Is JOE worth buying ???
- Thread starter goofer
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
I can say that in the local market, there was definitely a move to bigger planes/fewer flights into the area after 9/11. NWA used to fly RJ commuter jets into VPS. Now, they're bigger planes and fewer flight options. I wish they'd go back to the smaller planes because not only did you end up with better connecting flight options than what you get now, the commuter jets also had more leg room because of a quirk in pilot union contracts. (the smaller planes were only allowed to have X number of passengers even though they were designed to safely fit in a couple more rows of seats)
While as a long legged scooterbug I am always for more leg room - I've found the two phrases "commuter jets" and "more leg room" are rarely combined - at least in my regional flights leaving out of VPS and PNS. I keep asking for folks' opinions because I haven't flown out of PC, but my usual AA, NW, and (when there is no other option) Delta flights to hubs are on 1x2 planes where my head barely clears the ceiling (I'm considered a midget in my family) and my purse almost doesn't fit in the overhead bin.
I am quite interested in seeing the ideas and design behind the first post 9-11 airport and after the great renovation to VPS I'm all for new and updated airports, but while folks say the PC airport/runway improvement is needed, it seems that what is being built is a white elephant, not a needed upgrade or improvement.
The improved leg room was specific the RJ jetcraft under NWA's old contract rules, and was a quirk in the system I haven't seen happen in other types of aircarft. I'm not overly tall (only 5'9") but a lot of that height is from femur, so I tend to pick up on fairly small differences in aircraft leg space.
The worst I ever dealt with was a Delta 767 where they'd added as many rows of extra seats as weight limits allowed, and my row was so squished that, even though the seat in front of me was upright, my kneecaps were fully embedded in the pocked that contains the Skymall catalog and barf bags, and I had to angle my legs upward so that my feet were not flat on the cabin floor.
The worst I ever dealt with was a Delta 767 where they'd added as many rows of extra seats as weight limits allowed, and my row was so squished that, even though the seat in front of me was upright, my kneecaps were fully embedded in the pocked that contains the Skymall catalog and barf bags, and I had to angle my legs upward so that my feet were not flat on the cabin floor.
From Motley Fool:
Joe Admits Failure
By Seth Jayson October 9, 2007
I'm always amazed at the brazenly upbeat language foundering companies will use when attempting to pretty up their rough realities. Mercifully, some of the homebuilding industry has lacked this urge. Certain executives have offered relatively frank assessments of housing's rancid prospects; D.R. Horton's (NYSE: DHI) CEO actually said that 2007 would "suck."
You'll find no such refreshing honesty this morning -- at least, not in the verbiage from (former) Florida real estate developer St. Joe (NYSE: JOE). Here's what the firm hopes naive and lazy business reporters will write: "The St. Joe Company to Accelerate Value Creation."
Here's what those reporters should write: "Saint Joe cuts dividend, decides to get out of core businesses, and needs to sell furniture to heat its house."
I love the sleight of hand here. Suddenly, the stuff that provided all the earnings juice over the past few years -- like, say, the company's housing developments -- is newly classified as "non-core." The new new core is, it appears, no longer developing anything, but reverting to being a "supplier of entitled land."
So, Joe admits its failure as an "end-to-end" developer. What does that leave investors? A fancified land-flipper, it appears. But St. Joe's already giving a hint of just how great that's (not) going to go, announcing that it has 100,000 acres of "rural land" (i.e., stuff no one wants) on the block, along with 1,200 "developed" home sites and 190 homes that are "priced to sell."
"Priced to sell?" Doesn't get more desperate than that. And somehow, I don't think a public admission like this puts Joe in a strong bargaining position. Talk about playing a weak hand. Of course, it's not like the company has much choice. Saint Joe also admits that it's had to resort to meetings with creditors in order to avoid potential debt defaults in the years to come.
In other words, Joe's value to investors increasingly relies on guessing how much its pile of land is worth -- and when. Given that fewer people seem interested in buying it, it won't be easy to figure out that figure. My back-of-the-envelope guess? It's less than the current price.
