yea thanks for the help, i didnt say it right
Stock Markets
24,802,499 Views |
233493 Replies |
Last: 44 min ago by Quacked
jj9000 said:Ragoo said:who acted stupid?hedge said:
this basically opens the floodgates for Big Corp to act stupid and irresponsible because they know they will get bailed out
He's saying that the bailouts and imminent FED intervention will change corporate behavior. Think sub-prime in 2007 where people were buying $800K homes on $25k/yr salaries.
Same concept, just on a broader scale and scope.
I think that remains to be seen. Hopefully the leaders of our nation are able to discern between bad behavior by corps and the ultimate Black swan event shutting the economy down. One is a good use of bailouts and one not so much IMO.
winnerGarlandAg2012 said:hedge said:
this basically opens the floodgates for Big Corp to act stupid and irresponsible because they know they will get bailed out
It would be stupider for a corporation to have enough cash in hand to survive 3-6 months with no revenue than it is for them to falter because of this.
not the same concept at all actuallyjj9000 said:Ragoo said:who acted stupid?hedge said:
this basically opens the floodgates for Big Corp to act stupid and irresponsible because they know they will get bailed out
He's saying that the bailouts and imminent FED intervention will change corporate behavior. Think sub-prime in 2007 where people were buying $800K homes on $25k/yr salaries.
Same concept, just on a broader scale and scope.
the same tax payer that enjoyed the "benefit" of a rising stock market because corporations were taking on cheap debt and buying back shares with their free cash flow?hedge said:
taxpayer
Uh huh. No one loses right? 
IrishTxAggie said:PPAag06 said:
FYI, the CDC modifies and extends the Cruise Ship no sail order:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0409-modifications-extension-no-sail-ships.html
It's kind of good for Trump. Cruises liners will need a bailout and Trump will get them one if they agree to flag their ships out of the US. If they don't, their country of registration can bail them out. No money until they move. No reason to give a corporate bailout to a foreign company. If they go under, someone else will fill the void
As a not so proud investor in CCL I don't mind this. They are by far set up better to survive this than the other 2 majors. Cut one of the other 2 loose. RCL might be okay but Norwegian is in big trouble without help
everyone wants their cake and eat it too. Then when the cake is gone blame someone else for not having a spare cake to eat.claym711 said:
Uh huh. No one loses right?
Geez, look at the numbers:Prognightmare said:
Quote:
Here are the specifics: "Almost seven out of every eight dollars the four airlines sent Wall Street from 2015 through 2019 $39.1 billion out of $44.7 billion went for share buybacks." The rest? "The rest went for dividends, according to" to the writers' "calculations based on the companies' Securities and Exchange Commission filings."
Sloan concludes that "yes, let's keep these companies and other bailout candidates out of bankruptcy."
However, let's also "make them pay taxpayers a handsome return on our loan and give us a big chunk of stock before they're allowed to send another penny to Wall Street."
interested to know which government pension funds own these evil airlines.CSTXAg92 said:Geez, look at the numbers:Prognightmare said:Quote:
Here are the specifics: "Almost seven out of every eight dollars the four airlines sent Wall Street from 2015 through 2019 $39.1 billion out of $44.7 billion went for share buybacks." The rest? "The rest went for dividends, according to" to the writers' "calculations based on the companies' Securities and Exchange Commission filings."
Sloan concludes that "yes, let's keep these companies and other bailout candidates out of bankruptcy."
However, let's also "make them pay taxpayers a handsome return on our loan and give us a big chunk of stock before they're allowed to send another penny to Wall Street."
Ragoo said:everyone wants their cake and eat it too. Then when the cake is gone blame someone else for not having a spare cake to eat.claym711 said:
Uh huh. No one loses right?
Question remains, who isn't getting cake?
same one who never had it to begin withclaym711 said:Question remains, who isn't getting cake?Ragoo said:everyone wants their cake and eat it too. Then when the cake is gone blame someone else for not having a spare cake to eat.claym711 said:
Uh huh. No one loses right?
basically me then
I'm shocked it's an accepted fact that companies shouldn't have a 3 month reserve.
If you're big enough to pay a dividend, you should have a way to get through 3 months (suspend dividend, cash, revolving credit, etc.). The government can't bail out everyone.
If you're big enough to pay a dividend, you should have a way to get through 3 months (suspend dividend, cash, revolving credit, etc.). The government can't bail out everyone.
Interesting take here.Ragoo said:winnerGarlandAg2012 said:It would be stupider for a corporation to have enough cash in hand to survive 3-6 months with no revenue than it is for them to falter because of this.hedge said:
this basically opens the floodgates for Big Corp to act stupid and irresponsible because they know they will get bailed out
While you're right, I don't like that it is true. "Too big to fail" supported by government action eliminates opportunity for others who could/would acquire the failing business and then run it more efficiently. It keeps otherwise efficient market forces at bay.
claym711 said:Ragoo said:everyone wants their cake and eat it too. Then when the cake is gone blame someone else for not having a spare cake to eat.claym711 said:
Uh huh. No one loses right?
