Citigroup lifts price target for AMR stock

[MiAAmi]

Citigroup lifts price target from $34 to $46 per share on AMR stock.

 

[FA Mikey]

Some good news for all those who didn't sell off the AMR stock, as soon as they could.

Also, The SABRE take over should be completed by early summer for anyone who received shares from its original spinoff.

 

[MiAAmi]

News and the drop in oil is sending AMR stock over $40 a share this afternoon.

 

[Hopeful]

News and the drop in oil is sending AMR stock over $40 a share this afternoon.

The stock has to hit $300 a share before we get back what was taken away.

 

[FWAAA]

The stock has to hit $300 a share before we get back what was taken away.

True, if you were counting on the "please forgive us" options thrown at you in 2003 to make up the entire amount of the concessions. But why would you do that?

Mr Owens has posted that the concessions cost the AMTs about $120k over the life of the concessionary contract - using that number, recovering the entire amount of the concessions would have been very easy:

At today's price of $40 you would have recouped what was taken away if you had bought a mere 3,200 shares at $2/sh early in 2003. $6,400 of your own money risked then would have yielded $120k of profit if sold right now. Even less had you bought during one of the days in which AMR didn't break $2/sh. What was the intra-day low? $1.25/sh?

 

[Hopeful]

True, if you were counting on the "please forgive us" options thrown at you in 2003 to make up the entire amount of the concessions. But why would you do that?

Mr Owens has posted that the concessions cost the AMTs about $120k over the life of the concessionary contract - using that number, recovering the entire amount of the concessions would have been very easy:

At today's price of $40 you would have recouped what was taken away if you had bought a mere 3,200 shares at $2/sh early in 2003. $6,400 of your own money risked then would have yielded $120k of profit if sold right now. Even less had you bought during one of the days in which AMR didn't break $2/sh. What was the intra-day low? $1.25/sh?

Woulda, Coulda Shoulda!

 

[FWAAA]

Woulda, Coulda Shoulda!

Oh, Crap! YOU didn't? I'm sorry. Seriously. From under $2 to more than $40 in less than four years.

Oh, well. Nothing risked, nothing gained.

 

[AMFAMAN]

At today's price of $40 you would have recouped what was taken away if you had bought a mere 3,200 shares at $2/sh early in 2003. $6,400 of your own money risked then would have yielded $120k of profit if sold right now. Even less had you bought during one of the days in which AMR didn't break $2/sh. What was the intra-day low? $1.25/sh?

But seriously, would you of held it that long? At $4 a share you doubled your money. I know quite a few people you claimed back then to have bought under $5 a share but all were out by $12-15 range in the first jump towards the ending of 03.

 

[Hopeful]

True, if you were counting on the "please forgive us" options thrown at you in 2003 to make up the entire amount of the concessions. But why would you do that?

Mr Owens has posted that the concessions cost the AMTs about $120k over the life of the concessionary contract - using that number, recovering the entire amount of the concessions would have been very easy:

At today's price of $40 you would have recouped what was taken away if you had bought a mere 3,200 shares at $2/sh early in 2003. $6,400 of your own money risked then would have yielded $120k of profit if sold right now. Even less had you bought during one of the days in which AMR didn't break $2/sh. What was the intra-day low? $1.25/sh?

Not willing to gamble with kid's tuition payment.
And since there are those here who believe AA wasn't bluffing with the bankruptcy threat, that $6400 in stock would have been worthless.

 

[twaokc]

"Not willing to gamble with kid's tuition payment.
And since there are those here who believe AA wasn't bluffing with the bankruptcy threat, that $6400 in stock would have been worthless."

Just like my TWA stock when AMR and Carty got done with it.

 

[Hopeful]

True, if you were counting on the "please forgive us" options thrown at you in 2003 to make up the entire amount of the concessions. But why would you do that?

Mr Owens has posted that the concessions cost the AMTs about $120k over the life of the concessionary contract - using that number, recovering the entire amount of the concessions would have been very easy:

At today's price of $40 you would have recouped what was taken away if you had bought a mere 3,200 shares at $2/sh early in 2003. $6,400 of your own money risked then would have yielded $120k of profit if sold right now. Even less had you bought during one of the days in which AMR didn't break $2/sh. What was the intra-day low? $1.25/sh?

No one should have to invest a dime to get back what was taken away.
How about this? Maybe the company should have given us 3000 shares instead?

 

[Bob Owens]

True, if you were counting on the "please forgive us" options thrown at you in 2003 to make up the entire amount of the concessions. But why would you do that?

