Your wish is my command:

"Oil services rally; Halliburton, Transocean in focus 11:20 a.m. 06/22/2005 By Lisa Sanders Provided by


Contract awards for Halliburton, Transocean in focus
DALLAS (MarketWatch) - Oil-service stocks rallied Wednesday morning, as Transocean said it landed contracts worth nearly $1 billion with Petrobras and after Halliburton said it signed a contract with the U.S. Army.

Late Tuesday, Halliburton (HAL) said Kellogg Brown & Root Services has been awarded a new contract for a period of up to 5 years to continue its services supporting U.S. troops in the Balkans region and elsewhere in Europe.

The contract, which takes effect Oct. 1, follows the Balkans Support Contract awarded to KBR in 1999. Halliburton said the Army could order up to $1.25 billion in services, the maximum capacity under the contract, if required.

Halliburton shares rose 1.4%, or 66 cents, to $46.82. "

[img]http://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/goto/evaluate/snapshot.jhtml?symbols=HAL&destination=%2Feresearch%2Fgoto%2Fevaluate%2Fsnapshot.jhtml[/img]

If the image came out correctly (If it didn't go on over to fidelity.com and do a stock lookup and create a 5 year chart) you will notice that HAL's stock was tanking big time on the 5 year chart - until 911 - since that time the stock has quadrupled in price based on incredible earnings, the company has bought back more of their own stock, and the capitalization and share value.

Although for the 3 months ended 3/31/05, revenues fell 11% to $4.94B. Net income from cont. ops. totalled $367M, up from $76M. Results reflect lower activity on government services projects in the Middle East, offset by higher operating efficiencies. If you looked at almost all US stocks - they tanked during that period - but halburtons was bouyed by buy backs, offset Balkan contracts for the Army, and assigning profits to ' capital growth appreciation'

Further the stock has a PE ratio of 0.00 and a yield of 1.043.

If you compare the stock to BJ Services, Slumberger, Baker Hughes, and Cooper Cameron the stock is at the TOP, with hughly inflated revenues, mrket value and sales growth.

Total 3 year return on investment 209% vs 50% on avg for anything else in the industry.

Only when you look at net earninga are they down - because they wrote the earnings off for new equipment and expansion - virtually tripling their size in a tight industry in just 4 years!

That is why they are the ONLY industry in their sector listed as a 'STRONG BUY' by every major brokerage firm.

Yes - a little education does go a long way - but you actually have to read in order to gain that knowledge.

If you can find a better financed company in that sector - BUY IT - until then you will have to make do with 100%+ per year profits at HAL.

Rob

Here is the 10-year chart...

[img]http://chart.bigcharts.com/custom/cnnmoney-com/big.chart?ClientID=44711&pg=qu&osymb=HAL&symb=&sid=2303&time=10yr&freq=1dy&maval=60&uf=0&lf=1&type=256&mocktick=1&symbtype=0&country=US&doChartIV=0&style=1840&size=8&rand=9534[/img]
CNN Money Page for Halliburton

[ June 30, 2005, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Only when you look at net earninga are they down - because they wrote the earnings off for new equipment and expansion - virtually tripling their size in a tight industry in just 4 years!

First of all where to start…. It’s been thrown out there by lefties that this company has been taken care of…. I stated that this company has done nothing in the past but under perform…. After some number crunching.

ROI of 200% well that number can be skewed. This was basically a 10 stock that has gone back to the market norm over the last few years. Of course those numbers are going to be skewed. While the rest of the companies stayed at the norm, HAL got into real trouble.

If you look at all of the other ratios from the fundamentals page, each of these companies remain fairly constant when comparing ratios. With one exception of the –480 cash area for HAL. This number is skewed based upon them paying out large sums to settle a lawsuit.

You ask how did HAL turn their business around? Folks, it’s not about KBR and the gov’t contracts. In 2004 they began to segregate gov’t contract numbers from the rest of the companies oil activities. All they do is pump up their Revenue numbers and add a pinch to the bottom line. Look it up, they go back a few years with the new numbers. Nothing exciting coming in there.

So then, if Cheney didn’t get them back to market norms what did?

1. They just settled the major lawsuit with employees at KBR. Think that had something to do with buying back stock? This payout to the trust fund is also what caused the negative 480 cash ratio. Looks bad on paper, looks good to investors in the market.
2. Since KBR is bringing in HUGE sums of money from W and his buddies, yes HAL had decided to sell this company or perhaps allow them to run away and go public by themselves. This included restructuring the company to reduce costs. This process is almost complete so their very little profit margin has increased to some degree.
3. 1st qtr numbers are skewed from gain on sale (one time) and sale of old assets (one time). Pulling these numbers out, they increased their numbers in all areas of the company except, you guessed it, that nasty Iraq thing that is supposedly making the company so much money.

