11.79 -0.02 (-0.17%)
After hours: 7:19PM EST
|Bid||11.78 x 1100|
|Ask||11.80 x 40000|
|Day's Range||11.76 - 11.93|
|52 Week Range||7.65 - 12.24|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||1.17|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||N/A|
|Earnings Date||Jan 28, 2020|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||0.04 (0.34%)|
|Ex-Dividend Date||Dec 18, 2019|
|1y Target Est||10.85|
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Manchester United Plc is the General Electric Co. of soccer.Both are storied giants used to dominating their respective fields, who enjoyed their heyday in the 1990s. In Alex Ferguson and Jack Welch respectively, they had dominant leaders who set an all-but-impossible standard to follow (even if there are questions about what they left to their unfortunate successors). And in recent years, both have a track record of poor capital allocation that has seen them underperform their rivals.Where Man Utd has spent hundreds of millions of pounds over the past eight years buying players such as French midfielder Paul Pogba and Belgian attacker Romelu Lukaku, GE went on a spending spree that included the 12.4 billion-euro ($13.8 billion) acquisition of Alstom SA’s power generation business. That deal’s entire value was ultimately written down.When Jeff Immelt took over as GE’s chief executive officer in 2001, it was the biggest company in the S&P 500. Over his 16-year tenure, he spent some $200 billion buying companies, yet shareholders enjoyed annual returns of just 0.5%. In the same period, the S&P 500 was averaging returns of 7.4% a year.Man Utd is much the same. After winning 12 English Premier League titles in 20 years, the club has won just one championship since its 2012 initial public offering. That’s even as it spent a net 740 million pounds ($965 million) through June 2019 buying new players. In the same period, its bitter rival Liverpool FC spent spent less than half that amount, yet was crowned European champion last year and is running away with the Premier League this season.Soccer fans will argue all day that their club owners under-invest in the playing squad to milk the club for cash. Man Utd is owned by the American Glazer family and chants of “Glazers Out” are regularly heard at the team’s Old Trafford stadium. Fans accuse them of leveraging up the club and keeping the IPO proceeds for themselves.The story for investors is just as grim. Since the IPO, Man Utd has returned 5.8% a year. Italy’s Juventus Football Club SpA, Germany’s Borussia Dortmund GmbH and AFC Ajax NV in the Netherlands, all publicly traded, have averaged returns of 22% in the same period.Adding to the ignominy, the consulting firm Deloitte expects revenue at Man Utd, which has long challenged Spain’s Real Madrid and Barcelona for the title of the world’s most valuable soccer team, to fall as much as 11% this year, as failure to qualify for the European Champions League hurts sales. That could allow domestic rivals Manchester City FC and Liverpool to overtake it, knocking the Red Devils off the top spot in England for the first time since Deloitte began its Money League report on soccer 23 years ago.The problem isn’t that Man Utd has skimped on player investment — the numbers show that it hasn’t, at least in recent years. But it has invested poorly. A useful point of comparison is Juventus, which occupies a similar status in Italy, having won more Italian championships, known as Scudettos, than any other team.After the Turin-based club, run by the same Agnelli family that controls Fiat Chrysler Automotive NV, sold Pogba to Man Utd for 89 million pounds, it reinvested the proceeds in a string of players who subsequently led the team to the final of the Champions League, Europe’s top club competition. In the 12 months after Pogba’s departure, Juventus’s share price climbed 141%, although admittedly this was from a very low starting point.Since the Italian team signed Cristiano Ronaldo, a five-time winner of the FIFA Ballon d’Or award for the world’s best player, for 100 million euros in 2018, stock increases have added almost 800 million euros to its market capitalization. That’s a very good return on investment, regardless of how Ronaldo plays.The comforting news for Man Utd is that it differs from GE in one key respect: its problems are easier to solve. In aviation, power generation, and oil and gas equipment, GE makes products for markets that face an extremely uncertain future. The Manchester giant just needs to invest its capital more shrewdly. The best way to do that is to improve its long-term recruitment strategy, and for that it will need more effective management structures in place. Ed Woodward, the club’s executive vice-chairman, is the man in the firing line for increasingly angry fans. Immelt would no doubt commiserate.\--With assistance from Elaine He.To contact the author of this story: Alex Webb at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Alex Webb is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe's technology, media and communications industries. He previously covered Apple and other technology companies for Bloomberg News in San Francisco.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
High-dividend stocks can be misleading. Here's a smart way to find stable stocks with high dividends. Watch these nine dividend payers on IBD's radar.
