Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Said random antibody tests in NYC showed 21% positive. Noting that young people are significantly under represented in antibody production, Icky's 35-40% infected isn't far off.

Super disturbing news I saw this morning was a study showing that more than half (54%, IIRC) of asymptomatic people with the virus suffer "ground glass" lung damage, as compared to three-quarters (74%, IIRC) of those who were symptomatic. You may not notice that you have it, but it's still damaging your lungs.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Super disturbing news I saw this morning was a study showing that more than half (54%, IIRC) of asymptomatic people with the virus suffer "ground glass" lung damage, as compared to three-quarters (74%, IIRC) of those who were symptomatic. You may not notice that you have it, but it's still damaging your lungs.

Yes but the question is whether they resolve with the illness and don't stay there forever like asbestosis. According to one study in China, they were there when people were discharged.

The way I understand it the GGO are evidence of damage.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Then there was no reason for a lockdown.

There. Where people are generally healthy and listen to scientific recommendations.

Much different here. We couldn't pull that off because we don't have HC system focused on wellness. Ours is based on sickness management. Too many underlying conditions.

Why do all of these Americans have diabetes? It's not as prevalent in Sweden. Not by a long shot.

Sedentary fat people are big pharma's cash cow, and we've got them by the tens of millions.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The investors, sure, but why the management?

Is there any airline that has managed this situation well, significantly better than the others? No, because demand is off across the board. Airlines have high fixed costs, and don't spend an awful lot of money to fly the planes. Is anyone surprised that taking away all their business for a long period is going to wreck them all?

The management did nothing to improve the business. It engaged in buybacks to jack the stock price. It created a share valuation that wasn't predicated on the underlying fundamentals of the business.

That sort of distortion is why we're going thru a depression and yet the stock market is only 15% off all time highs. Only instead of IBM buying back shit tons of its own stock, now the Fed is doing the purchasing.

Insane.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm curious about the mechanics of this. How were they charging you? It seems to me that you should be able to withdraw the authorization for them to hit your account (debit, credit or ACH), and then if they keep doing it, you can go to your card issuer/bank to do a chargeback, and also file a class action under the EFTA.

I bought a ton of gym debt way back when I was in the collection business. It was dirt cheap.

And it was pretty damn close to actual dirt in terms of value.

Never had a less robust performing portfolio. Most of the people who'd defaulted didn't seem to understand that they'd even signed a contract.

I'm surprised those big gym chains haven't been sued into the ground for their shit. Many of the accounts were fraudulently opened in other peoples' names.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The management did nothing to improve the business. It engaged in buybacks to jack the stock price. It created a share valuation that wasn't predicated on the underlying fundamentals of the business.

That sort of distortion is why we're going thru a depression and yet the stock market is only 15% off all time highs. Only instead of IBM buying back shit tons of its own stock, now the Fed is doing the purchasing.

Insane.

If a business is making money, and management doesn't think it makes sense to invest the money in making the business grow, there are three choices: (1) Put it in the bank, (2) Pay a dividend to investors, or (3) Buy stock back.

(1) doesn't earn the company much of anything and doesn't do anything for anyone except the bankers.

(2) and (3) both generate returns to existing shareholders, (2) by giving them cash and (3) by reducing the outstanding stock so that everyone owns a little more. (3) lets shareholders opt out by selling to the company, so in that way features more choice.

I don't think most investors are fooled into thinking that the buyback means there is more demand for the stock. It's a matter of public record. No one is being deceived about anything.

If management has that money and doesn't see a good way to use it to improve the business, giving it back to the shareholders is great. There companies (e.g., rhymes with Oogle) where the founders don't really need to answer to shareholders and can squander the company's money on vanity projects like high-altitude balloons that are never going to make money. Is that a good model?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If a business is making money, and management doesn't think it makes sense to invest the money in making the business grow, there are three choices: (1) Put it in the bank, (2) Pay a dividend to investors, or (3) Buy stock back.

(1) doesn't earn the company much of anything and doesn't do anything for anyone except the bankers.

(2) and (3) both generate returns to existing shareholders, (2) by giving them cash and (3) by reducing the outstanding stock so that everyone owns a little more. (3) lets shareholders opt out by selling to the company, so in that way features more choice.

I don't think most investors are fooled into thinking that the buyback means there is more demand for the stock. It's a matter of public record. No one is being deceived about anything.

If management has that money and doesn't see a good way to use it to improve the business, giving it back to the shareholders is great. There companies (e.g., rhymes with Oogle) where the founders don't really need to answer to shareholders and can squander the company's money on vanity projects like high-altitude balloons that are never going to make money. Is that a good model?

Except that 3 is usually selected solely because it’s the lazy path of least resistance. These businesses could innovate, could build planes that don’t crash, but why spend on that when you can jack your bonus, tied to share price, with a stock buyback?

What is IBM other than a small maker of niche software connected to a massive buyback machine? It’s a repository of cheap money buying it’s own stock.