As an investor, if HAL were to get rid of KBR this year, it would make this stock shoot up even more, it only appears to me they drag HAL down. Just looking at their balance sheet, I don’t like their current ratio (have not compared it to the others). It looks like they are borrowing more money than ever before (interest expense). Looking in the long term.

In the short term (strong buy) they get this rating because of the increased sales in all other areas, the idea of the upcoming sale of KBR, the settlement of the lawsuit.

In the end this would be a strong buy to make some quick money, for a long term investment I’ll take schlumberger.

Did you make an appt to visit the Army recuiters yet PF?

Well - you are welcome to it - though wasn't it Schlumberger who filed the unfair trade practices suit against KBR and the US gov't?

Rob

"Total 3 year return on investment 209% vs 50% on avg for anything else in the industry."

Them's Hillary numbers!

Actually, I think she did better than that on her AR "investments," but I am glad to see OS evolving into a stocks site as well as a sports one! Quelle Republicaine!

GOOD GOD! LEARN HOW TO QUOTE!

The ROI argument, say them and the schams both go up 30 a share. If one company is traded at 50 and the other at 10…. Of course you get one company getting the huge ROI. That is the case here. 3 years ago HAL was at 10ish and now at 40ish.

I am getting my information directly from the 2004 annual report from HAL. It clearly breaks down what is profitable and where. If you dig into those numbers and read what they are trying to do, I’ll admit they have done some nice things to turn things around from the crash of 2001. However, in no way shape or form do I see this money coming in from favors. I see it more as them concentrating on things they do best. Plus this is a hot sector right now, anything you do well… will be rewarded. This goes for any company in that sector.

The company who filed the lawsuit against HAL, well, duh… it’s business. Of course you sue. Only a moron company would not sue.

The one time gain on the sale that happened in the first qtr, was that a cash transaction? I think it sounded like it to me, but I skimmed it.

When did the Iraq war begin...2003? Yeah, well Boobster's graph stands on its own merits. Thanks for playing, PF, but you are the weakest link. Goodbye!

[img]http://chart.bigcharts.com/custom/cnnmoney-com/big.chart?[/img]

To be fair - bobs graph is just the price per share on the market - it doesn't reflect real earnings, stability, quality of investment, etc.

Thats why annual reports are so specific. and so difficult to read the bottom line if your not sure what your looking for - they are by no means straight forward. It's like a good mystery - it requires a lot of work and deductive reasoning to read what they dont want you to know.

Don't forget that it may be a report to investors - but it is also a major publicity piece, and they want to sell you a story where everyone is happy and all is right with the world.

R

[ July 01, 2005, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

But - but - but - PH - there has to be a BASIS for a suit! In this case violation of fair trade practices, violation of more than a dozen trade treaties, and violations of international law.

The US can't do WHATEVER it chooses without regard to the rest of the world - that was Nazi Germany - and Soviet Russia - and Maoist China - and.....

If we don't play fair and keep our treaty obligations then how can we expect anyone else to?

R

Mr Jock,

Since you obviously have an idea of what goes on with companies.....

a lawsuit with no merit or shady merit... you can answer that yourself.

PhillyFan, it looks like there IS merit to this suit. Why can't you address questions directed toward you without going off on a tangent in a completely different direction? Does the truth hurt you that badly? As for your love of community colleges, is that where you learned to spell and write in the English language? If so, I'd demand a refund. You got screwed with your pants on, dude.

I knew it! He's a blood-for-money stockholder!

LittleFilly, when do you have to report for duty? You did sign up, right? Your idiot leader told you to sign up!

I know PhillyFan will appreciate all the "good work" Halliburton does once he is in Iraq fighting for the cause he believes in.

Guys - lets keep this civil.

If PF agrees or disagrees with me is BTP as long as debate is allowed to occur - and be heard - and be allowed to influence the process.

As for signing up to go serve in Iraq or Afghan if you believe or don't believe - I find that really deeply personally insulting to millions of service members.

They are there serving because they believe in The Republic. They wish to serve the Republic to the point of their lives. They are not there because they believe or do not believe in a 'just war'.

They are there because their Republic called them to the profession of arms. They are citizen - soldiers who have shouldered the responsibility for protecting our country. It is largely up to the rest of us to make sure that their dedication and self sacrafice is not squandered unjustly.

