737 Max

[Cheeks]

I'm honestly surprised by the optimism about buying into Boeing (stock) at this specific time. It's mostly just buying into the headlines being wrong and, basically, contrarianism. There will be more buying opportunities as this rolls along. It wasn't even that great of a buying opportunity following the dip. It is fairly priced, assuming that they lose no business. If you weren't already bought into it, what in the world would make one buy into it now?

The issues facing Boeing are not purely dollar signs any more, this is now opened up to a large, international political issue as well. I'd rather not invest in a stock where I also have to consider the political headlines and other nebulous factors. How does one go about projecting that stuff out...?

It's a risk, like any of this stuff, but a small one I thought was worth taking.  After the financial meltdown I bought a bunch of Citibank because I was convinced the gov't would not let them fail, that worked.  Bought Sirius when it was about a $1...worked out.   Bought a little bit of GE recently....more nervous about that one, but think they can recover at least some of what they lost the last five years.  Doesn't always work, but when headlines drive a stock down if it looks like it might be media overreach, I'll consider swooping in.

[MU82]

I'm honestly surprised by the optimism about buying into Boeing (stock) at this specific time. It's mostly just buying into the headlines being wrong and, basically, contrarianism. There will be more buying opportunities as this rolls along. It wasn't even that great of a buying opportunity following the dip. It is fairly priced, assuming that they lose no business. If you weren't already bought into it, what in the world would make one buy into it now?

The issues facing Boeing are not purely dollar signs any more, this is now opened up to a large, international political issue as well. I'd rather not invest in a stock where I also have to consider the political headlines and other nebulous factors. How does one go about projecting that stuff out...?

There are always risks in investing. There is no such thing as a "safe" stock. You play the probabilities. Boeing is in a cyclical industry, so there can be (and will be and have been) major price swings, but it is part of a duopoly -- and the better part of it, as it has been a far superior company to Airbus -- so it has what Warren Buffett would call a "wide moat."

Although I do quite a bit of financial writing these days, I am not a financial adviser, I do not pretend to be an expert, and I do not tell people what to invest in. I don't even make recommendations.

The best advice I always give is for investors to know themselves -- their goals, their risk-tolerance levels, their comfort zones. If you are uncomfortable investing in a cyclical company that faces the issues you correctly point out, then you shouldn't buy it. There are thousands of companies to invest in.

This kind of Boeing situation is why most people don't have 1-stock or 3-stock portfolios. Boeing is my 21st-largest position. My top 10 holdings are much, much larger. If Boeing were to go out of business next week, that would suck but it wouldn't materially affect my wealth or my income stream (I primarily practice Dividend Growth Investing, and BA pays a very nice, growing dividend).

So is it a "risk"? Sure. But it is not one that puts my financial future in much jeopardy.

Happy investing!

[Benny B]

Just buy a few April 400 calls like Benny did if you don't want to take the risk.

Full disclosure, I'm playing with house money right now having just sold the July 360 puts I purchased last month (so my risk tolerance is completely different right now).

[D'Lo Brown]

There are always risks in investing. There is no such thing as a "safe" stock. You play the probabilities. Boeing is in a cyclical industry, so there can be (and will be and have been) major price swings, but it is part of a duopoly -- and the better part of it, as it has been a far superior company to Airbus -- so it has what Warren Buffett would call a "wide moat."

Although I do quite a bit of financial writing these days, I am not a financial adviser, I do not pretend to be an expert, and I do not tell people what to invest in. I don't even make recommendations.

The best advice I always give is for investors to know themselves -- their goals, their risk-tolerance levels, their comfort zones. If you are uncomfortable investing in a cyclical company that faces the issues you correctly point out, then you shouldn't buy it. There are thousands of companies to invest in.

This kind of Boeing situation is why most people don't have 1-stock or 3-stock portfolios. Boeing is my 21st-largest position. My top 10 holdings are much, much larger. If Boeing were to go out of business next week, that would suck but it wouldn't materially affect my wealth or my income stream (I primarily practice Dividend Growth Investing, and BA pays a very nice, growing dividend).

So is it a "risk"? Sure. But it is not one that puts my financial future in much jeopardy.

Happy investing!

Cyclical? You must be kidding. Hundreds of people dead under suspiciously similar circumstances and a litany of prior complaints. This is a total one-timer. IMO, you are focusing too hard on traditional investing and the fundamentals here, and missing what will be the much bigger drivers of the stock's performance over the next year - headlines, politics, lost customers, etc.

