EB mess

[CHamilton]

7(6) just left Wolf Point 3:45 late. We crossed all of ND at 59 mph or less. There weren't too many stops, but it's evident that we were behind freights the whole way across the state.

 

[Ispolkom]

How can you say that BNSF should have diverted investment from the southern transcon to the Hi Line? How much greater would be the ROI?

Where did I say such a thing?

You wrote, "The BNSF people saw this coming and wanted to do something about it. The non-railroad people ignored the experts and said "no"." The money to something about it had to come from somewhere. BNSF has a finite pool of money for route improvements. More for the Hi Line means less for someplace else. Where would that place be, except the southern transcon?

They still have to invest the money, they're probably paying a premium for the rush nature of the jobs, and they're missing out on revenue while doing it. If the suits at BH had listened to the railroad people years ago, things would undoubtedly be better. But these are the things that happen when you prioritize short term profits over everything else.

How are they missing out on revenue? How else is the oil being shipped out of North Dakota? Sure, CP gets some, but they looked to maxed out at a very low rate. BNSF can improve its track at its own schedule, and ship out stuff at whatever rate it finds most advantageous to itself. If shippers don't like it they can either get the government involved or go and pound sand. Grain shippers have done both for decades, with mixed results.

I'll agree that if BNSF had invested money earlier things would look better on the Hi Line, but would they have made as good a return on investment not just now, when the boom is on, but in decades to come? I sure don't know, and I can't see how one could say, without looking at BNSF's books.

One thing I do know, is that the west is littered with the remains of boom railroads that went bust.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I've been in business running my own show in different areas for a long time. In fact, all of my adult life and some of my teenage hood. So let me resolve this little concept that involves misunderstanding the way business works. Berkshire Hathaway is a publicly listed holding and investment company. They are owned by, I suspect, millions of people. Including me, by the way.

As such a company, Berkshire Hathaway is not a railroad, or a power generation company, a seller of insurance (GEICO), a maker of boots (Chippewa), or manufacturer and seller of what is both the best and perhaps the second most overpriced (after the Rainbow) vacuum cleaner (Kirby). They aren't in business to do any of that stuff. They don't focus, nor do they particularly micromanage any of those businesses. They are in business to make money for their shareholders. Period.

Managers are in business to maximize production based upon metrics and predictions. That is what they are supposed to do. Each manager's personal job is to fight for what they believe is best for their division. The job of the person in charge of a company's job is to decide which divisions get what. The job of Warren Buffet and the so-called Suits is to decide which of those companies under Berkshire Hathaway's umbrella get what in reinvested profits. A percentage of that profit needs to be skimmed off the top and returned to the investors. Dividends are why people invest in it. I don't know why you think there is such greed in a little old lady who put a portion of the life savings she has in her retirement fund in Berkshire Hathaway getting the dividends she expects and desperately needs to pay her bills.

It is the job of the "suits" to make sure their investors, which include little old ladies who either own BH stock or own shares of mutual funds who own BH stock, get the money their investors expect when the company has made money on the scale to which it has been accustomed. After that is taken off, the rest of the pot gets reinvested. I'm sure Chippewa wants money to build new boot designs, Kirby wants to replace the bloody awful Sentia with something more akin to their awesome Legend, GEICO wants to make sure there are more lizards reminding you that 15 minutes get you 15% or more, and so on ad nausea.

With a limited pot of money to reinvest in your myriad companies, and all of them proffering good, meaningful, useful projects, which they claim will provide great profit, which one do you put your money in? Come on, decide.

You don't know for sure which investments make sense and which ones don't. You have to make an educated guess. Sometimes you guess wrong. Thats not greed, thats just a mistake, or rather, a bad guess.

 

[CHamilton]

The above is why privately owned railroads and the 'public good' of a passenger rail system have always been uneasy bedfellows at best, and fierce antagonists at worst. Nothing short of a separately owned, exclusive passenger rail network will change that. But since such a system is a fantasy, we have to do our best with what we have. It's about carrots and sticks : providing incentives to the private railroads while enforcing accountability.

 

[CHamilton]

7(6) just left Havre 4 hours late. The freight yards there are packed, with stack trains on every track. We've seen lots of tankers, too.

 

[PRR 60]

Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) does not and never has paid shareholders a dividend. No portion of profits is returned to investors. Although it is a "public" company, Warren Buffett holds 34.4% of the aggregate voting rights of the Class A and Class B shares. Directors and executives, as a group, hold 38.5% of the voting rights. While little old ladies and even some rail advocates may own shares directly or through institutional ownership, the BRK show is run by Buffett.

