4 ms·

Americans don't understand how lucky they are, to live in a system where less than a thousand civilian deaths is enough to so severely damage one of the country

Americans don't understand how lucky they are, to live in a system where less than a thousand civilian deaths is enough to so severely damage one of the country's most powerful corporations, with very close ties to the military.

heisenbit 7y ago
It is a global business and the FAA is not the only body passing judgement over the airworthiness and inclusion in a fleet portfolio.
teh_infallible 7y ago
As an American, I feel fortunate that a company can sign off on its own plane, kill hundreds of people, and continue to advocate for the plane to return to service with only a software update. /s
throwaway981211 7y ago
I’m not sure what’s the point of your comment. As an American I’m also lucky that my country isn’t facing the issues innocent people in Syria, Iraq, etc face being caught in a civil war. I’m lucky we have vaccines, clean water, contracts, courts, cops, etc etc. None of that excuses Boeing’s gross negligence and lack of accountability. I’ve dumped them from my portfolio although I still - unfortunately - have exposure since they’re in the SP500. At some point, I’m hoping heads roll at Boeing.
- zaroth 7y ago
  There should be an S&P500-N fund where you can select up to N specific companies you want to exclude, and they give you a dynamic ticker which tracks that sub-set. I wonder if it’s technically feasible without absurd transaction costs, to either explicitly or effectively net out specific company exposure from an S&P500 basket. Even just a calculator which could tell you, for every share of SPY of you want to not have Boeing exposure you need to short-sell X shares of Boeing.
  - domlebo70 7y ago
    Not a finance expert, but I don't think the transaction costs would factor would they? You would own "units" in the fund, rather than the underlying security itself. The makeup of the unit however, would be dynamic
    - toast0 7y ago
      A fully realized s&p 500 ex-FOO fund for every company (or every combination of two or three companies) would probably not have sufficient demand to make it efficient. You would need to have some sort of clever accounting to make it work, although, while retail commissions are at zero, and fractional shares may become available, assembling your own index fund may be possible with only a significant time cost.
      - ctchocula 7y ago
        Maybe they could implement it with S&P 500 and tqking a short position to cancel out ownership of stock XYZ. This way they don't have the demand problem you alluded to. Then they can charge customers an additional fee for this customization, which would cover the cost of the short. I imagine some would pay this additional customization fee since it's a small price to feel morally consistent.
- yourapostasy 7y ago
  > ...I’m hoping heads roll at Boeing. None of the heads rolling will count unless they are from the very top. Make no mistake, there was a willful and calculated structuring of incentives and punitive pressure that originated from the top that had a decisive hand in establishing the culture that enabled all the combinations of poor decisions to pass through, like many air vehicle accidents. If only middle management heads roll, this will simply eventually repeat, with even more deniability accruing to the top as they vaccinate themselves from lessons learned out of this. It is long past time that Henry II of England-style management ("Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?") by euphemism-laden punitive measures be scrutinized for their actual effects as structured cultural edifices, and not the legalistic interpretation of words designed for maximum deniability while indirectly pressuring for ridding the corporate body of turbulent priests. Go to where the real power sits, and change why and how it is wielded to make lasting cultural change. Into this group I also lump in major shareholders who share in the accountability of crafting and maintaining a culture.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    The CEO's been removed from his (previously simultaneous) chairman role, though he remains as CEO: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-ceo/boeing-board-strips-ceo-of-chairman-title-amid-737-max-crisis-idUSKBN1WQ2SH https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-ceo/boeing-board-s... That's a possible sign of spine, though a rather weak one.
phyek 7y ago
Boeing is a 100 year old company in the business of building airplanes that transports hundreds of millions of passengers annually. Rushing to introduce this plane was absolutely unacceptable. It took Boeing decades to build its stellar reputation, but after something like this, their reputation is ruined in a matter of days.
- hansthehorse 7y ago
  Boeing stopped being Boeing when they bought McDonald Douglas and inherited a bunch of Jack Welch trained managers. They took the company from an engineering company to a commodity company where what they were selling didn't matter, it's all just widgets in the end. One of their first actions was to gut the various engineering departments.
CydeWeys 7y ago
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. The 737 MAX was yanked by aviation authorities worldwide, not just in the US. The US didn't even do it first. Are you saying you want to go back to 1940s-era standards of aviation safety, where planes regularly crash out of the sky killing all aboard, and we should just accept it even though we know we can do much better?