J.P. Morgan analyst and General Electric bear Stephen Tusa continues to question the stock price calling it “wrong” in a Thursday research report.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The 2019 column I most wish I could take back was about Boeing. In May, two months after the second deadly 737 Max crash, I compared Boeing’s current troubles to other times when Boeing had stumbled badly, including 2013, when the new 787 — which had come to market four years behind schedule —had a problem with its lithium ion batteries, which burst into flames several times. The Federal Aviation Administration even grounded the plane temporarily.Airplanes are fiendishly complex, and new planes almost always have kinks that need to be worked out (though, admittedly, those kinks don’t usually include fatalities). In any case, my working assumption was that the company had always overcome its problems and would do so again. “Boeing’s history strongly suggests that it will recover from this fiasco and do so quickly,” I wrote. “It will emerge stronger than ever.” Ouch.Within a matter of months, I could see that I was wrong and that Boeing was not the same company I had followed two decades earlier. In October, Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenberg testified before Congress. He was awful. He kept saying that safety was part of Boeing’s DNA, yet the evidence angry legislators confronted him with — internal emails, for the most part — suggested just the opposite: that safety was no longer high on Boeing’s list of priorities. What was ascendant was maximizing shareholder value, with catastrophic consequences.The company cut corners to get the plane on the market quickly. It used the least expensive suppliers regardless of how inexperienced they were. Its manual contained only one sentence about the system that was the root cause of the crashes. Worst of all, it persuaded the F.A.A. — and its airline customers — that pilots didn’t need flight simulator training to fly the 737 Max. The release of a devastating batch of internal Boeing emails late last week — showing engineers rushing to get a plane to market despite knowing it had serious problems — only reinforced the notion that Boeing’s culture had been compromised. A company that had long been run by engineers for engineers was now a company run by corporate bureaucrats whose primary goal was to please Wall Street. That’s the underlying story those emails tell.Which begs the question: How did this happen?In the Atlantic not long ago, business writer Jerry Useem suggests an answer. He marks May 2001 as the beginning of Boeing’s cultural decline; that month, top executives announced that they were moving the company’s headquarters to Chicago. More than 30,000 engineers would remain in Seattle, mind you. But the top 500 executives would move 2,000 miles away.“When the headquarters is located in proximity to a principal business — as ours was in Seattle — the corporate center is inevitably drawn into day-to-day business operations,” CEO Phil Condit said at the time. How he could view removing the top brass from the “day-to-day business operations” as a net positive is beyond comprehension. But he did. Useem wrote: “The present 737 Max disaster can be traced back … to the moment Boeing’s leadership decided to divorce itself from the firm’s own culture.”Condit was ousted in 2003 (in part because he had a series of affairs with female employees) and was succeeded by Harry Stonecipher. Stonecipher, who had been CEO of McDonnell Douglas when it merged with Boeing in 1997, had spent the bulk of his career at General Electric, including seven years under Jack Welch. As I’ve noted before, Welch’s stated goal was to make GE “the world’s most valuable company,” which meant focusing first and foremost on finding ways to increase the company’s share price. As his underlings took over other companies, they brought that mindset with them.Stonecipher was no exception. At Boeing, he gained a reputation as a ruthless cost-cutter and expressed pride in the way he was blowing up the company’s engineering mindset. (“When people say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so that it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm,” he once said.) Wall Street loved it; the stock price rose fourfold.When Stonecipher was fired in 2005 (also for having an affair with a subordinate), the board passed over the obvious internal candidate, Alan Mulally, the head of the commercial airplane division and Boeing’s last great engineering executive, and brought in another Jack Welch protege, James McNerney. So now Boeing had a CEO who knew nothing about how to manufacture an airplane. And this lack of engineering know-how was compounded when McNerney named Scott Carson to succeed Mulally, who left in 2006 to become CEO of Ford Motor Co. True, Carson was a Boeing lifer, but he was a salesman, not an engineer.In 2007, McNerney inaugurated a series of stock buyback plans, which lifted the stock price; it repurchased $6 billion worth of shares in 2014 alone. The CEO and other top executives received tens of millions of dollars’ worth of stock options and stock grants. Dividends were doubled. The stock bottomed out at $30 a share in the aftermath of the financial crisis, but by the time McNerney stepped down, it was approaching $150 a share.Meanwhile, Boeing was putting the screws to its unions, eliminating their pensions and moving some production to a nonunion facility in South Carolina. Richard Aboulafia, the well-known aviation consultant, thinks this was a critical mistake — and another example of how little McNerney understood about the business of building airplanes.