AMR's dropping stock price (consolidated bankruptcy discussion & speculation thread)
Jan 9, 2013, 2:07 pm
#331
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Up about 37% today after the release of the letter. I wonder how many are buying just so they can be part of the class action suit when the stock is wiped out and gets nothing? 
I don't think there's any liability for Harvey Miller if/when that happens, but that won't stop enterprising hungry members of the plaintiff's bar.
I don't think there's any liability for Harvey Miller if/when that happens, but that won't stop enterprising hungry members of the plaintiff's bar.
Jan 9, 2013, 8:52 pm
#332
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: IND/MEX
Programs: AA PPro BA Bronze SPG Gold HH GLD Hyatt Exp
Posts: 1,134
What did you buy at? I didn't have a whole ton of shares (it was a "just for fun" buy to own a little part of the airline), but bought them long enough ago that the difference between $0.95 and $0.80 was an irrelevancy (although I guess that would have about paid for the commission.)
I'm not going to risk a couple $100 in tax savings in a year I've got a lot of gains to offset them just to take a very long-odds gamble, nor am I interested in day trading anything.
OTOH, if they're still under $1 in BK, $50 worth of shares and a ~$12 commission isn't much to waste on a little entertainment and the odds are probably no worse than quarter slots.
I'm not going to risk a couple $100 in tax savings in a year I've got a lot of gains to offset them just to take a very long-odds gamble, nor am I interested in day trading anything.
OTOH, if they're still under $1 in BK, $50 worth of shares and a ~$12 commission isn't much to waste on a little entertainment and the odds are probably no worse than quarter slots.
Jan 9, 2013, 9:18 pm
#333
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: AA EXP,2MM, DL Gold,Starwood PLT
Posts: 3,876
It's not worth worrying about at those levels. in the off chance anyone get's paid off it will be the big investors not the guy worried about a $200 tax deduction. Now if you day trade you might be able to make some money. Return on previously owned shares, no you just will have to take the loss.
Jan 10, 2013, 11:20 am
#334
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: San Diego, Ca
Programs: AA 2MM LT PLT; AS MVP Gold75k; HHonors Diamond; IHG PLT
Posts: 3,502
AMR Corp. seeks to sell luxury London townhome
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/a...E1_CUTLIN34480
American Airlines parent AMR Corp. will ask a bankruptcy judge on Wednesday for authority to sell for $22.8 million a luxury London "townhome" that company employees said has been a symbol of executive privilege and excess for more than a decade, officials said.
American Airlines parent AMR Corp. will ask a bankruptcy judge on Wednesday for authority to sell for $22.8 million a luxury London "townhome" that company employees said has been a symbol of executive privilege and excess for more than a decade, officials said.
Jan 10, 2013, 11:44 am
#335
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: AA LT Gold
Posts: 3,646
The old amr stock you owe will eventually go to 0 or get cancelled. The current fluctuations in its price are due to lunacy of a bunch.
At some point they will offer NEW stock. I am not even sure IF I would buy the new stock.
Jan 10, 2013, 12:02 pm
#336
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
From the Tulsa World article:
Not exactly, Mr Boyd. When AA bought the townhome, it had purchased the TWA London routes between London and New York, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles. Granted, the townhome may have been an indefensible example of corporate greed and avarice, but AA was no bit player in London at the time AA bought it. Boyd's main objection fails.
One rationale for the townhome is this: Many corporations smaller than American purchased/leased/supplied private jets for their executives to jet about the country and the world. As a major airline, AA had a fleet of hundreds of jets that executives can use (some of them in positive space F), but nothing so private and exclusive as the jets flown by their non-airline exec peers.
So an exclusive luxury residence in London was the answer. And despite the conclusory claims by the union leaders and other observers that it was a huge money sink and example of frivolous spending, this is one asset that has appreciated several-fold since it was purchased. The gain of millions of dollars upon its sale will probably cover quite a bit of the significant marching army costs mentioned in the article. Probably not all the costs, but on balance, it's got nothing to do with why AA is in Ch 11.
My favorite part of the townhome "scandal" is that Bob Crandall thought it was a good idea. Among many of the current AA employees, Bob Crandall walks on water compared to his successors Carty, Arpey and Horton. Corporate executives make far too much money and enjoy far too many excessive perks - no news there. Had AA leased this place for nearly 20 years, I'd be on the bandwagon with my torch and pitchfork. THAT would have demonstrated poor judgment.
Michael Boyd, chairman of Boyd Group International, an airline analyst in Evergreen, Colo., questioned why American needed a townhome in London.
"A corporation has no business buying that kind of stuff - at the time they bought it, American wasn't even a player in London," Boyd said. "They had two flights a day in London. It's really a blot on their reputation."
"A corporation has no business buying that kind of stuff - at the time they bought it, American wasn't even a player in London," Boyd said. "They had two flights a day in London. It's really a blot on their reputation."
One rationale for the townhome is this: Many corporations smaller than American purchased/leased/supplied private jets for their executives to jet about the country and the world. As a major airline, AA had a fleet of hundreds of jets that executives can use (some of them in positive space F), but nothing so private and exclusive as the jets flown by their non-airline exec peers.
So an exclusive luxury residence in London was the answer. And despite the conclusory claims by the union leaders and other observers that it was a huge money sink and example of frivolous spending, this is one asset that has appreciated several-fold since it was purchased. The gain of millions of dollars upon its sale will probably cover quite a bit of the significant marching army costs mentioned in the article. Probably not all the costs, but on balance, it's got nothing to do with why AA is in Ch 11.
