zurgenfeldt

V, MA, MCO, GOOGL, TDG, BRK

What am I missing here? ROIC TTM: 7.29% Operating Margin: 3.25% Can you articulate what you see in the core business that is strong?

By mitigated, I meant: - no foreseeable route schedules or flight volumes will be impacted as they had a mitigation plan in place. Indeed they expect an increase in bookings and revenue this quarter. - the impact of the 737 MAX not making schedule is a 4-6% operating cost increase. They have negotiated one settlement with boeing on financial compensation to offset this, and have future talks teed up. Issues like this are temporary if you are a buy-and-hold 3-5-10 year kind of investor.

LUV - owner earnings put this at an 11-cap. EV-to-EBITDA at 6.4. new routes opening up, 737 MAX issue is temporary and has been mitigated but not reflected in stock price yet. Possible acquisition target for BRK.

bought into LUV. Currently a 10-cap.

Are you sure that you've captured all the damages the world would suffer if temperatures rose, say 3 degrees Celsius? Or are even in the ballpark? Admittedly, I'm relying on the UN scientist report, so I'm not trying to calculate all damage -- that's in my too hard box. Per the 2018 IPCC report, released every few years by the UN, the total damage was estimated between .2% and 2% I believe. and that was like 60 or 100 years out. So, 2% of global GDP was the worst-case scenario.

Welk....take, for instance, the kyoto protocol. This was the major solution proposed to address climate change a while ago. I believe the UN estimated it would take 150B/yr to implement, and it would delay the damage we would experience in 2100 by 6 years. Not a lot of benefit for the $150B/yr. Compare that to their estimation (the UN's estimation) that we could completely address sanitation, clean drinking water, basic healthcare, and basic education to every human on the planet for $75B. From the UN data -- 2 billion people are infected by malaria every year. We could spend $13B/yr (again, UN estimate) to bring that down by 50%. This would save 500M lives every year. Right now, not 100 years from now. We could apparently avoid 28 million new cases of HIV/AIDS for $27B/yr. Mostly in 3rd world countries. Now. Global warming is a problem, but it's way down the list. I mean, there is probably a non-trival chance an asteroid could hit earth and wipe us out. We ought to do something about that -- Given the magnitude of that problem, I'd say we should devote a little to it. I think there's a good argument to be made that asteroid extinction should rank higher than climate change.

All of the "solutions" I've seen so far spend a ton of money and only claim to reduce the rise in temperature by a fraction of a degree. The UN report on climate change, which commissioned the leading scientists to research this, concluded that the damage cost of climate change will be perhaps 2% of world GDP -- 100 years from now, whereas climate policies can end up costing something more than 11% of GDP. 2% is the size of a minor recession...and that is worst case...100 years from now. We live in a world where one in six deaths are caused by easily curable infectious diseases and billions of people live in abject poverty, with no electricity and little food. We ought never to have entertained the notion that the world’s greatest challenge could be to reduce temperature rises in our generation by a fraction of a degree. #flamewar