What I'm saying is that betting on Boeing now is betting on those things I mentioned not hurting the stock. The primary driver of the stock doing well or not will be those things. Beating earnings by 4 cents will be nice and maybe they will but that won't be the most important thing... At all.

My judgment thus far is that the international sentiment is nowhere near as rosy as it is within the States. A lot of companies now combing over the fine print in their contracts.

[MU82]

Cyclical? You must be kidding. Hundreds of people dead under suspiciously similar circumstances and a litany of prior complaints. This is a total one-timer. IMO, you are focusing too hard on traditional investing and the fundamentals here, and missing what will be the much bigger drivers of the stock's performance over the next year - headlines, politics, lost customers, etc.

What I'm saying is that betting on Boeing now is betting on those things I mentioned not hurting the stock. The primary driver of the stock doing well or not will be those things. Beating earnings by 4 cents will be nice and maybe they will but that won't be the most important thing... At all.

My judgment thus far is that the international sentiment is nowhere near as rosy as it is within the States. A lot of companies now combing over the fine print in their contracts.

Don't know why you're getting so bent out of shape here, D'Lo.

The beautiful thing about stock investing is that it's OK for folks to disagree. They do that by buying something else. There are thousands of publicly traded stocks; I highly recommend you buy any of them except BA.

And yes, Boeing is a cyclical stock. It's how it is defined.

[Cheeks]

Too big to fail

Buy buy buy


https://apple.news/AY7aeGGw7RrudQ14vXbgnwA

[vogue65]

Too big to fail

Buy buy buy


https://apple.news/AY7aeGGw7RrudQ14vXbgnwA

Or too big to manage, sell, sell, sell

[Cheeks]

Or too big to manage, sell, sell, sell

Up another $5 today

[Bocephys]

Whoops: https://thepointsguy.com/news/both-crashed-737-max-8-jets-lacked-2-safety-features-boeing-charged-extra-for-them/

[Cheeks]

Whoops: https://thepointsguy.com/news/both-crashed-737-max-8-jets-lacked-2-safety-features-boeing-charged-extra-for-them/

Not sure if this is a whoops.  Not regulated as mandatory to do so.

Southwest bought both options, United didn't. 

[vogue65]

So now we get the rest of the story.  Very sad story when they add a dangerous feature then charge extra for a safety over ride.  Market driven capitalism at its worst.    I try not to invest in unethical companies no matter the ROI.

Such companies are hard to find these days.  They can't blame this on the union, but I would not he suprised if their PR department doesn't try.  Or we could blame it on the government or the customer, the victim is guilty again.

[Cheeks]

So now we get the rest of the story.  Very sad story when they add a dangerous feature then charge extra for a safety over ride.  Market driven capitalism at its worst.    I try not to invest in unethical companies no matter the ROI.

Such companies are hard to find these days.  They can't blame this on the union, but I would not he suprised if their PR department doesn't try.  Or we could blame it on the government or the customer, the victim is guilty again.

Is that the rest of the story, or are you jumping to conclusions?  My guess is a lot more of the story will come out, including Boeing's side.  Boeing is not going to put their company future or safety in jeopardy for that.  End of the day, if they don't have safe products they are in a world of hurt.  If Boeing thought they were making an unsafe plane, they wouldn't be selling it nor would the government allow it.  This jet was approved in 2011, by the way, so not something recent.  They clearly messed up on the training side. 

Good for you to review an article earlier this week where Boeing had 4 planes crash in one year, two in a couple of days of each other...the 727...which almost crippled the company and ultimately became the best selling jet of all-time.  The reason for the crashes, training or lack of it.  If it turns out Boeing has a design flaw, they'll fix it.  If there is criminality, people will be prosecuted.  The options that were not purchased were not required by the regulators, and many purchasers buy them anyway. 

[vogue65]

Is that the rest of the story, or are you jumping to conclusions?  My guess is a lot more of the story will come out, including Boeing's side.  Boeing is not going to put their company future or safety in jeopardy for that.  End of the day, if they don't have safe products they are in a world of hurt.  If Boeing thought they were making an unsafe plane, they wouldn't be selling it nor would the government allow it.  This jet was approved in 2011, by the way, so not something recent.  They clearly messed up on the training side. 

Good for you to review an article earlier this week where Boeing had 4 planes crash in one year, two in a couple of days of each other...the 727...which almost crippled the company and ultimately became the best selling jet of all-time.  The reason for the crashes, training or lack of it.  If it turns out Boeing has a design flaw, they'll fix it.  If there is criminality, people will be prosecuted.  The options that were not purchased were not required by the regulators, and many purchasers buy them anyway.

