• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The sky is not falling Rod--SH.

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
The sky is not falling but the clouds are getting a little darker for Tyson. With the lower earnings, lobbiest(K-street project) scandals, money scandals in Congress, and producers organizing against them, Tyson may want to rethink their strategy of THE ABUSE OF MARKET POWER.

THE LOSS LEADER OF INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATION IS LOWER EARNINGS!!!



Zacks strong sell - Tyson



Zacks Sell List Highlights: Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Tyson Foods, Mosaic, and Petrohawk Energy



CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 19, 2006--Zacks.com releases details on a group of stocks that are currently members of the exclusive Zacks #5 Rank List - Stocks to Sell Now. These stocks are currently rated as a Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell): Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (Nasdaq:RRGB) and Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE:TSN). Further, Zacks announced #4 Rankings (Sell) on two other widely held stocks: Mosaic, Inc. (NYSE:MOS) and Petrohawk Energy Corporation (Nasdaq:HAWK). To see the full Zacks #5 Rank List - Stocks to Sell Now visit: http://at.zacks.com/?id=92



Since inception in 1988, the S&P 500 has outperformed the Zacks #5 Rank List -- Stocks to Sell Now by 155.5% annually (11.8% vs. 4.6% respectively). While the rest of Wall Street continued to tout stocks during the market declines of the last few years, Zacks told investors which stocks to sell or avoid.



Here is a synopsis of why RRGB and TSN have a Zacks Rank of 5 (Strong Sell) and should most likely be sold or avoided for the next one to three months. Note that a #5 Strong Sell rating is applied to 5% of all the Zacks ranked stocks:



Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (Nasdaq:RRGB) blamed slower than anticipated same-store sales growth as well as weak performance at some locations outside of the comparable base for impacting its results. The company said that the lackluster growth will likely result in fiscal 2005 profits totaling $1.60-$1.63 per share versus the previous guidance for $1.71-$1.73 per share. Following the announcement, seven of the 11 covering analysts cut their forecasts. The current consensus estimate for fiscal 2005 profits of $1.67 per share compares to last month's estimate of $1.76 per share.



Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE:TSN) has missed earnings expectations during three out of the past four quarters. Two of the eight covering analysts have cut their projections for the fiscal 2006. The new consensus estimate for profits of $1.12 per share compares to the one month ago estimate for profits of $1.17 and the 90-day old estimate of $1.37 per share.



Here is a synopsis of why MOS and HAWK have a Zacks Rank of 4 (Sell) and should also most likely be sold or avoided for the next one to three months. Note that a #4 Sell rating is applied to 15% of all the stocks ranked by Zacks:



Mosaic, Inc. (NYSE:MOS) recently warned that DAP margins and equity earnings are likely to be lower in the second half of fiscal 2006. As a result, one of the three covering analysts cut his projections for full year earnings. The new consensus estimate calls for fiscal 2006 profits of 83 cents versus 87 cents a week ago and 98 cents two months ago.



Petrohawk Energy Corporation (Nasdaq:HAWK) has missed estimates four times during the past five quarters. Two of the four covering analysts revised their forecasts after the company released projections for 2006 daily production and expenses. The new consensus estimate for 2006 profits of $1.05 per share is 3.7% below the estimate of 30 days ago.



Truly taking advantage of the Zacks Rank requires the understanding of how it works. The free special report; "Zacks Rank Guide: Harnessing the Power of Earnings Estimate Revisions" is available to provide this insightful background. Download a free copy now to prosper in the years to come at http://at.zacks.com/?id=93



About the Zacks Rank



For over 17 years, the Zacks Rank has proven that "Earnings estimate revisions are the most powerful force impacting stock prices." Since inception in 1988, #1 Rank stocks have generated an average annual return of +33%. During the 2000-2002 bear market, Zacks #1 Rank stocks gained 43.8%, while the S&P 500 tumbled 37.6%. Also note that the Zacks Rank system has just as many Strong Sell recommendations (Rank #5) as Strong Buy recommendations (Rank #1). Since 1988, Zacks Rank #5 stocks have underperformed the S&P 500 by 155.5% annually (+4.6% vs. +11.8%). Thus, the Zacks Rank system allows investors to truly manage portfolio trading effectively.



Zacks "Profit from the Pros" e-mail newsletter offers continuous coverage of Zacks #1 Rank stocks and highlights those stocks poised to outperform the market. Subscribe to this free newsletter today by visiting http://at.zacks.com/?id=94



The Zacks Rank, and all of its recommendations, is created by Zacks & Co., member NASD. Zacks.com displays the Zacks Rank with permission from Zacks & Co. on its web site for individual investors.



About Zacks



Zacks.com is a property of Zacks Investment Research, Inc., which was formed in 1978 to compile, analyze, and distribute investment research to both institutional and individual investors. The guiding principle behind Zacks is the belief that investment experts, such as brokerage analysts and investment newsletter writers, have superior knowledge about how to invest successfully. The goal is to unlock these pros' profitable insights for individual investors hard-pressed to find this valuable information in one source. A free subscription to "Profit from the Pros" weekly e-mail newsletter provides the best way to use these experts' insights for more profitable investing. Register for a free subscription to the Profit From the Pros newsletter at http://at.zacks.com/?id=95



Zacks Investment Research is under common control with affiliated entities (including a broker-dealer and an investment adviser), which may engage in transactions involving the foregoing securities for the clients of such affiliates.