“Aviation is not like other industries,” he wrote in Forbes after McNerney announced his retirement. “There are certainly cost pressures, but this is a capital-intensive business with very high barriers to entry. Labor costs just don’t matter as much compared to other industries.”Aboulafia concluded: “An experienced and motivated workforce, therefore, is the most important asset a company has. McNerney failed to recognize this important fact, and the company has suffered as a result.”In that same essay, Aboulafia noted that the incoming CEO, Muilenberg, was an aviation engineer, and though he had spent his career on the defense side of the company, there was hope that he could reverse some of McNerney’s emphasis on the stock price. But it wasn’t to be. Instead, he ratcheted up the company’s stock buybacks, retiring 200 million shares — a quarter of the company’s stock — at cost of $43 billion.How could Boeing afford to do that? As Jonathan Ford pointed out last August in the Financial Times, it was precisely because it was saving so much money on the 737 Max. Instead of starting from scratch and building a new plane, it simply “bolted new fuel-efficient engines onto a tweaked existing airframe.” Ford concluded: “Boeing was able to redirect some of those ‘savings’ to repurchase stock instead.”By the time Boeing decided to cobble together the 737 Max, its engineering culture was completely broken. Here’s how Aboulafia described it to Useem in the Atlantic:It was the ability to comfortably interact with an engineer who in turn feels comfortable telling you their reservations, versus calling a manager [more than] 1,500 miles away who you know has a reputation for wanting to take your pension away. It’s a very different dynamic. As a recipe for disempowering engineers in particular, you couldn’t come up with a better format.You can see that disempowerment — and its consequences — in the recently released emails. Instead of bringing their fears and complaints to superiors, the engineers grouse to themselves about the problems they see with the plane. They are bitter about management’s unwillingness to slow things down, to build the plane properly, to take the care that’s required to prevent tragedy from striking.There is one email in particular(1) from an unidentified Boeing engineer that I can’t get out of my head. It was written in June 2018, about a year after the company had begun shipping the 737 Max to customers:Everyone has it in their head that meeting schedule is most important because that’s what Leadership pressures and messages. All the messages are about meeting schedule, not delivering quality… .We put ourselves in this position by picking the lowest cost supplier and signing up to impossible schedules. Why did the lowest ranking and most unproven supplier receive the contract? Solely based on bottom dollar…. Supplier management drives all these decisions — yet we can’t even keep one person doing the same job in SM for more than 6 months to a year. They don’t know this business and those that do don’t have the appropriate level of input… .I don’t know how to fix these things … it’s systemic. It’s culture. It’s the fact that we have a senior leadership team that understand very little about the business and yet are driving us to certain objectives. It’s lots of individual groups that aren’t working closely and being accountable …. Sometimes you have to let things fail big so that everyone can identify a problem … maybe that’s what needs to happen instead of continuing to just scrape by.Of course that’s exactly what happened: the 737 Max failed big — at a cost of 346 lives. Shareholder value has caused much harm in the three decades since it became the core value of American capitalism: diabetics who can’t afford insulin; students ripped off by for-profit universities; patients gouged by hospital chains; and so much else. But none worse than this.(Corrects the given name of aviation consultant Richard Aboulafia in the 13th paragraph.)(1) The email in question can be found on page 24 of this document.To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. His latest project is the Bloomberg-Wondery podcast "The Shrink Next Door."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
GE Renewable Energy’s Grid Solutions business has been awarded a multi-million dollar project for the Neart na Gaoithe (NnG) offshore wind farm.