heisenbit 7y ago

It is a global business and the FAA is not the only body passing judgement over the airworthiness and inclusion in a fleet portfolio.

teh_infallible 7y ago

As an American, I feel fortunate that a company can sign off on its own plane, kill hundreds of people, and continue to advocate for the plane to return to service with only a software update. /s

throwaway981211 7y ago

I’m not sure what’s the point of your comment. As an American I’m also lucky that my country isn’t facing the issues innocent people in Syria, Iraq, etc face being caught in a civil war. I’m lucky we have vaccines, clean water, contracts, courts, cops, etc etc. None of that excuses Boeing’s gross negligence and lack of accountability. I’ve dumped them from my portfolio although I still - unfortunately - have exposure since they’re in the SP500. At some point, I’m hoping heads roll at Boeing.

zaroth 7y ago
There should be an S&P500-N fund where you can select up to N specific companies you want to exclude, and they give you a dynamic ticker which tracks that sub-set. I wonder if it’s technically feasible without absurd transaction costs, to either explicitly or effectively net out specific company exposure from an S&P500 basket. Even just a calculator which could tell you, for every share of SPY of you want to not have Boeing exposure you need to short-sell X shares of Boeing.
- domlebo70 7y ago
  Not a finance expert, but I don't think the transaction costs would factor would they? You would own "units" in the fund, rather than the underlying security itself. The makeup of the unit however, would be dynamic
  - toast0 7y ago
    A fully realized s&p 500 ex-FOO fund for every company (or every combination of two or three companies) would probably not have sufficient demand to make it efficient. You would need to have some sort of clever accounting to make it work, although, while retail commissions are at zero, and fractional shares may become available, assembling your own index fund may be possible with only a significant time cost.
    - ctchocula 7y ago
      Maybe they could implement it with S&P 500 and tqking a short position to cancel out ownership of stock XYZ. This way they don't have the demand problem you alluded to. Then they can charge customers an additional fee for this customization, which would cover the cost of the short. I imagine some would pay this additional customization fee since it's a small price to feel morally consistent.
yourapostasy 7y ago
> ...I’m hoping heads roll at Boeing. None of the heads rolling will count unless they are from the very top. Make no mistake, there was a willful and calculated structuring of incentives and punitive pressure that originated from the top that had a decisive hand in establishing the culture that enabled all the combinations of poor decisions to pass through, like many air vehicle accidents. If only middle management heads roll, this will simply eventually repeat, with even more deniability accruing to the top as they vaccinate themselves from lessons learned out of this. It is long past time that Henry II of England-style management ("Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?") by euphemism-laden punitive measures be scrutinized for their actual effects as structured cultural edifices, and not the legalistic interpretation of words designed for maximum deniability while indirectly pressuring for ridding the corporate body of turbulent priests. Go to where the real power sits, and change why and how it is wielded to make lasting cultural change. Into this group I also lump in major shareholders who share in the accountability of crafting and maintaining a culture.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  The CEO's been removed from his (previously simultaneous) chairman role, though he remains as CEO: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-ceo/boeing-board-strips-ceo-of-chairman-title-amid-737-max-crisis-idUSKBN1WQ2SH https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-ceo/boeing-board-s... That's a possible sign of spine, though a rather weak one.

phyek 7y ago

Boeing is a 100 year old company in the business of building airplanes that transports hundreds of millions of passengers annually. Rushing to introduce this plane was absolutely unacceptable. It took Boeing decades to build its stellar reputation, but after something like this, their reputation is ruined in a matter of days.

hansthehorse 7y ago
Boeing stopped being Boeing when they bought McDonald Douglas and inherited a bunch of Jack Welch trained managers. They took the company from an engineering company to a commodity company where what they were selling didn't matter, it's all just widgets in the end. One of their first actions was to gut the various engineering departments.

CydeWeys 7y ago

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. The 737 MAX was yanked by aviation authorities worldwide, not just in the US. The US didn't even do it first. Are you saying you want to go back to 1940s-era standards of aviation safety, where planes regularly crash out of the sky killing all aboard, and we should just accept it even though we know we can do much better?