Joe Admits Failure
By Seth Jayson October 9, 2007
I'm always amazed at the brazenly upbeat language foundering companies will use when attempting to pretty up their rough realities. Mercifully, some of the homebuilding industry has lacked this urge. Certain executives have offered relatively frank assessments of housing's rancid prospects; D.R. Horton's (NYSE: DHI) CEO actually said that 2007 would "suck."
You'll find no such refreshing honesty this morning -- at least, not in the verbiage from (former) Florida real estate developer St. Joe (NYSE: JOE). Here's what the firm hopes naive and lazy business reporters will write: "The St. Joe Company to Accelerate Value Creation."
Here's what those reporters should write: "Saint Joe cuts dividend, decides to get out of core businesses, and needs to sell furniture to heat its house."
I love the sleight of hand here. Suddenly, the stuff that provided all the earnings juice over the past few years -- like, say, the company's housing developments -- is newly classified as "non-core." The new new core is, it appears, no longer developing anything, but reverting to being a "supplier of entitled land."
So, Joe admits its failure as an "end-to-end" developer. What does that leave investors? A fancified land-flipper, it appears. But St. Joe's already giving a hint of just how great that's (not) going to go, announcing that it has 100,000 acres of "rural land" (i.e., stuff no one wants) on the block, along with 1,200 "developed" home sites and 190 homes that are "priced to sell."
"Priced to sell?" Doesn't get more desperate than that. And somehow, I don't think a public admission like this puts Joe in a strong bargaining position. Talk about playing a weak hand. Of course, it's not like the company has much choice. Saint Joe also admits that it's had to resort to meetings with creditors in order to avoid potential debt defaults in the years to come.
In other words, Joe's value to investors increasingly relies on guessing how much its pile of land is worth -- and when. Given that fewer people seem interested in buying it, it won't be easy to figure out that figure. My back-of-the-envelope guess? It's less than the current price.
Goofer, I think the answer to your question on this thread may now be self evident. Shelly was long CROX at $70 in September (whilst I was urging a short trade at that point in time due to CROX announcement that they were now getting into womens and childrens clothes). I don't recall Shelly blessing getting long any JOE in the low 30's and high 20's either...
Survey says?? CROX now $28. Joe now $36.
Goofer, what are you buying now. Are you trimming your longs/gains on the "fed cat bounce' theory?? I've been buying the hell out of RUTH (Ruth's chris) here this past week. I haven't made any money yet, but I have a lot of historical data that says the time to buy discretionary restaurant stocks has historically been in the first inning of a recession, not in the middle.. time will tell - if we're going into a deep deep recession, RUTH will not work, so it has some degree of risk for sure.
Survey says?? CROX now $28. Joe now $36.
Goofer, what are you buying now. Are you trimming your longs/gains on the "fed cat bounce' theory?? I've been buying the hell out of RUTH (Ruth's chris) here this past week. I haven't made any money yet, but I have a lot of historical data that says the time to buy discretionary restaurant stocks has historically been in the first inning of a recession, not in the middle.. time will tell - if we're going into a deep deep recession, RUTH will not work, so it has some degree of risk for sure.
SHELLY
Why don't you share your ideas with us? We have been confident enough to tell the board what we do so all can see and respond accordingly. Do you lack confidence or conviction? Be brave and share.
Just peaking at the JOE ticker and see that it closed at $39.90 today, 52% above the $26 low, only three months ago. It is interesting to note that anyone who bought at the bottom, are sitting on great paper gains at the moment, in almost no time. I'm wondering how many people actually nailed this one. I'm even more curious to know how many who missed this 52% run up in only 90 days, are waiting to buy a property in SoWal, thinking that they can time the market.
I owned JOE at $26. I also owned it at $50 on the way there.
I owned JOE at $26. I also owned it at $50 on the way there.
funny.At least you didn't buy it at $80....so what's your exit strategy?
.
He only admitted to 26 and 50, but never said anything about 80. Maybe he is shy.
At least you didn't buy it at $80....so what's your exit strategy?
.
Too bad I sold my YHOO shares last year.
-- up nearly 50% today.