(a) The S&P 500 Index ("S&P 500") is a well-known, unmanaged index of the prices of 500 large-company common stocks selected by Standard & Poor's. The S&P 500 includes the reinvestment of all dividends, no transaction costs, and represents the gross returns before management fees.



Disclaimer: Past performance does not guarantee future results. Investors should always research companies and securities before making any investments. Nothing herein should be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security.





home.businesswire.com
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
I thought Tyson was making such a killing on the backs of producers though?

Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE:TSN) has missed earnings expectations during three out of the past four quarters. Two of the eight covering analysts have cut their projections for the fiscal 2006. The new consensus estimate for profits of $1.12 per share compares to the one month ago estimate for profits of $1.17 and the 90-day old estimate of $1.37 per share.

Looks like they are struggling to match projected profitablity despite their interests in non beef protiens.

Must be the competative nature of the packing industry.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Jason said:
I thought Tyson was making such a killing on the backs of producers though?

Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE:TSN) has missed earnings expectations during three out of the past four quarters. Two of the eight covering analysts have cut their projections for the fiscal 2006. The new consensus estimate for profits of $1.12 per share compares to the one month ago estimate for profits of $1.17 and the 90-day old estimate of $1.37 per share.

Looks like they are struggling to match projected profitablity despite their interests in non beef protiens.

Must be the competative nature of the packing industry.

Prolly got something to do with all the perks the owners are getting and all the FINES they have been paying. Millions.............................
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
If they are being fined and paying millions out then the laws in place must be working.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jason: "If they are being fined and paying millions out then the laws in place must be working."

EXACTLY!


The packer blamers that are so quick to state that laws are not being enforced are the same ones to point out when fines are paid.

Typical packer blamer hypocrisy.


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
~SH~ said:
Jason: "If they are being fined and paying millions out then the laws in place must be working."

EXACTLY!


The packer blamers that are so quick to state that laws are not being enforced are the same ones to point out when fines are paid.

Typical packer blamer hypocrisy.
~SH~

THESE WERE NOT GIPSA LAWS YOU IDIOTS! SHHEEEEEEEEESH

THESE WERE REGULATORY LAWS BY OTHER AGENCIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MIKE YOU CAN'T PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE GIPSA INVESTIGATIONS RESULTED IN VIOLATIONS THAT DID NOT RESULT IN FINES CAN YOU?

OF COURSE NOT!

ALL YOU PRESENTED WAS ANOTHER "THEORY" THAT SUPPORTS YOUR PACKER BLAMING MINDSET!

The idiots are the packer blamers like you that spend their whole packer blaming lives chasing ghosts.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
MIKE YOU CAN'T PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE GIPSA INVESTIGATIONS RESULTED IN VIOLATIONS THAT DID NOT RESULT IN FINES CAN YOU?

OF COURSE NOT!

ALL YOU PRESENTED WAS ANOTHER "THEORY" THAT SUPPORTS YOUR PACKER BLAMING MINDSET!

The idiots are the packer blamers like you that spend their whole packer blaming lives chasing ghosts.


~SH~

Go read the report recent report on GIPSA, SH, it is full of them. The problem is that there are no adequate investigations. There are just phone calls being made. It is a government sponsored fraud through corruption or incompetence or both. The way it is being run now and by the people it is being run by GIPSA does not have the capacity to interpret the law or enforce it.

GARY MCBRIDE IS A PRIME EXAMPLE. HE IS OVER THE COMPETITION UNIT AT GIPSA AND THE SAME PERSON WHO SAT ON THE COMMITTEE TO GIVE A $437,000.00 STUDY ON HOGS THAT IS FLAWED. THIS IS A PAYOFF STUDY TO ACADEMIA AND ESPECIALLY TOMISLAV VUKINA FOR HIS FLAWED PAPER ON POULTRY. WE NOW HAVE ANOTHER EASILY "BRIBED" MEMBER OF ACADEMIA AS HEAD OF GIPSA. THE MEMBERS OF THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES IN CONGRESS HAVE TO GET THEIR MONEY FOR THEIR CAMPAIGNS FROM SOMEWHERE. ABRAMOFF MONEY HAS STOPPED.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Go read the report recent report on GIPSA, SH, it is full of them."

It is long on "THEORY" and short on fact, just like you!

BRING THE PROOF!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Go read the report recent report on GIPSA, SH, it is full of them."

It is long on "THEORY" and short on fact, just like you!

BRING THE PROOF!



~SH~

-----Packers World by SH.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
MIKE YOU CAN'T PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE GIPSA INVESTIGATIONS RESULTED IN VIOLATIONS THAT DID NOT RESULT IN FINES CAN YOU?

OF COURSE NOT!

ALL YOU PRESENTED WAS ANOTHER "THEORY" THAT SUPPORTS YOUR PACKER BLAMING MINDSET!