DEEP DIVE The monetary forces that have helped feed the bull market are so strong that scores of stocks have risen significantly over the past year even as the companies themselves have been losing money.
The signing of a “phase one” trade deal between the U.S. and China after months of negotiations and tensions looks set to boost stocks further.
Lockheed's (LMT) C-130J variants are designed for night operations. Its proven on-board navigation system guides pilots to proper landing site quickly and safely.
Massachusetts businesses have launched a year-long initiative to address the opioid crisis, forming a new coalition to reduce stigma and increase access to treatment.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Boeing Co.’s new CEO shouldn’t need an extra wheelbarrow of money to do his job.David Calhoun officially took over the top role on Monday following the December ouster of Dennis Muilenburg over his ham-handed management of the crisis engulfing the 737 Max. With the plane having now been grounded for 10 months in the wake of two fatal crashes, Boeing decided to promise its new CEO a $7 million special long-term incentive award contingent on certain “key business milestones” including the successful and safe return of the Max to service.It’s hard to overstate the importance of getting the Max flying again for Boeing. Jefferies analyst Sheila Kahyaoglu had estimated the airplane maker was on track to burn through $4.4 billion of cash every quarter that the Max was grounded before it decided to halt production entirely starting this month. The work stoppage likely only cuts that cash burn in half, though, while increasing the overall cost of the program and significantly complicating the process of ramping it back up. Every passing month also means more in compensation that Boeing owes to the airlines scrambling to adjust their schedules for a lack of Max jets. As CEO, the Max’s return is Calhoun’s top priority.The thing is, a mechanism already exists that compensates executives for doing what’s expected of them in their job. It’s called a salary. Calhoun already is getting one of those to the tune of $1.4 million annually. He is also due to receive a yearly bonus with a target value of 180% of that salary – or about $2.5 million. That bonus will pay out at “no less” than the target in 2020, seemingly regardless of whether the Max is flying again. Calhoun will also receive long-term incentive awards — which are separate from the Max-related bonus — with a target value of 500% of base salary (about $7 million) and a supplemental award of restricted stock units valued at $10 million meant to compensate him for rewards he forfeited at Blackstone Group Inc. in order to take this job.Occasionally, you will hear the argument that executives need to be showered with money to make them willing to take on especially complicated situations. General Electric Co., which agreed to pay former vice-chairman John Rice $2 million a year plus health and equity benefits for a part-time role, comes to mind. I am skeptical that companies would have that hard of a time finding capable people willing to be the CEO of a major entity like Boeing or GE, no matter how much it is struggling. Most of the time, they are simply paying for the value of a well-known name. But regardless, those arguments have no place here. Calhoun has been on Boeing’s board since 2009. What happened with the Max is just as much a reflection on him as it is on Muilenburg. Salvaging his own reputation should have been incentive enough.The special $7 million bonus also drew the ire of three Democratic senators who called Monday for Boeing to scrap the payout, warning that it “represents a clear financial incentive for Mr. Calhoun to pressure regulators into ungrounding the 737 Max, as well as rush the investigations and reforms needed to guarantee public safety.” For a company that just last month was publicly dressed down by the Federal Aviation Administration for its overly optimistic timelines on the Max return and the regulator’s concern that Boeing was trying to pressure it into speeding up the process, this is an extraordinarily bold and tone-deaf move. Certainly a key part of returning the Max to service is smoothing over relations with the FAA and with Congress. So one could conceivably argue that just one day into his role, Calhoun is already not doing the job for which he is being so highly paid.The other directors on Boeing’s board blessed this compensation arrangement. To my