And while these companies do this their actual products and services turn to shit. Boeing cut corners. Why? To gain a little bit of margin. Where might it have been had it instead invested in making a superior product? If it spent money wasted on buybacks on better R&D and production, it wouldn’t see all of its orders for planes being cancelled.

Wall Street is a casino. And now businesses are following suit. Who cares for succeeding by providing value when it’s so much easier to just borrow cheap money and buy your stock.

Don’t confuse Boeing with Apple. Apple does strategic buybacks out of funds on hand. Boeing and those like it often used borrowed money to fund buybacks.

The difference? Cook thinks for the long haul and is focused on products. Boeing is a financial company annoyed it has to make planes.

So yes, fuck Boeing. Let them burn. Ch 11.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Except that 3 is usually selected solely because it’s the lazy path of least resistance. These businesses could innovate, could build planes that don’t crash, but why spend on that when you can jack your bonus, tied to share price, with a stock buyback?

What is IBM other than a small maker of niche software connected to a massive buyback machine? It’s a repository of cheap money buying it’s own stock.

And while these companies do this their actual products and services turn to shit. Boeing cut corners. Why? To gain a little bit of margin. Where might it have been had it instead invested in making a superior product? If it spent money wasted on buybacks on better R&D and production, it wouldn’t see all of its orders for planes being cancelled.

Wall Street is a casino. And now businesses are following suit. Who cares for succeeding by providing value when it’s so much easier to just borrow cheap money and buy your stock.

Don’t confuse Boeing with Apple. Apple does strategic buybacks out of funds on hand. Boeing and those like it often used borrowed money to fund buybacks.

The difference? Cook thinks for the long haul and is focused on products. Boeing is a financial company annoyed it has to make planes.

So yes, fuck Boeing. Let them burn. Ch 11.

We weren't talking about Boeing, we were talking about airlines. They are *all* going under without government help. Is that bad management? Not if all of them go. Boeing is a different story, one of obviously poor management.

You say that businesses select buybacks "solely because it’s the lazy path of least resistance." You don't know that. For some, maybe, but cash is cheap. Businesses that see a way to innovate aren't struggling for cash to invest in something new.

You seem to think that buybacks somehow fool people into thinking the business is more valuable. Who is fooled? Institutional investors understand what's going on. If they think it's a bad strategy, they can sell the stock and it goes back down.

Why is anyone better off if a business chooses to pay a dividend instead of buying stock back?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We weren't talking about Boeing, we were talking about airlines. They are *all* going under without government help. Is that bad management? Not if all of them go. Boeing is a different story, one of obviously poor management.

the Boeing system was a very complex program, I know some people there made some bad mistakes that had horrible consequences, but the evil Boeing model is a bit simplistic.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the Boeing system was a very complex program, I know some people there made some bad mistakes that had horrible consequences, but the evil Boeing model is a bit simplistic.

I don't think they're evil, but I also have not been impressed with their senior management, going back to the stupid decision to move the company's HQ out of Seattle.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The management did nothing to improve the business. It engaged in buybacks to jack the stock price. It created a share valuation that wasn't predicated on the underlying fundamentals of the business.

That sort of distortion is why we're going thru a depression and yet the stock market is only 15% off all time highs. Only instead of IBM buying back shit tons of its own stock, now the Fed is doing the purchasing.

Insane.

Airlines? It's a massive logistics problem that they have continually "improved" (meaning reducing costs and improving efficiency, including by unbundling pricing). We passengers have hated it, but they've "improved" a ton lately.

Buybacks suck and suggest uncreative management, but have somehow acquired a weird level of ire. It's just a different form of dividend. I'd prefer to invest in companies that can find something better to do with the money, and would prefer a dividend instead, but it's still just handing cash back to shareholders. We should prevent them from doing that with government money, but doing it with their own earnings is a non-issue.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't think they're evil, but I also have not been impressed with their senior management, going back to the stupid decision to move the company's HQ out of Seattle.

Save some of your ire for Southwest, whose refusal to move toward a more modern airliner platform, to save itself maintenance costs, forced Boeing to need to retrofit an outdated system instead of replace it.

Still mostly Boeing's issue, but it was also responding to its incentives.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If a business is making money, and management doesn't think it makes sense to invest the money in making the business grow, there are three choices: (1) Put it in the bank, (2) Pay a dividend to investors, or (3) Buy stock back.

What choosing (3) says about management is that they suck so bad that they do not have better idea for how to use the money.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

What choosing (3) says about management is that they suck so bad that they do not have better idea for how to use the money.

Equally true of (1) and (2), my friend.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Adder

Save some of your ire for Southwest, whose refusal to move toward a more modern airliner platform, to save itself maintenance costs, forced Boeing to need to retrofit an outdated system instead of replace it.

Still mostly Boeing's issue, but it was also responding to its incentives.

I no longer understand Southwest. They are almost never the cheapest flight anymore and their planes are old. I used to like their boarding process, but with kids it’s not worth the stress.