The idiots are the packer blamers like you that spend their whole packer blaming lives chasing ghosts.


~SH~

The fine being levied or the fine being collected?
 

pknoeber

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Location
SW KS
Anybody want to guess how many outstanding shares that Tyson has to spread that $1.12 per share across?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer: Approximately 354,500,000. That's still lots of dollars.

And before everybody starts screaming, what kind of ROA is that? Quick and dirty calcs using #'s from Tyson's website shows that as a 5.03% ROA. ($528Million EBT, 10.504Billion in assets as of 10/2005) Anybody here that only wants a 5% return?

Phil
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
pknoeber said:
Anybody want to guess how many outstanding shares that Tyson has to spread that $1.12 per share across?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer: Approximately 354,500,000. That's still lots of dollars.

And before everybody starts screaming, what kind of ROA is that? Quick and dirty calcs using #'s from Tyson's website shows that as a 5.03% ROA. ($528Million EBT, 10.504Billion in assets as of 10/2005) Anybody here that only wants a 5% return?

Phil

I'd say it compares favorably with ROAs of most producers.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
Jason said:
I thought Tyson was making such a killing on the backs of producers though?

<snip>

Must be the competative nature of the packing industry.

Just out of curiosity, did you happen to notice how many different business concerns Tyson is involved in? It wouldn't be the first time in the history of a company that one or two unprofitable business units managed to drag an entire company down. Its not an indicator of competition, nor an indicator that they treat their customer or suppliers fairly, just an indication that they have at least 1 poorly run business unit.

Not saying this is whats happening, but it'll be interesting to watch.

Rod
 

pknoeber

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Location
SW KS
Sandhusker said:
I'd say it compares favorably with ROAs of most producers.

Exactly. And you're in a position to see a LOT of producers actual numbers, so you probably have a better handle on this than most. So Tyson makes about the same return that producers do. So basically everybody is screaming b/c Tyson has more than they do. The screaming basically just means that they want somebody (the gov't) to chop Tyson down and distribute that wealth to them. Sure sounds a lot like socialism/communism to me.

Now I'm not saying Tyson is squeeky clean, it's just that they've been able to string together several generations of HUUUUUUGE risk takers that also happen to be good businessmen. This has amassed a tremendous amount of wealth that everybody sees & thinks "They're screwing me and taking my money. I want it back." No, they just happened to leverage themselves at the right times and to make it work.

It's not Tyson's fault that they've been successful.

Phil
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Maybe I should point out that I'm comparing long-term ROA of ranchers and ROA of Tyson at a time when they're being down graded. I'm not sure what their long term ROA is.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Rod this past while Tyson lost money in their beef division. However no company will tolerate long term losses in one area.

You have mentioned a few times about grain farming. If you are losing money grain farming, how long will you keep at it? How long will your banker let you stay at it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
pknoeber: "The screaming basically just means that they want somebody (the gov't) to chop Tyson down and distribute that wealth to them. Sure sounds a lot like socialism/communism to me."

Typical liberal mentality isn't it?

Why would anyone wonder why R-CALF favors democratic candidates? They share the same punish achievement - regulate prosperity mindset. If I can't be successful, you shouldn't be either!

What's ironic is that Harlan Hughe's data shows a $250 per head difference in profit from the low cost to the high cost producers and these packer blamers are worried about Tyson making $10 - $15 per head to process their cattle and add value to many beef products.



~SH~
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
Jason said:
1) Rod this past while Tyson lost money in their beef division. However no company will tolerate long term losses in one area.

2) You have mentioned a few times about grain farming. If you are losing money grain farming, how long will you keep at it? How long will your banker let you stay at it?

1) I didn't see mention of where the losses were. Agreed that a company won't tolerate losses for long, however I noticed that Tyson just opened up a trucking division. They're also smart enough to realize that most ventures take a minimum of 3 years to break even, possibly even longer. So earnings could quite easily be down, and are being propped up by more profitable business units. I know you hate the conspiracy theory stuff, but it wouldn't be difficult, or even illegal, for profit from the beef division to be siphoned off into the trucking division. Interal transfers in corporation occur daily.

2) :lol: I don't grain farm. I hate dirt farming with every fibre of my being. :lol: My father still dabbles in it (just a couple quarter sections), and by getting him away from cash basis contracts, teaching him about markets, and by stockpiling, he actually manages to turn a profit now. But once again, narrow margins have knocked the heck out of grain farming. Its extremely difficult for a small operator to survive, and definitely not possible for someone under 1200 acres to provide for a family. I just feel that whats happened in the grain industry should provide a valuable lesson for those us running cow/calf operations, and we're foolish to ignore those lessons.

As far as the banker goes, I don't imagine Tyson relies too heavily on banks and lines of credit for operating funds.

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "Why would anyone wonder why R-CALF favors democratic candidates? They share the same punish achievement - regulate prosperity mindset. If I can't be successful, you shouldn't be either! "

You don't know much about R-CALF. R-CALF does not endorse candidates - never has. Why do you feel the need to tell tall tales?
 

Latest posts

Top