knowledge, none of them have offered to pay back the fees they received while watching this train wreck unfold, even as they (rightly) canceled Muilenburg’s 2019 bonus. For all of Boeing’s protestations about how it’s finally turned over a new leaf when it comes to transparency and accountability, all you have to do is follow the money to know the truth.To contact the author of this story: Brooke Sutherland at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Brooke Sutherland is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering deals and industrial companies. She previously wrote an M&A column for Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- “If I’d had more time,” the French mathematician Blaise Pascal once wrote, “I’d have written with more brevity.” Joe Kaeser, the chief executive officer of German industrial giant Siemens AG, should have heeded that dictum.His 1,800-word open letter this week explaining Siemens’s decision to provide rail signaling for the controversial Carmichael coal project in Australia must count as one of the strangest pieces of executive communication since Elon Musk last opened his mouth. Almost twice the length of “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock,” it’s a stream-of-consciousness that veers in the space of a few paragraphs between lecturing, grovelling, evasion and soul-searching. The effect, which you should really experience yourself, doesn’t resemble the blandly polished platitudes issued by corporate boardrooms so much as an anguished love letter. The reason for all this is the storm of protest that Siemens has run into since announcing its contract with Carmichael, a thermal coal pit being developed by Adani Enterprises Ltd., part of the sprawling ports-to-power conglomerate run by Indian billionaire Gautam Adani.The project, as we’ve argued, doesn’t really make sense economically. Its product is too low-quality and expensive to find a place in a global thermal coal market that’s in terminal decline. Generation division Adani Power Ltd., the likeliest destination for the soot, has lost 92.4 billion rupees ($1.3 billion) over the last three years, despite paying around 4,500 rupees ($64) per metric ton for its fuel — prices well below what it would cost per ton to develop Carmichael, on our estimates.Still, as someone who’s been cheering the decline of coal power for some time, I have to confess to finding Kaeser’s dark night of the soul almost more disturbing than a forthright defense of his decision-making would have been.Siemens has been central to the fossil-fired electricity industry since its inception in the late 19th century, with a role providing turbines for coal, oil and gas-fired power plants scarcely less significant than that of its U.S. rival General Electric Co. As recently as 2014, the gas and power unit accounted for about 30% of operating income and was presented as a key future profit-maker in the company's vision of itself in 2020. “We are very, very positive about gas,” Kaeser told one 2014 investor conference.That bullishness turned out to be badly mistaken. Both GE and Siemens have struggled in recent years as the slumping cost of renewables cratered the market for conventional power plants. Kaeser has cut nearly 10,000 jobs from the power and gas division in recent years. With 2020 now dawning, the unit has fallen so far from his vision of Siemens’s future that he plans to spin off as much as 75% as a separate company.Still, at least he has owned that mistake, and acted decisively to correct it.The Carmichael decision is more mysterious. The contract is worth 18 million euros ($21 million) and margins for the transport division tend to bounce around 10%; against all the revenue lines in Siemens's expansive business operation, this contract is likely to account for a fiftieth of 1% or so of operating income.That may not amount to much — but it's the responsibility of a corporate boss to set a direction and pay attention to the detail of getting there. Carmichael already has a history of open-ended delays and disputes with contractors that should have raised red flags with any potential business partner. Given Siemens’s attempt to position itself as a pioneer of sustainable industry in an era of climate change, it shouldn’t have needed Greta Thunberg and Fridays for Future protests to draw the boardroom’s attention to the damage such a minor contract could do to its attempted green makeover. Kaeser’s defense — that having signed the contract, he was obliged