Question remains, who isn't getting cake?
Sorry, just thought of this and laughed.
the mortgage derivative market was established as a way for banks to actually profit off of the subprime loans they were making. They were making these subprime loans in part because they were bound to by law. Fair housing act. The government bailed out the banks with the least nefarious activity because the government was partly to blame.jj9000 said:Ragoo said:not the same concept at all actuallyjj9000 said:Ragoo said:who acted stupid?hedge said:
this basically opens the floodgates for Big Corp to act stupid and irresponsible because they know they will get bailed out
He's saying that the bailouts and imminent FED intervention will change corporate behavior. Think sub-prime in 2007 where people were buying $800K homes on $25k/yr salaries.
Same concept, just on a broader scale and scope.
In terms of corporate responsibility, moving forward with free passes for overextension and questionable ethics, it's the exact same concept.
Banks and lenders in 2007 knew the monies they lended were VERY high risk, and they continued to act irresponsible. They eventually got the Bank Bailout of 2008. Who lost in all of that? Who paid for irresponsibility?
This sets the stage for the next wave of companies pushing the envelope of ethics and fiscal responsibility b/c they know they'll eventually get their @sses bailed out. It's a terrible precedent.
In today's world no corporation is going to sit on enough cash to operate for half a year with significantly reduced revenue. That would be irresponsible for their investors and investors would not be happy.
So investors were tickled pink when free cash flow was being used to buy back stock, increasing their share value, when dividend were paid out, increasing their income, but suddenly it is big airlines fault that the government by ordinance has greatly reduced their ability to make money?
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
what if I told you the government is in part the reason why they are failing? Would you think the government has responsibility then to make them whole?CSTXAg92 said:Interesting take here.Ragoo said:winnerGarlandAg2012 said:It would be stupider for a corporation to have enough cash in hand to survive 3-6 months with no revenue than it is for them to falter because of this.hedge said:
this basically opens the floodgates for Big Corp to act stupid and irresponsible because they know they will get bailed out
While you're right, I don't like that it is true. "Too big to fail" supported by government action eliminates opportunity for others who could/would acquire the failing business and then run it more efficiently. It keeps otherwise efficient market forces at bay.
Don't leave out that the government actually made money when the banks repaid TARP with interest.
CSTXAg92 said:Geez, look at the numbers:Prognightmare said:Quote:
Here are the specifics: "Almost seven out of every eight dollars the four airlines sent Wall Street from 2015 through 2019 $39.1 billion out of $44.7 billion went for share buybacks." The rest? "The rest went for dividends, according to" to the writers' "calculations based on the companies' Securities and Exchange Commission filings."
Sloan concludes that "yes, let's keep these companies and other bailout candidates out of bankruptcy."
However, let's also "make them pay taxpayers a handsome return on our loan and give us a big chunk of stock before they're allowed to send another penny to Wall Street."
The guy on CNBC yesterday talking about letting the airlines go bankrupt is on to something here. Bailing them out is welfare for the rich
The government made money when the banks repaid TARP with interest.
Why would anyone have operating reserves? You lever up 2-15x and artificially pump EPS and chase ROI because you know when it fails, everyone fails, and everyone gets bailed out. Repeat.
That's why they are smart.
You seem to think it's governments fault for incentivizing this behavior via regulations, but applaud the govt for reinforcing that behavior with bail outs.
That's a fib spiral of ever expanding leverage and bail outs.
The great cake bubble We can call it
That's why they are smart.
You seem to think it's governments fault for incentivizing this behavior via regulations, but applaud the govt for reinforcing that behavior with bail outs.
That's a fib spiral of ever expanding leverage and bail outs.
The great cake bubble We can call it
yep and the economy recovered very quickly and soon when to ATH and no one cared anymore.Prognightmare said:
The government made money when the banks repaid TARP with interest.
my point is that if the government is going to incentivize on the front end they damn well put up a back stop on the back end.claym711 said:
Why would anyone have operating reserves? You lever up 2-15x and artificially pump EPS and chase ROI because you know when it fails, everyone fails, and everyone gets bailed out. Repeat.
That's why they are smart.
You seem to think it's governments fault for incentivizing this behavior via regulations, but applaud the govt for reinforcing that behavior with bail outs.
That's a fib spiral of ever expanding leverage and bail outs.
The great cake bubble We can call it
Right or wrong is a different conversation.
Most would say for the government to get out of the way up front and then keep your hands in your pocket when SHTF.
But there are a lot of socioeconomic forces and interests within government that drive the meddling.
