Dear Halliburton Stock Holders

[SicEmBaylor]

Sell.
YWIA.

[GrapevineSooner]

I dunno.

The Clinton Adminsitration liked them enough to hand out no-bid contracts to them during Kosovo. ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

I dunno.

The Clinton Adminsitration liked them enough to hand out no-bid contracts to them during Kosovo. ;)

Aye, but you see Clinton was a Democrat and it wouldn't be politically advantageous to attack a member of their own party for doing the same damned thing. :D

[1stTimeCaller]

if it gets cheap, you'd be a dummy not to buy some.

[Vaevictis]

The issue with Halliburton won't be the the no-bid contracts. I think it's pretty well established that they're pretty much the only company that was able to service the contracts, right?

I figure the real center of the questions is going to be around the guaranteed profit clauses of the contracts; if Halliburton didn't make a reasonable effort not to gouge the government on those contracts, that's probably where they're going to get hit.

(ie, my understanding is that Halliburton was guaranteed a certain percentage of their cost as profit, which in effect incentivizes them to drive up their costs as much as possible. That's where they'll get hit, if anywhere. IMO)

[TexasSooner01]

Halliburton = Enron ??????????????? :confused:

[SicEmBaylor]

The issue with Halliburton won't be the the no-bid contracts. I think it's pretty well established that they're pretty much the only company that was able to service the contracts, right?

I figure the real center of the questions is going to be around the guaranteed profit clauses of the contracts; if Halliburton didn't make a reasonable effort not to gouge the government on those contracts, that's probably where they're going to get hit.

(ie, my understanding is that Halliburton was guaranteed a certain percentage of their cost as profit, which in effect incentivizes them to drive up their costs as much as possible. That's where they'll get hit, if anywhere. IMO)

That seems to be the case, although, they have complained about the no-bid contracts themselves because there were some international companies that could do the work. I think there was also an issue of giving out contracts to multiple contractors that could do part of the work, but Halliburton was the only one who could do all of it.

[1stTimeCaller]

The issue with Halliburton won't be the the no-bid contracts. I think it's pretty well established that they're pretty much the only company that was able to service the contracts, right?

I figure the real center of the questions is going to be around the guaranteed profit clauses of the contracts; if Halliburton didn't make a reasonable effort not to gouge the government on those contracts, that's probably where they're going to get hit.

(ie, my understanding is that Halliburton was guaranteed a certain percentage of their cost as profit, which in effect incentivizes them to drive up their costs as much as possible. That's where they'll get hit, if anywhere. IMO)

eh, cost plus and or CM agency contracts are standard contracts, written by stupid owners. It's great if you own the construction company. Pretty much all you need to do is show that you got 3 bids for each subcontract and give a valid reason why you didn't choose the lowest bid.

Those contracts have their time and place but overall they aren't the best choice for an owner to use to buy construction. IMO

[OUAndy1807]

the contracts we're talking about were huge contracts with literally millions of pitfalls available. if they were not done on a cost plus (or guaranteed fee) basis, no government in the world would be able to foot the bill because the fees expected by the companies as compensation for the risks they were taking would be astronomical (especially given that maybe 3 companies in the world can do the work, not exactly a free market) and everyone would be bitching about that.

also, there is a lot of value to using the CM delivery method, but if you don't understand the checks and balances in place, it can look ridiculous. As for 1tc, he's right, if there is no owner oversite, they can also be ridiculously profitable for the contruction companies. I think in the case of reconstruction contracts, we're dealing with such huge dollars that the fees look staggering, but when you compare them to the total dollar value of the work, you'd probably be surprised at how low the profit margins are compared to other industries.

That being said, I know very little about the contracts in question specifically, so I'm not saying one way or the other whether they are ridiculous or not.

[TopDawg]

Dear Halliburton Stock Holders,

If you'd like a clearer conscience, try investing in something more wholesome.

Like meth labs.

[OUAndy1807]

so no one wants to have a meaningful dialogue on the pros and cons of different contruction delivery methods and which contract types should be used for each types of project?

[1stTimeCaller]

Well, I like the CM at risk, Design-Build and lump sum contracts. For your normal construction projects.

I loathe CM agency (construction broker) for your normal construction projects.

[OUAndy1807]

I like CM at risk, because I like big bonuses.

[critical_phil]

Halliburton = Enron ??????????????? :confused:


this post is geenyus.

[OklahomaTuba]

heh, Good Jorb Obama! Maybe they can do some offshore cementing over thar as well???


May 6 (Bloomberg) -- KBR Inc. was selected for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, the Army said.http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-06/kbr-to-get-no-bid-army-work-as-u-s-alleges-kickbacks-update1-.html

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Holy crap, this one's 3 1/2 years old.

IT'S LIKE YOU'RE A VISIONARY

[OklahomaTuba]

No, but sometimes the search function can be fun. ;)