to uphold it — is reasonable. That doesn’t absolve him from the lack of foresight of signing in the first place, given the agreement was inked just over a month ago.The rapid changes we’re seeing in power technology and the politics of climate change are likely to wrong-foot many executives and politicians in the years ahead. The collapse of the gas turbine industry is a potent demonstration that falling behind the curve as the world’s economy decarbonizes isn’t just a moral failing — it’s a business risk, too. That’s what's most egregious about Kaeser’s handling of this case. What should matter to Siemens's shareholders is not the state of his soul, but whether he’s making the right decisions to safeguard the future of the company. The motivated reasoning and hand-wringing of his letter suggest that's in shorter supply than you’d hope.“Securing our planet for the future is not just about experts,” he writes at one point, in a wounded valediction to climate activist Luisa Neubauer, who turned down his offer of a place on the board. “This is mostly about leadership.”There’s a lesson in that for Kaeser, too.To contact the author of this story: David Fickling at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Rachel Rosenthal at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering commodities, as well as industrial and consumer companies. He has been a reporter for Bloomberg News, Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and the Guardian.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Analyst Nicole DeBlase has a Hold rating on General Electric (ticker: GE) shares, but she put a “short term” Buy rating on the stock Monday, saying earnings figures to be released at the end of the month—and a call with management for analysts and investors—will trigger gains. GE shares ended the day at $12.14 on Jan. 6, the highest closing level in a year. “We see the potential for GE to deliver a beat in [fourth quarter] and 2020 guidance,” wrote DeBlase in a Monday research report.
Dave Calhoun’s aerospace experience at General Electric could give investors clues about how he will address issues at Boeing. He became CEO of Boeing effective Monday.
This year certainly started with a bang -- or to be more precise, a boom. And that boom sent energy prices crazy.Of course, things have already started to calm down. Oil prices are now again in the upper-$50 range, after hitting $70 a barrel briefly on the day after the U.S. took out the No. 2 guy in Iran.Those prices certainly helped energy-dependent economies like Saudi Arabia and Russia. But it hasn't lasted.InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading TipsAnd the one thing that's different this time around is that the U.S. is now a leading energy producer. This means U.S. operations can moderate whatever happens in OPEC crude. * 7 Inflation-Beating REITs to Ground Your Income Portfolio As for how to invest … at Growth Investor, we identify the right buys using my stock-picking system, Portfolio Grader. And the four energy stocks below are top-rated Portfolio Grader U.S. energy picks that will be able to help energize your portfolio for years to come. These are all smaller plays that will benefit most from growing domestic energy demand. Energy Stocks to Buy: PrimeEnergy Resources (PNRG)Source: Kodda / Shutterstock.com PrimeEnergy Resources (NASDAQ:PNRG) is just shy of a $300 million market capitalization. It's an exploration and production firm (E&P) with wells and properties in Texas, Oklahoma and West Virginia.It looks for oil and natural gas. And 15 years ago, it got a nice $70 million boost from General Electric (NYSE:GE) to help fund a natural gas production partnership. That shows it's a respected E&P by big firms.And PNRG has been around since 1973, so it has accessed some prime real estate before other companies knew what was coming.Also, it's able to convert traditionally drilled wells to unconventional drilling, which means PNRG can also tap back into formerly productive properties without having to go look for new sites. Speaking of property, it has real estate in the Permian Basin as well as the Marcellus Shale, two of the top energy patches in the U.S.The stock is up 85% in the past 12 months, yet its trailing price-to-earnings ratio remains near 32. It's popular, but it's not overvalued yet. Hess Midstream (HESM)Source: rafapress / Shutterstock.com Hess Midstream (NYSE:HESM) is a limited partnership that was spun off of parent and integrated oil company Hess (NYSE:HES).This has been a popular way for larger oil companies to segment operations around the upstream, midstream and downstream aspects of their business. HESM is a midstream operation (think pipelines) that operates in North Dakota's Bakken Shale.Recently, it bought its sister firm Hess Infrastructure Partners for about $6.2 billion, locking down most of the pipeline operations in the Bakken.Midstream players are great plays now because they don't live or die by the price of oil. They make their money on demand, on the volume that flows through their pipes. And in an expanding economy, demand grows, so pipelines stay busy. In fact, pipelines are the primary way we're playing the U.S. oil production boom here at Growth Investor. * 8 of the Strangest Stocks Worth Your Time This particular stock is up 26% in the past year, and it also delivers a 6.4% dividend, so if you invest here, do it for at least few years to take advantage of that juicy dividend. Dorchester Minerals (DMLP)Source: Shutterstock Dorchester Minerals (NASDAQ:DMLP) is yet another interesting energy company that's set up as a limited partnership. That means, for tax purposes, you're treated like an owner and receive net income from the company, distributed in the form of dividends. This structure is similar to that of a real estate investment trust.In DMLP's case, it doesn't do anything but own land that it leases out to energy companies. In return it gets royalties for the land and usually a percentage of whatever they dig up.This is a great place to be, since there's no equipment issues, little overhead and in good times, the value of the land increases, along with royalty payments.What's more, while the stock isn't structured for pure growth, it is up nearly 25% in the past year, yet still has a trailing P/E of 12. Its dividend currently sits at 10.4%. And that's after a strong year for the stock.As long as oil prices stay healthy, you can expect that kind of solid performance. NuStar Energy (NS)Source: Shutterstock NuStar Energy (NYSE:NS) is the biggest of the featured companies, with a market cap just over $3 billion. That's hardly a monster in this sector, but it has operations around the country, focusing on pipelines, storage facilities and terminals.Currently, it has nearly 10,000 miles of pipelines and 74 terminal and storage operations in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. About 2,000 miles of its pipelines are for anhydrous ammonia -- water-free ammonia that's used in fertilizer, cleaning products and drug manufacturing.An expanding economy is good for midstream firms like NS. As demand for goods rises, production rises, and distribution and production of those goods require energy inputs like oil and natural gas.And as the U.S. allows more energy exports, that's even better news for NuStar, since it already has terminals and storage facilities at or near many key ports.The stock is up 12% in the past year and delivers a 8.8% dividend. It's a solid stock for the long haul, especially if you like a big income stream. And I've got more where that came from.At Growth Investor, we don't just invest in sectors, even ones as promising as oil; we invest in trends.And one trend that's just heating up is artificial intelligence (AI).If AI sounds futuristic -- you're already using it every day! If you've ever used Alphabet's (NASDAQ:GOOG, NASDAQ:GOOGL) Google Assistant or Apple's (NASDAQ:AAPL) Siri … if you've had Netflix (NASDAQ:NFLX) recommend a movie or Zillow (NASDAQ:Z) recommend a house … even an email spam filter … then you've used artificial intelligence.In this new world of AI everywhere, data becomes a hot commodity. 'Data Is the New Oil'As scientists find even more applications for artificial intelligence -- from hospitals to retail to self-driving cars -- it's incredible to imagine how much data will be involved.To create AI programs in the first place, tech companies must collect vast amounts of data on human decisions. Data is what powers every AI system. As one AI researcher from the University of South Florida puts it, "data is the new oil."So, as investors, if we want to buy the right stocks to ride the AI trend, all we have to do is look back at the oil boom of the 2000s.Back in 2003, if investors believed that crude oil was set for a big price rise, they had a handful of different vehicles to choose from. They could buy speculative futures contracts … they could buy a small oil company exploring for oil in some remote jungle … or they could have bought