Interestingly, BRK reported what analysts felt was disappointing first quarter earnings. Reduced profits in railroad operations was noted as a driver. I have no idea if that is in any way related to the issues in North Dakota. Don't feel too sorry for BRK or Warren. BRK still had net income of $4.7 billion for the three months.

By the way, one share of BRK Class A stock will set you back a cool $191,550 based on today's close (no, I did not miss a decimal point). Warren owns 336,000 of those bad boys - market value a tad over $64 billion.

 

[TraneMan]

Ok, what's going on here? I never seen the train go this way before??

-Sent from my iPad using Amtrak Forum App.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Direction running with a bus make the missed stops.

.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) does not and never has paid shareholders a dividend. No portion of profits is returned to investors. Although it is a "public" company, Warren Buffett holds 34.4% of the aggregate voting rights of the Class A and Class B shares. Directors and executives, as a group, hold 38.5% of the voting rights. While little old ladies and even some rail advocates may own shares directly or through institutional ownership, the BRK show is run by Buffett.Interestingly, BRK reported what analysts felt was disappointing first quarter earnings. Reduced profits in railroad operations was noted as a driver. I have no idea if that is in any way related to the issues in North Dakota. Don't feel too sorry for BRK or Warren. BRK still had net income of $4.7 billion for the three months.By the way, one share of BRK Class A stock will set you back a cool $191,550 based on today's close (no, I did not miss a decimal point). Warren owns 336,000 of those bad boys - market value a tad over $64 billion.

Don't you just hate Facts.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Stuff that I have read, but have not fact check myself.

Last year it was report BNSF gave (BRK) 1.5 billion in dividends. That a lot of double tracking that is needed today, system wide not just on the high-line.

It was also report (BRK) is sitting on more than 10 billion cash. No need to borrow money on the open market when your parent company is that cash flush.

The problem is greed. Pure and simple greed.

 

[gatelouse]

Folks, enjoy this brief break from the economics discussion for this....

 

[mwmnp]

Ok, what's going on here? I never seen the train go this way before??

ImageUploadedByAmtrak Forum1399520865.351112.jpg

-Sent from my iPad using Amtrak Forum App.

Looks like the westbound EB took main two into St. Paul, whereas normally it would have taken main one (the red line).

For those unaware, that image is from the St. Paul Park/Cottage Grove area southeast of St. Paul. The two mains are separated by over a mile here because technically CP owns one set of tracks while BNSF owns the other, and both lines were built at different times. Both tracks are operated as one entity, effectively creating a double track line out of two single track lines.

 

[jebr]

And now 8(6) is stuck in New York Mills with a crew going out to catch it from St. Cloud. Almost tempted to cut my losses and head back home instead of going to SPUD today.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[CHamilton]

And 7(6) arrived in Spokane at 5 am, just a few minutes less than 2 hours late.

 

[CHamilton]

Just pulled out of Spokane 2 hours late. We are now being told ETA Seattle 1:30.

 

[TraneMan]

And now 8(6) is stuck in New York Mills with a crew going out to catch it from St. Cloud. Almost tempted to cut my losses and head back home instead of going to SPUD today.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

That sucks. :-(

Did they say why it was stuck up there??

 

[jebr]

And now 8(6) is stuck in New York Mills with a crew going out to catch it from St. Cloud. Almost tempted to cut my losses and head back home instead of going to SPUD today.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

That sucks. :-(

Did they say why it was stuck up there??

I didn't hear why.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[neroden]

If I were a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder, I'd be pissed.

I am a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder, and I am pissed.
But there are things I'm more pissed about. Warren Buffett has been burning shareholder money by buying Wells Fargo stock. Wells Fargo is actually a criminal operation which hands out manuals for creating forged legal documents to its staff (Google "Wells Fargo foreclosure fraud manual"). They've been caught violating court orders repeatedly in order to charge fraudulent fees to their borrowers. Wells Fargo is actually insolvent and covering it up by fraud and theft. This isn't a good investment. Buffett is not doing his due diligence any more. I have to consider whether to dump the stock.

 

[neroden]

I don't know why you think there is such greed in a little old lady who put a portion of the life savings she has in her retirement fund in Berkshire Hathaway getting the dividends she expects and desperately needs to pay her bills.

You're a bit confused. Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay dividends. There was a shareholder ballot measure asking them to at this year's annual meeting, but Warren refused.

 

[neroden]

It is interesting to note that a number of BH "suits" who were initially put in charge over BNSF segments have been removed in favor of "rail" people over the past year.

Good sign.