My favorite part of the townhome "scandal" is that Bob Crandall thought it was a good idea. Among many of the current AA employees, Bob Crandall walks on water compared to his successors Carty, Arpey and Horton. Corporate executives make far too much money and enjoy far too many excessive perks - no news there. Had AA leased this place for nearly 20 years, I'd be on the bandwagon with my torch and pitchfork. THAT would have demonstrated poor judgment.
Jan 10, 2013, 1:29 pm
#337
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: San Diego, Ca
Programs: AA 2MM LT PLT; AS MVP Gold75k; HHonors Diamond; IHG PLT
Posts: 3,502
From the Tulsa World article:
Not exactly, Mr Boyd. When AA bought the townhome, it had purchased the TWA London routes between London and New York, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles. Granted, the townhome may have been an indefensible example of corporate greed and avarice, but AA was no bit player in London at the time AA bought it. Boyd's main objection fails.
One rationale for the townhome is this: Many corporations smaller than American purchased/leased/supplied private jets for their executives to jet about the country and the world. As a major airline, AA had a fleet of hundreds of jets that executives can use (some of them in positive space F), but nothing so private and exclusive as the jets flown by their non-airline exec peers.
So an exclusive luxury residence in London was the answer. And despite the conclusory claims by the union leaders and other observers that it was a huge money sink and example of frivolous spending, this is one asset that has appreciated several-fold since it was purchased. The gain of millions of dollars upon its sale will probably cover quite a bit of the significant marching army costs mentioned in the article. Probably not all the costs, but on balance, it's got nothing to do with why AA is in Ch 11.
My favorite part of the townhome "scandal" is that Bob Crandall thought it was a good idea. Among many of the current AA employees, Bob Crandall walks on water compared to his successors Carty, Arpey and Horton. Corporate executives make far too much money and enjoy far too many excessive perks - no news there. Had AA leased this place for nearly 20 years, I'd be on the bandwagon with my torch and pitchfork. THAT would have demonstrated poor judgment.
Not exactly, Mr Boyd. When AA bought the townhome, it had purchased the TWA London routes between London and New York, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles. Granted, the townhome may have been an indefensible example of corporate greed and avarice, but AA was no bit player in London at the time AA bought it. Boyd's main objection fails.
One rationale for the townhome is this: Many corporations smaller than American purchased/leased/supplied private jets for their executives to jet about the country and the world. As a major airline, AA had a fleet of hundreds of jets that executives can use (some of them in positive space F), but nothing so private and exclusive as the jets flown by their non-airline exec peers.
So an exclusive luxury residence in London was the answer. And despite the conclusory claims by the union leaders and other observers that it was a huge money sink and example of frivolous spending, this is one asset that has appreciated several-fold since it was purchased. The gain of millions of dollars upon its sale will probably cover quite a bit of the significant marching army costs mentioned in the article. Probably not all the costs, but on balance, it's got nothing to do with why AA is in Ch 11.
My favorite part of the townhome "scandal" is that Bob Crandall thought it was a good idea. Among many of the current AA employees, Bob Crandall walks on water compared to his successors Carty, Arpey and Horton. Corporate executives make far too much money and enjoy far too many excessive perks - no news there. Had AA leased this place for nearly 20 years, I'd be on the bandwagon with my torch and pitchfork. THAT would have demonstrated poor judgment.
Jan 10, 2013, 10:28 pm
#338
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: AA EXP,2MM, DL Gold,Starwood PLT
Posts: 3,876
It's not even material in the over all financial picture of AA but does it show the divide between AA's management and their work fore most def. Management was way out of touch, so it's no surprise the resentment.
Jan 11, 2013, 4:49 pm
#339
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: MSY; 2-time FT Fantasy Football Champ, now in recovery.
Programs: AA lifetime GLD; UA Silver; Marriott LTTE; IHG Plat,
Posts: 14,518
Aamrq
1.60 +0.31 +24.03%
1.60 +0.31 +24.03%
Jan 11, 2013, 5:05 pm
#340
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,904
The fact that Scott Kirby just sold $1.7M in shares of LCC this week is a little odd.
Jan 11, 2013, 5:40 pm
#341
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Rockin' the Bakken
Programs: Several
Posts: 978
The fact that Scott Kirby just sold $1.7M in shares of LCC this week is a little odd.
The timing is coincidental, but I wouldn't give it a second thought.
Jan 12, 2013, 10:49 pm
#342
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: AA EXP,2MM, DL Gold,Starwood PLT
Posts: 3,876
I don't think that's odd, at least not from what the article states regarding Kirby setting up the 10b5-1 plan. If that plan was set up in early 2012, I doubt he would have known anything close to would happen to LCC stock involving an AA/US merger. Plus it doesn't say whether he chose the price or time option, so he could have set it up shooting really high and not expecting to sell his shares.
The timing is coincidental, but I wouldn't give it a second thought.
The timing is coincidental, but I wouldn't give it a second thought.
Jan 13, 2013, 3:48 pm
#343
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT; QR GLD; Bonvoy LT TIT
Posts: 12,755
Jan 13, 2013, 5:00 pm
#344
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Rockin' the Bakken
Programs: Several
Posts: 978
From the article though, the plan he set up when purchasing the shares doesn't allow him to choose when to sell them (at least not at his discretion). He had two options; sell when the stock hit's a certain price or sell after a certain time period. I'm not an expert on how those plans work, but that makes me think that only when he purchased the shares was he able to choose 'when' to sell so to speak.