Mr Owens has posted that the concessions cost the AMTs about $120k over the life of the concessionary contract - using that number, recovering the entire amount of the concessions would have been very easy:

At today's price of $40 you would have recouped what was taken away if you had bought a mere 3,200 shares at $2/sh early in 2003. $6,400 of your own money risked then would have yielded $120k of profit if sold right now. Even less had you bought during one of the days in which AMR didn't break $2/sh. What was the intra-day low? $1.25/sh?

A lot of ifs there.

First of all your scenario is based on many false assumptions. Even you know that what you are claiming is purely hypothetical.

How many shares were actaully traded at $2? Even you admit that if there was more of a demand for shares that the price would not have stayed at $2.

Lets say that on the day that shares were posted at $2/share every AA worker tried to buy $6400 of stock in addition to those who actually purchased stock that day.

The amount of shares available at that price, would not have been enough and the price would have shot up sharply. Sure maybe a few may have scored but most wouldnt have and you know it.

Its not as if there is an unlimited supply of shares out there.

Lets say there are 2 million shares of AMR stock outstanding. Myself and three other investors own 500,000 shares each. I put a sell on 500 shares for $2each but thats it, the other three owners dont put any sell price on their shares. Once those 500 shares are sold thats it. The per share figure for which the stock was traded doesnt go up or down, it sits at $2/share but nobody can get them either.Of course stock trading is fluid, there are thousands of stockholders and this is an extreme illustration but it clears up possible misunderstandings of how stocks work and how things can be manipulated.

 

[FWAAA]

But seriously, would you of held it that long? At $4 a share you doubled your money. I know quite a few people you claimed back then to have bought under $5 a share but all were out by $12-15 range in the first jump towards the ending of 03.

I'm still holding an awful lot of what I bought in 2002-03. I hate paying capital gains taxes almost as much as I hate unions.

Seriously, though - why would anyone sell so soon? The concessions were not one-time giveback payments; they run thru 2008, right? $1.6 billion a year for 5.5 years. AA slashed $1.8 billion from its payroll. Oil's foray into the $80 territory last year merely slowed down the price rise toward $100/share, but that level is certainly within sight now.

Might as well hang on to a bunch of it until you guys start banging the "we're gonna go on strike unless we get it all back" drum in a couple of years. B)

 

[FWAAA]

No one should have to invest a dime to get back what was taken away.
How about this? Maybe the company should have given us 3000 shares instead?

Not willing to gamble a few thousand - the kid's tuition payment? What the hell? By staying at AA even though AA reamed you on the concessions, you gambled over $20k/year for the life of the contract, right? And you were unwilling to gamble a few thousand more that could easily make you whole (and then some)?!?

So you put in an "investment" (or "gambled) over $120,000 of your money for a measly 300+ shares. Ouch. $120k was ok? But $127,000 or so (adding in the price of the 3,200 shares that would have made you whole this morning) was too much?

Would you invest thousands in a new engine for your wife's car and then refuse to change its oil or perform any other routine maintenance? 'Cause that's sorta what you did with your net worth. Or it's like $120k for a house that you refused to paint or repair.

You gave AA $120k+ for the new engine (or the new house) and yet refused to throw another several grand down the same rat hole. I could see refusing to invest the $120k initially, but having accepted that fate, why not guarantee that you'd at least share in the potential upside?

Yeah, you're right - maybe AA should have given everyone 3,000 shares. Why stop there? Why not give everyone 3 million shares? B)

 

[Bob Owens]

I'm still holding an awful lot of what I bought in 2002-03. I hate paying capital gains taxes almost as much as I hate unions.

Would you rather have the tax deductable loss instead?

Seriously, though - why would anyone sell so soon? The concessions were not one-time giveback payments; they run thru 2008, right? $1.6 billion a year for 5.5 years. AA slashed $1.8 billion from its payroll. Oil's foray into the $80 territory last year merely slowed down the price rise toward $100/share, but that level is certainly within sight now.

Simple, cash flow. We are not all rich like you. The pay and benifit cuts put us into negative cash flow territory. I borrowed $10,000 when it went low and was only able to get in at around $5 share. I had to sell half when it went to $10 to pay back the loan. The rest I had to sell at around 15 to pay property tax, insurance, credit cards, tuition, new boiler etc. Then I had to sell the 433 to pay for a new roof on the house.

If I hadnt taken a pay cut I could have bought and held on to the shares.

Might as well hang on to a bunch of it until you guys start banging the "we're gonna go on strike unless we get it all back" drum in a couple of years.

May come sooner than you think. The PUP payments may be enough to cause the pot to boil over. Right now the union is telling everyone "They havent said 'NO'".

AA slashed $1.8 billion from its payroll.

How much? Try at least double that. The $1.8 billion was from the concessions alone and did not include headcount reductions.