I never commented on the 727, good plane, 3 pilot's.    Good PR case, see you in court. 

[mu03eng]

AoA indicator is a non-standard indicator on all commercial aircraft (though that is likely to change because an AoA indicator may also have prevented the Air France crash I cited). Boeing nor Airbus deploy AoA indicators as part of their cockpits, largely because that data should be available through other standard instruments. Further both crashes where were during VFR conditions, meaning the pilots easily knew that the AoA was off. Now they may not have known how to disable the MCAS, but having an AoA indicator would have done nothing for them in this case.

[dgies9156]

I never commented on the 727, good plane, 3 pilot's.    Good PR case, see you in court.

I did and there were four crashes in a year in 1965. The crashes were largely due to training issues associated with the 727 sink rate on approach. You had a boatload of propeller liner pilots who were flying these things and, well, it was a different animal. Neither Boeing nor the airlines understood how different.

[Cheeks]

I did and there were four crashes in a year in 1965. The crashes were largely due to training issues associated with the 727 sink rate on approach. You had a boatload of propeller liner pilots who were flying these things and, well, it was a different animal. Neither Boeing nor the airlines understood how different.

Yup. 

[vogue65]

I did and there were four crashes in a year in 1965. The crashes were largely due to training issues associated with the 727 sink rate on approach. You had a boatload of propeller liner pilots who were flying these things and, well, it was a different animal. Neither Boeing nor the airlines understood how different.

Vogue 65 was flying the 727 a lot in 1965.  That is when cars were still cars and men were men.
From those ashes have come Marquette 2019 and and the 737 MAX 8.  You connect the dots.

[Cheeks]

Vogue 65 was flying the 727 a lot in 1965.  That is when cars were still cars and men were men.
From those ashes have come Marquette 2019 and and the 737 MAX 8.  You connect the dots.

Men were men....connect the dots on that one.  The SJWs here will be circling for blood on your answer.

[vogue65]

Back on point, BA down 2% today after 1 1/2 hours and falling.  This is how it starts.  Although the stock may only lose 10%, it will never be the same again.  The rest of the world has taken notice.  Our ethics or culture is not shared by everyone.

On subject no. 2, you connect the dots.

[dgies9156]

Vogue 65 was flying the 727 a lot in 1965.  That is when cars were still cars and men were men.
From those ashes have come Marquette 2019 and and the 737 MAX 8.  You connect the dots.

Cars were cars?

Uh, metal dashboards, minimal seatbelts, no airbags, AM radios, body on frame construction, flammable materials, high-test gasoline and about 12 miles to the gallon.

In what world is that better than a 2019 automobile?

[vogue65]

Cars were cars?

Uh, metal dashboards, minimal seatbelts, no airbags, AM radios, body on frame construction, flammable materials, high-test gasoline and about 12 miles to the gallon.

In what world is that better than a 2019 automobile?

My, my you are so literal and argumentative, lighten up, it is only an expression.

[Cheeks]

Back on point, BA down 2% today after 1 1/2 hours and falling.  This is how it starts.  Although the stock may only lose 10%, it will never be the same again.  The rest of the world has taken notice.  Our ethics or culture is not shared by everyone.

On subject no. 2, you connect the dots.

Nope, need help.  I used to say when men were men, and attacked here.  I'm curious what your version of it is, and what it means.

[mudeltaforcegurl]

What the f#ck is your problem?

I forgot I posted this after a long day of watching those two men at work. They have since been fired for getting into a physical altercation in the parking lot at work. They were just horrible people to work with. Not only were they rude and argumentative with staff but with patients and their families too.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I forgot I posted this after a long day of watching those two men at work. They have since been fired for getting into a physical altercation in the parking lot at work. They were just horrible people to work with. Not only were they rude and argumentative with staff but with patients and their families too.

Which has nothing to do with the ethnic group to which they belong.

[vogue65]

Nope, need help.  I used to say when men were men, and attacked here.  I'm curious what your version of it is, and what it means.

When men didn't need to go around with a gun to prove their manliness.
When men didn't need to ink up.
When men didn't need to drive 4X4 picknup trucks even though they had desk jobs.
When men didn't need ear plugs and knee pads at the range and then sue the V.A. when they still lost some hearing.
When men could fly a plane without a computer.
When men could driven in snow without 4 wheel drive.
When men could fix a car without a computer.
When men could talk with strangers without hiding in a cellphone.
When men could wear colorful clothes.
When men could play musical instruments and not think D.J.'s or mixers were musician's?
When men got drafted, and showed up for service.

The list is very long.