To suggest that someone should 'join up or shut up', simply because they agree with a fleetingly brief political situation, or even a single war, slanders everyone who is serving.

Signed - a very proud Vet

Rob

ITJock:

Great post! Agree completely with the importance of having an open dialogue.

Also, thank you for serving.

I certainly respect your opinion but I couldnt disagree more.

The "men" who cheer for war from the sidelines, and label themselves "true American patriots" but are unwilling to put their words into actions are cowards in my book. Those who are itching for war as long as someone else is taking the bullet are chickenhawks pure and simple.

When you ask these people who were all for the war why they choose not to serve they cowar away without even answering the question.

These people expect other families to make the sacrifice that they wont. No sacrifice, just cheer from the sidelines and put a yellow ribbon on the back of your truck.

Why not "serve a cause greater than themselves?"

Agree, Rob and others who favor intelligent debate without juvenile catcalls. This op-ed describes the consequences of that - i.e., the consequences of not understanding consequences - with a tip of the tuba to Gator Jamie! Maybe reading it will help get this thread back on topic.

As much as I get annoyed by the juvenile repetition of 'when are you going to enlist', there is definitely something that sticks in my craw about a war that is important enough for other people to die for, but not important enough for the speaker to die for.

Ill stop the question when it is answered.
Or at least until they answer the "why not" part.

I'm new to post but have lurked for a year or more. In reading the posts and I'm confused about the "supporting the war but not joining the military" statement made by some. I support my local police and fire department and if/when the need arrises, expect them to put out a fire or protect me from thieves. Does that mean I want to become a cop or fireman? No. Does that mean I can't support them because I'm not one of them? Certainly not. I think the same logic would say that if you're against the war you need to be protesting as vigorously as possible (marching in the streets, going to Iraq to right the military wrongs, withholding your taxes so they can't be used by the military) otherwise you'r just standing on the sidelines cheering those who do the real protesting.

If you've been paying attention since you started lurking, you'd know that I do protest, go to rallies, and write letters to Washington...and it's not doing any good because the level of arrogance and narrow-mindedness in Washington is impossible to overcome.

Yes, you are confused.
What a coincidence that this is your first post ever.

In a nutshell: why do Dems/liberals hate America? If only they'd stop we wouldn't have so many problems.

I can think of someone to whom that applies. It's no one on this list.

Major props, as the kids all say, to ITJock (among others) for his call for civility.

Going to protests and rallies and writing letters to Washington doesn't strike me as particularly radical for someone who so vehemently opposes the war. From your statements I would think you would have quit your job by now, packed up and moved to Iraq to really get involved. If you think war supporters are supposed to get involved to point of giving their life, certainly someone with your conviction would get involved to point of putting your life in jeopardy. I doubt you'd risk life or limb at a peace rally or from behind your computer screen firing off an email to Washington. So back to my original statement, if you expect police or fire protection, when are you joining up?

And it gets even worse with his second post ever. I'm beginning to wonder if this the latest incarnation of MiMatt?

You asked me if I protested in the streets and I do.

Bobster said:
I knew it! He's a blood-for-money stockholder!

Geez bobster, not even you can be this foolish, can you?

It’s called a public company.
It’s called public information.
It’s called something other than cnn.
It’s called SEC filings.

Only shareholders can get information on a company?

Amazing, Truly, Amazing.

Oh look the "patriot" is still around, probably wants to enjoy July 4th before enlisting.

Considering you've neither offered to explain where my thinking is flawed, thereby clearing up my confusion nor offered to join up with your local fire department, I'm left to believe my thinking is correct and your home will be left to burn if you should have an unfortunate cooking accident.

Yeah Bobby - You use the library in Austin, why arent you a librarian?

You use the bus system in Austin, why arent you a bus driver?

Brilliant analogies there "Brent."

My 2 cents

I support the troops, but not the war.
I hope that we get our folks home safely, and as quickly as we can.

That said, I don't think we need to yank them out unless we can get some type of effective Iraqi police/military force in place. So in that regard, I am actually agreeing with Shrub (which is a rarity).

I don't label anti-war dissenters as unpatriotic. But that's because I thing patriotism is an outdated, overrated, and destructive mentality.
Yet I will conversely NOT support cry babies who want to dwell on the misguided falsehoods that led us to our current position. Lies were told, thousands have died, blah bla blah. I know that. What would you have us do - hop in a time machine and unmake history?