Going to start watching the Peter hypnosis scene everyday before open!
claym711 said:
Going to start watching the Peter hypnosis scene everyday before open!
you keep calling their financial practice as irresponsible, but that isn't true.jj9000 said:Ragoo said:what if I told you the government is in part the reason why they are failing? Would you think the government has responsibility then to make them whole?CSTXAg92 said:Interesting take here.Ragoo said:winnerGarlandAg2012 said:It would be stupider for a corporation to have enough cash in hand to survive 3-6 months with no revenue than it is for them to falter because of this.hedge said:
this basically opens the floodgates for Big Corp to act stupid and irresponsible because they know they will get bailed out
While you're right, I don't like that it is true. "Too big to fail" supported by government action eliminates opportunity for others who could/would acquire the failing business and then run it more efficiently. It keeps otherwise efficient market forces at bay.
This was an instance in which banks and lenders used the government to act irresponsibly. On the front side, and accross the board, they were incented to crank out thousands of sub-prime loans that had less than zero chance of getting paid through the Term. So, yeah, banks said 'see we HAD to take this risk', when in reality they worked overtime to collect what they could on the front side. It was a good time to be a commissioned lender b/c all John Doe had to have was a pulse to get a $900K loan. Again, irresponsible behavior.
We're about to bailout airlines who paid themselves to artificially prop up their stock prices. This sets the stage for the next wave of fiscal irresponsibility. I think it's a load of BS.
Not keeping 6 months operating costs because it's bad for investors is a catch 22.
Those same investors are tax payers, and 4 trillion dollars of inflation is also bad. It's very short term thinking, and adds tons of leaning on the government that I don't like. If I knew a company had cash to handle a half year of payroll, I would say that adds a ton of value to me as an investor.
I'm not a macro economic study at all, but emergency cash on hand vs pushing cash out the door for the sake of stock price knowing there's a goverment backstop seems like a no brainer on which I would prefer to see the world shift to.
I know it's not apples to apples bc they're in fact sending checks to people this bailout, but I'm expected to support my family for 6 months during emergency. I save up, and don't expect the government to do crap. #personalresponsibility
Those same investors are tax payers, and 4 trillion dollars of inflation is also bad. It's very short term thinking, and adds tons of leaning on the government that I don't like. If I knew a company had cash to handle a half year of payroll, I would say that adds a ton of value to me as an investor.
I'm not a macro economic study at all, but emergency cash on hand vs pushing cash out the door for the sake of stock price knowing there's a goverment backstop seems like a no brainer on which I would prefer to see the world shift to.
I know it's not apples to apples bc they're in fact sending checks to people this bailout, but I'm expected to support my family for 6 months during emergency. I save up, and don't expect the government to do crap. #personalresponsibility
LUV had about 6 months in cash. Just sayin.
Ragoo said:you keep calling their financial practice as irresponsible, but that isn't true.jj9000 said:Ragoo said:what if I told you the government is in part the reason why they are failing? Would you think the government has responsibility then to make them whole?CSTXAg92 said:Interesting take here.Ragoo said:winnerGarlandAg2012 said:It would be stupider for a corporation to have enough cash in hand to survive 3-6 months with no revenue than it is for them to falter because of this.hedge said:
this basically opens the floodgates for Big Corp to act stupid and irresponsible because they know they will get bailed out
While you're right, I don't like that it is true. "Too big to fail" supported by government action eliminates opportunity for others who could/would acquire the failing business and then run it more efficiently. It keeps otherwise efficient market forces at bay.
This was an instance in which banks and lenders used the government to act irresponsibly. On the front side, and accross the board, they were incented to crank out thousands of sub-prime loans that had less than zero chance of getting paid through the Term. So, yeah, banks said 'see we HAD to take this risk', when in reality they worked overtime to collect what they could on the front side. It was a good time to be a commissioned lender b/c all John Doe had to have was a pulse to get a $900K loan. Again, irresponsible behavior.
We're about to bailout airlines who paid themselves to artificially prop up their stock prices. This sets the stage for the next wave of fiscal irresponsibility. I think it's a load of BS.
In terms of stockholder value, it's absolutely not irresponsible. Ethical is a different story.
The arguments you're using to to justify bail outs can be used the same way to justify bailing out the debt-riddled consumer of his credit card, mortgage, personal, student, medical, etc debt....
Why shouldn't the consumer get a bail out?
Why shouldn't the consumer get a bail out?
Featured Stories
See All
The TexAgs Tailgate: No. 15 Texas A&M vs. New Mexico State
by Richard Zane
19:50
1d ago
5.5k
Donors can now earn priority points by giving to Texas Aggies United
by Texas Aggies United
A&M's approach remains the same with NMSU coming to Aggieland
by Olin Buchanan
27:22
17h ago
4.5k
8:23
3h ago
766
TexAgs' The Night Before: No. 15 Texas A&M vs. New Mexico State
by Luke Evangelist