BacktotheFuture - All Comments

re: Inside the 4Q numbers at BNSF

My2CentsWorth — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:04:59 GMT

I wish people would quite saying that Warren Buffet is the one and only owner/shareholder to acquire BNSF Railway or any other Company. He definitely is not. I own some shares and will own more shares of Berkshire Hathaway as soon as this acquisition is over and my 2 cents worth is that I am a current owner/shareholder of BNSF and BH and will continue to be that way in the future no matter which name is on the BNSF stock.

As for acronyms, I remember when BN and Santa Fe merged. People kept say it was the "Big New Santa Fe" or "Been Nothing Since Frisco." Well, a whole new paint scheme arrived. There is no name change this time, just a change in share holders. Did Benjamin Moore Paints, Helzberg Diamonds, Clayton Homes, or Fruit of the Loom change their logos, paint schemes, etc. when BH bought them? No, they didn't. BH bought the BNSF brand and everything that goes with it because it is the best railroad running. Had it not been for its management team, operations, P/L, operating ratio and who knows how much other positive information available to the public, I'm sure this decision would not have been made. And, let's not forget the fact that right now railroads are looked upon favorably environmentally. They may be an old industry but so is using paper and pencil. Today, railroads are electronic, computerized industrial versions of modern technology just the same as the computer has replaced, in most instances, paper and pencil for word procession and calculations.

It's a new world folks and it took someone like Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway to open investor's eyes. Thank got I bought Santa Fe a $5 a share many years ago. I'll retire in comfort.

That's just My 2 Cents Worth...

re: Inside the 4Q numbers at BNSF

BacktotheFuture — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:38:35 GMT

Was just trying to come up with something to fill the acronym in with.

Or simply add a W to the loco's now - WBNSF.

Your second post is spot on. Furthermore currrent BNSF exec's will need those extra years of life expectancy to spend the profits alone from the $22 jump the other day.

re: Inside the 4Q numbers at BNSF

Larry Kaufman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:02:43 GMT

Oh, and I forgot: BNSF will have just one stockholder to please. Everyone should have a stockholder like that one, which is known for allowing executives of the companies it owns to to what they know how to do, relieving them of having to go through quarterly earnings calls and listen to analysts pose the same questions over and over. That could add years to the life expectancy of executives.

re: Inside the 4Q numbers at BNSF

Larry Kaufman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:58:01 GMT

There will be no New Santa Fe or Old Santa Fe or new or old BN, assuming the deal is completed. BNSF will simply be a railroad owned by Berkshire Hathaway. All things good and bad that happen to BNSF will accrue to BH. BNSF will continue as it has and it won't have to worry as much as it has about access to capital for expansion.

re: Just In Case

Larry Kaufman — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:02:39 GMT

Your attempt at humor is noted, RAILWAYIST, but is invalid. You clearly do not understand the Cato Institute or any of the libertarian-oriented think tanks. They don't care about oil or automobiles. They are anti-tax and anti-government with the exception of national defense. They are Ayn Rand disciples. Of course, one thing they forget or ignore is that Ayn Rand wrote fiction and Dagny Taggart was a fictional character.

re: Just In Case

RAILWAYIST — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:14:33 GMT

CATO - just a rotten TOMATO/---REASON - you're OUT OF SEASON---LIBERTARIANS - Regressarians unlimited. That bunch of REGRESSIVE-CONSERVATIVES just want Americans to keep their schnouts en die Oil Trough! & keep us as automobile-dependant puppets of PETROPOLIS...if not---we will boil in a pot of the Caliphs Oil...Cadillacs, all shiny & new!

re: Just In Case

Larry Kaufman — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:18:00 GMT

anmccaff: I think you have expressed bluntly and succinctly the point I was only alluding to. Our friends at the Cato Institute, Reason Foundation and similar institutions would argue strenuously that everything can and must be measured. While I rarely agree with the libertarians, this is one time that I do. To say that the value of rail transportation cannot me measured "merely"" in terms of seats filled, farebox recovery or carloads is pure sophistry. If they cannot be measured, just how are public policy decisions to be made?

re: Just In Case

anmccaff — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:06:43 GMT

There's a whole sub-family of econometrics aimed at transportation as a Public Good (in the strict sense) that are at least honored in the breach when initial planning is done. The problem, of course, is that the funding mechanism is based on what is politically practical, and that often skews projects toward less efficient use of resources in two ways. One is that stimulus is often an explicit goal- more jobs beats more efficiency; and projects that have pre-identified stakeholders always win over ones with general benefit.