What purpose is served by beating the horse over and over and over. It was dead last year, and it'll be dead tomorrow. A GOP contolled legislature will not impeach Bush. There's nothing that constant bitching and moaning will do about it.

So what is YOUR solution? Do you think we should just yank the troops home and abandon Iraq?

It seems that all I ever hear on the P&R board is incessant liberal complaining, and rare are the cases where anyone on the left makes a constructive valuable suggestion for solving whatever they are bitching about. A free pass is granted to Fantomas, who regulary makes sense & focuses on solutions.

There are realities in place. You can accept these realities (no impeachment for Bush, Iraq is a war zone, Al Queda still wants to kill you). Or you can join the Nancy Pelosi column and just bitch about it, as if a new reality will spring forth from your complaints.

I am sure that parts of what I have said will be taken out of context. I'm sure some will throw it back and ask for my solution, and here it is:

Wait 'em out. Sad to say, but this thing cannot be won until Sunnis become so disgusted with Al Queda and the insurgents that they rush to join the new government. The gov't has to become viable and include large numbers of Sunnis before other Sunnis will police their region.

I don't like it, but we are in for the long haul. I suspect that victory will only be realized years from now. That sucks. But it's the only realistic way of looking at it.

Shred as you like.

[quote]twin58:
[QB] [QUOTE]In a nutshell why do Dems/liberals hate America? If only they'd stop we wouldn't have so many problems.
[/quote]I will turn that around, Why is it so many conservative R's profess to care about America, yet don't really like Americans? (Gays, Blacks, Muslems, Immigrants, the poor and homeless etc.)

When FDR was president he often invited (frequently weekly) the opposition REPUBLICAN Senate and House leaders over for cocktails and to discuss daily events(Sam Rayburn was there several times a week). He swore about them, but he also joked about his 'loyal oppsition'and he KNEW - from his own notes - without question or doubt, that they wer loyal and trying to govern in the best way they knew how. He never questioned their loyalty, dedication, honesty or sincerity - simply their political views. The thing that I find extraordinary is that I can't imagine anyone from either party in the political leadership being able to be that civil to one another today.

Up until the time of the Carter Admin it was a longstanding tradition (Going back to Madison)for the President to host a picnic on the White house lawn for all the House and Senate Members and their wives. Just for social purposes and to meet those that often were new or overlooked.

When was the last time something like that occured? Hint: Reagan canceled the first one of his new Administration because it was a "waste of time and the taxpayers money talking to Democrats".

We need to bring debate and civility back to the process, not continue partisan diatribes of hatred.

Rob

[ July 01, 2005, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Not sure if you realize this, but Sam Rayburn, who was elected to about 25 consecutive sessions of Congress, was a DEMOCRAT.

Thanks, AU Tiger, for the good words.

As for President W and the situation in Iraq, as I've said, I don't think it's all lost over there. But, and I say this heretically as a liberal, the solution very well may entail

1) sending far more troops, upping military humanpower to about the 175,000 level, so that far more of them can patrol the cities, while others root out the foreign insurgents, seal the borders (especially with Iran and Saudi Arabia), and protect vital infrastructure.
2) secretly cutting a deal with France, Russia, China and perhaps Nigeria or Brazil (countries that have large standing armies) to get in on some of the loot that Halliburton etc. are gleefully pocketing, in the main so that these other countries send well-armed and trained troops;
3) secretly cutting a deal with Jordan to allow the training of Iraqi soldiers and policemen on their territory, so that the soldiers get a breather before they're thrown right in the maelstrom;
4) setting forth 2-3 FIRM political benchmarks and then using those as the pretext to get at least 1/2 our troops out, so long as there are other coalition partners there;
5) once things are far more stabilized, getting the UN troops and reconstruction corps in, especially some UN troops from Muslim countries.

All of this would entail W admitting seriously that he needs to change course, but you see, that's the problem. He just won't do this. I say this not as a Bush-basher, but as a person who really is fed up with the incompetence of this administration in so many areas.

The Saudis and Kuwaitis are happy to send their loonies northwards--that's less jihadists the royal family has to deal with. Iran wins no matter what, since the Shi'ites are in control, and now that a hard-rightist controls their government, sealing the border seems like the best option. Syria--well, they are going to keep up their nonsense until Assad or whoever's really controlling things there is, uh, neutralized. We don't have the troops to take care of that problem right now. So W needs to refocus, and above all, level with the American people.

We can deal with his lies later on--I don't think they're so easily dismissed, but--here comes more liberal heresy--I would much rather have an administration headed by Chuck Hagel or John McCain presiding with W on trial than just to keep going on as we are.

