Jan 15, 2015 9:22 AM Flag

    We won't hold you to it ... if it goes down it would only make sense now that it looks like 2015 eps estimates have been moved up.

  • Reply to

    Tankers look good

    by unclespeaking Feb 17, 2015 9:30 AM
    wgrsh wgrsh Feb 17, 2015 10:49 AM Flag

    Thanks cav and unc ... I just don't know that much about the industry ... I'm going to have to do some studying. Got a starting point ... thanks.

  • Reply to

    UAL reported tonight

    by wgrsh Jan 9, 2015 9:05 PM
    wgrsh wgrsh Jan 10, 2015 4:37 PM Flag

    // By the way, we used to have beat $1.57, ... //

    unc ... Back a few months the eps estimate was $1.50 ... and earlier in the quarter it was in the $1.30s. Using the midpoint of cost guidance (Oct 23rd filing), which had the $2.59/gal figure, and Yahoo revenue average estimates (which is now lower), AAL would miss the $1.50 eps. (I can't find the back of my envelope with the figures, but the miss was about 15 cents.)

    The above miss of earnings is subject to adjustment. The midpoint of costs is plus/minus $75 million, fuel is lower than $2.59/gal, but analysts' revenue average estimates came down (about $50 million). So, there are variables. The earning estimates went from the $1.30s to 1.50s based seemingly just on fuel dropping during the quarter ... maybe the analysts have pushed AAL into an earnings miss? The analysts got aggressive in Q3 and I thought a miss was possible, but they beat by a few cents. So, maybe AAL still has stuff up its sleeve. Anyway, the 2015 outlook will be good.

AA
12.96+0.26(+2.05%)Mar 30 4:00 PMEDT