re: Just In Case

Larry Kaufman — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:58:05 GMT

Perhaps this should be a new thread, altogether, but I got to thinking about the comments of Ed Hanscom and sevenbrewer, and I wonder if what we really are seeing is the different perspectives of people who work in the public sector and those who work in the private sector. Both Messrs. Hansom and sevenbrewer are public sector individuals. I am a private sector type. As I said in my previous comment, they may be right, but in this case I think the difference is in how one measures. To the public sector, a rail service may be more than seats filled, farebox recovery, carloads, etc. A value can and must be imputed. I would be very surprised if Metra (sevenbrewer) and the State of Maine (EdHansom) did not apply numerical measures to each of the factors that are considered when making a public investment in new service or expanded capacity.

re: Just In Case

Larry Kaufman — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:01:37 GMT

sevenbrewer: You and Mr. Hanscom may be correct. I've been wrong before and I hope to be wrong again in the future. In this case, though, I think we largely have a semantic rather than a substantive difference. In our democratic (small D) society, government investment decisions are supposedly made pursuant to cost/benefit studies that are performed so that policy makers can make more informed decisions. So, you may not own a boat, and the navigable waterways may, in fact, remove highway traffic from the road in front of you (actually, they're more likely to remove bulk shipments from the railroad, as little of the barge industry's traffic is competitive with trucks), but the value can and is measured. And if the waterway operator is subsidized, how is the policy maker supposed to determine the value the barge operator brings to the society or the value that the railroad brings, especially when it is losing traffic to the water carrier that is subsidized? Obvioulsy, you can impute a value to each mode for each kind of traffic, but when all is said and done, it's still measured and evaluated. Otherwise, you might as well wet your finger and hold it up in the air to reach conclusions. I prefer measuring, myself.

re: Just In Case

sevenbrewer — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:03:43 GMT

I believe this is incorrect: 'Yes, it can and it must be measured, otherwise policy makers don't have valid information on which to base decisions. And, not to too argumentative, but non-users of rail are making a clear statement that rail service is of no value to them - otherwise they would not be non-users.'

Since I don't have a boat, are the nation's waterways of no use to me? sure they are, think of all the freight that moves there instead of on the road in front of me.

Since I don't ever plan on driving in Alabama, are all the dollars spent on highways there of no use to me? After all I have no intention of ever driving on them! No of course they are of use to me, think of the oil industry traffic to supply the drilling that happens there.

I believe Mr. Hanscom is correct when he states that the value of rail transportation cannont be measured merely in terms of seats filled, farebox recovery, or carloads. Indeed there is a larger picture to be considered here.

re: Just In Case

Larry Kaufman — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:50:20 GMT

Ed Hanscom asks: "So, who benefits from rail transportation? The passengers and the shippers do. Otherwise, why would they choose to use it?"

I wish it were that clear. They might be using it because it is less costly to them than alternatives and it may be less costly because of subsidies paid for by all taxpayers. The measure of something's value can be determined in most cases by the willingness of customers to pay a market price for the goods or services. Highway users - at least the big truck segment - are subsidized. Don't you think that distorts the market choice of shippers deciding on truck vs. rail movement?

Mr. Hanscom also says: "The value of rail transportation cannot be measured merely in terms of seats filled, farebox recovery, or carloads, the value to non-users of rail must be figured in as well."

Yes, it can and it must be measured, otherwise policy makers don't have valid information on which to base decisions. And, not to too argumentative, but non-users of rail are making a clear statement that rail service is of no value to them - otherwise they would not be non-users.

re: Just In Case

EdHanscom — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:01:56 GMT

So, who benefits from rail transportation? The passengers and the shippers do. Otherwise, why would they choose to use it? The non-users get transportation benefits, too. Every passenger car or truck that gets taken off a busy highway because somebody chose to use rail transportation makes that highway a little less congested and a little safer for those that continue to use the highway. In highway corridors that are highly congested, those benefits to highway users add up fast. In corridors where the benefits to rail users and highway users exceed the costs of rail transportation, rail transportation becomes economically feasible. The value of rail transportation cannot be measured merely in terms of seats filled, farebox recovery, or carloads, the value to non-users of rail must be figured in as well. That is why public support and public-private partnerships have a role in the development of our rail transportation system.

re: Just In Case

anmccaff — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:03:26 GMT

Now, compare that with this more detailed one, and it gives more clues to where HSR might really belong, and where it makes less sense, and no sense.

upload.wikimedia.org/.../World_population_density_1994.png

re: Just In Case

anmccaff — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:51:43 GMT

Something worth looking at, tha graphically explains differences in transportation patterns and needs:

upload.wikimedia.org/.../Population_density.png

A map of the world showing population density. I wouldn't swear to its exact accuracy, and it's 15 years out of date, but it is at least pretty close. It shows why rational Chinese, rational Europeans and rational USAnians might prefer a different transportation mix, and why the prefered solution might vary inside political borders.