shares in Core Laboratories (NYSE:CLB).Core did no drilling or exploration of its own. It provided technology to the companies who did. As oil prices climbed from $30 per barrel in 2003 to $100 per barrel in 2008, Core's customers had more money to spend on exploration. Core's revenues surged … and CLB stock went from $5 per share to $60 per share … a gain in market value of 1,100%.Now, picture an industry like Big Oil as a huge skyscraper with lots of offices. By buying stock in an individual oil company, it's like having a key to one of those offices. By buying Core Laboratories, it's like having a "Master Key" to all of them. The AI 'Master Key'Core Laboratories was the Master Key to the 2000s oil boom. And here, the Master Key is the company that makes the "brain" that all AI software needs to function, spot patterns and interpret data.It's known as the "Volta Chip" -- and it's what makes the AI revolution possible.You don't need to be an AI expert to take part. I'll tell you everything you need to know, as well as my buy recommendation, in my special report for Growth Investor, The A.I. Master Key. The stock is still under my buy limit price -- so you'll want to sign up now. That way, you can get in while you can still do so cheaply.Click here for a free briefing on this groundbreaking innovation.Louis Navellier had an unconventional start, as a grad student who accidentally built a market-beating stock system -- with returns rivaling even Warren Buffett. In his latest feat, Louis discovered the "Master Key" to profiting from the biggest tech revolution of this (or any) generation. Louis Navellier may hold some of the aforementioned securities in one or more of his newsletters. More From InvestorPlace * 2 Toxic Pot Stocks You Should Avoid * 7 Inflation-Beating REITs to Ground Your Income Portfolio * 7 Healthcare Stocks to Buy or Sell As Pricing Pressures Mount * 7 Earnings Reports to Watch This Week The post 4 Energy Stocks to Power the New Year appeared first on InvestorPlace.
Boeing’s incoming CEO Dave Calhoun stands to make millions if he can get the troubled MAX jet back into service. He’ll also be paid less than his predecessor.
My conservative Top Pick for 2020 is General Electric (GE) -- a fallen angel that was also my leading choice for 2019. The stock gained 54% after my recommendation last year. I think the stock will continue to do very well in 2020, explains Jim Powell, editor Global Changes & Opportunities Report.
Sales advances will help GE, the Boston industrial and financial-services giant, top Wall Street's fourth-quarter estimates, Deutsche Bank analysts say.
Iran admitted early Saturday to shooting down a Boeing 737 that crashed in Tehran after earlier blaming it on mechanical problems.
Boeing Co's ousted chief executive officer, Dennis Muilenburg, is leaving the company with $62 million in compensation and pension benefits but will receive no severance pay in the wake of the 737 MAX crisis. Muilenburg was fired from the job in December as Boeing failed to contain the fallout from a pair of fatal crashes that halted output of the company's bestselling 737 MAX jetliner and tarnished its reputation with airlines and regulators. The compensation figures were disclosed in a regulatory filing late on Friday during a difficult week for Boeing when it also released hundreds of internal messages -- two major issues hanging over the company before new CEO David Calhoun starts on Monday.
Boeing Co's ousted chief executive officer, Dennis Muilenburg, stands to receive $62 million in long-term incentive, stock awards and pension benefits, but forfeited $14.6 million and will receive no severance, the planemaker said in a regulatory filing on Friday. Muilenburg was fired from the job in December as the company failed to contain the fallout from a pair of fatal crashes that halted output of its bestselling 737 MAX jetliner and tarnished its reputation with airlines and regulators. Calhoun, who starts as CEO on Monday, will receive a base salary at an annual rate of $1.4 million and is eligible for $26.5 million in long-term incentive compensation, Boeing said in a filing.
Bearish J.P. Morgan analyst Stephen Tusa might be the reason for the modest underperformance. “Part of the Bull case for GE Aviation is strong growth in defense over the next six years,” wrote Tusa, noting that GE management believes the defense business can double by 2025. GE Aviation is important to any bullish investment thesis regarding the big American manufacturer.