 

[CHamilton]

7(6) is waiting at Interbay for train 8 to leave SEA. Both trains will need to back up, since one of the main lines in the tunnel is closed for track work. The conductor announced that the technical term for this is a 'kerfuffle,' although I suspect he had another term in mind.

 

[George Harris]

It is interesting to note that a number of BH "suits" who were initially put in charge over BNSF segments have been removed in favor of "rail" people over the past year.

Good sign.

Whenever you see someone in the business world do a takeover of a business that is not in or at the least closely related to their business and living in similar economic realities, and then dump their management in favor of their own, treat it like the redneck joke when the guy says, 'Here, hold my beer and watch this." Back way up. In other words, if you have stock in either one, dump it fast because a complete screw up is coming.

 

[Blackwolf]

7(6) is waiting at Interbay for train 8 to leave SEA. Both trains will need to back up, since one of the main lines in the tunnel is closed for track work. The conductor announced that the technical term for this is a 'kerfuffle,' although I suspect he had another term in mind.

Hehehe... In my line of work, I believe the term is "Charlie Foxtrot" (no offense, Charlie! :giggle: )

 

[zephyr17]

It is interesting to note that a number of BH "suits" who were initially put in charge over BNSF segments have been removed in favor of "rail" people over the past year.

Good sign.

Whenever you see someone in the business world do a takeover of a business that is not in or at the least closely related to their business and living in similar economic realities, and then dump their management in favor of their own, treat it like the redneck joke when the guy says, 'Here, hold my beer and watch this." Back way up. In other words, if you have stock in either one, dump it fast because a complete screw up is coming.

BH doesn't really have a "business" per se other than being a holding company. BH already owned an incredibly diverse portfolio of companies before acquiring BNSF, from See's Candy to GEICO. BH originally, before Buffett, was textile manufacturing company. Buffett went heavily into insurance, then into anything that was profitable, undervalued and well-managed in Buffett's and Munger's analysis.

Buffet's approach has always been to let the existing management run the company, stand back, and leave it alone. Part of their acquistion strategy is that they evaluate the management in place and consider that management part of the assets they are buying. I know BNSF's management was left in place. BH itself has a tiny, tiny staff, deliberately, and really doesn't have the capacity or the desire to dig in and closely run any of it's acquired companies. It doesn't have very many "suits".

So this talk about BH interfering with BNSF isn't consistent with Warren Buffett's MO. Not to say it isn't true, I know no details here, but it is certainly inconsistent with Buffett's philosphy and track record and makes me wonder about that theory.

One thing that is generally expected is that every concern owned by BH take care of its own capital needs. Getting money from BH happens, but it is more the exception than the rule. BNSF not getting additional funds from BH beyond what it had access to on its own, and prioritizing accordingly, rightly or wrongly, I would believe.

Disclaimer, I bought BH stock when buying B shares became affordable with the big split they did to acquire BNSF. In many ways BH is more like a mutual fund managed by Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger than a regular company. That's how I consider it, anyway.

 

[George Harris]

It is interesting to note that a number of BH "suits" who were initially put in charge over BNSF segments have been removed in favor of "rail" people over the past year.

Good sign.

Whenever you see someone in the business world do a takeover of a business that is not in or at the least closely related to their business and living in similar economic realities, and then dump their management in favor of their own, treat it like the redneck joke when the guy says, 'Here, hold my beer and watch this." Back way up. In other words, if you have stock in either one, dump it fast because a complete screw up is coming.

Buffet's approach has always been to let the existing management run the company, stand back, and leave it alone. Part of their acquistion strategy is that they evaluate the management in place and consider that management part of the assets they are buying. I know BNSF's management was left in place. BH itself has a tiny, tiny staff, deliberately, and really doesn't have the capacity or the desire to dig in and closely run any of it's acquired companies. It doesn't have very many "suits".

So this talk about BH interfering with BNSF isn't consistent with Warren Buffett's MO. Not to say it isn't true, I know no details here, but it is certainly inconsistent with Buffett's philosphy and track record and makes me wonder about that theory.

One thing that is generally expected is that every concern owned by BH take care of its own capital needs. Getting money from BH happens, but it is more the exception than the rule. BNSF not getting additional funds from BH beyond what it had access to on its own, and prioritizing accordingly, rightly or wrongly, I would believe.

Zypher: I think you have it right. I was mainly commenting on Montana Mike's statement. My knowledge of BNSF is relatively limited. with that related to operations to being about a once a month passenger on the San Joaquin trains, where their ability to move a heavy volume of traffic over a mostly single track line is fairly impressive.