And let's not ever forget, W had a chance to take out Zarqawi BEFORE the war began but chose NOT to do so lest it detract from his aim to oust Saddam. Our soldiers and the Iraqi people are now having to deal with the consequences.

[ July 01, 2005, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Rob

[ July 01, 2005, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Shred? Shucks, no, I'd rather quote. Well said, and I agree all around! Read the op-ed I posted earlier today, (0733, 7-1-05), for a possible explanation of the "all whine and no work" philosophy, from a developmental psychology perspective.

Nice to see RZB self-destructing and attacking even newbies to the board, BTW.* Given the upcoming holiday, I like to think of it as a "weenie roast." Happy Birthday, America!
_____
*Why don't you run for mayor of Dallas?

[ July 01, 2005, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by AU Tiger in ATL:
[qb]... BTW.* Given the upcoming holiday, I like to think of it as a "weenie roast." Happy Birthday, America!

OH - are you roasting your weenie this weekend?

Can I bring buns and the mustard? wink

R

[ July 01, 2005, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Sorry, Rob. Too many cooks spoil the stew!

Ill pass on running for mayor but if I do would you be my campaign manager gmg?

With your success in running for office Id definitely want your "knowledge" on my side.

Pelosi 80%
German 20%

[quote]gmginsfo:
[QUOTE]QUOTE]Sorry, Rob. Too many cooks spoil the stew! [/quote]Your weenie looks like STEW???

I'd have a doctor look at that if I were you!

Rob

It was either that or the pot, and mine is a few inches above mein Wurst. :cool:

Ok I'll bite

I'm sure it's not your 'wurst' assett wink :cool:

:cool: Rob

Umm, two weeks ago?

Lawmakers Attend Picnic at White House

[quote]twin58:
Umm, two weeks ago?
[/quote][/QUOTE]

I am impressed, I didn't know they had revived the custom, I would be more so if the night before he had not been playing partisan politics:

"The night before at a GOP fundraiser, Bush had harsh words for Democratic lawmakers. "On issue after issue, they stand for nothing except obstruction, and this is not leadership," he said. "It is the philosophy of the stop sign, the agenda of the roadblock, and our country and our children deserve better"

Whats the idea - Beat them up - then expect them to bend over backwords to work with you on things they don't believe in?

Then the very next morning he said:

"I want to thank you for your hard work. I want to thank for your devotion to your constituents and to our country," said Bush, who is trying to get Congress to embrace his ideas for changing Social Security, pass an energy bill and back other items on his legislative agenda. "I look forward to continuing to work with you as we serve the American people."

Talk about being two faced.

That is neither politics, debate, leadership, nor compromise. That is a small child throwing a temper tantrum because he can't get his own way all the time, and then trying to put a happy face on to buy love when he fails.

Further I did a little digging & research and discovered that quite a few people are left off that select little guest list if they have been perceived to have crossed the WH in some way or been particularly obstructionist.

A couple of years ago they even deliberately snubbed Colin Powell when he was Sec State, because he was on the outs with Cheney at the time.

This year more than 40 House Reps and Senators did not receive invites - yep all Dems.

Hmmm - Yes, now thats the spirit of Bi Partisanship I like to see! eek!

Crap like that is petty, inmature, and unworthy of any national politician - but to have it happen in the WH? That is a national disgrace.

Can you imagine ANY of the founding fathers doing something like that? Jackson? Lincoln? Either Roosevelt? Wilson? Hoover? Truman? Eisenhower? Kennedy? Ford? Carter? Reagan? Can you even imagine someone suggesting it to Millie Bush's face?

There is entirely too much incivility, backbiting, and sheer meaness of spirit in the Admin.; not to mention sheer incompetance.

The rhetoric dial needs to be dialed way back, and people have to stop believing their own PR.

Rob

[ July 02, 2005, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Re-hashing old subjects re: WMDs and pre-emptive thoughts.

You can't just ignore the past. I mean, you can't go back and tell Clinton not to hook up with Monica so we wouldn't have to deal with years of people questioning our president's sex life.

It all comes down to creidiblity. If Bush is telling this crap to the American public....the next time he does it, people won't be all gun-ho about it. These Downing Street memors are important in the sense that it shows that even our staunchest ally was having serious doubts about our intentions. If you ask me, I think this whole Iraq/WMD issue has hurt Bush in domestic issues, such as social security. I just don't think people trust him with these major decisions in the future. And his poll numbers show that......the economy, Iraq, social security, education, etc....none of them does he get favorable ratings.