@bring_it_on no doubt you listed good reasons for any other legacy aerospace company to do what LMT just did, but my point is hot off the heels of the GAO report sometimes keeping your head down and saying nothing to keep a low profile until there’s a tangible way to change the narrative (like BA w EX and F-47 after the MAX/KC-46/T-7 challenges or even NOC w B-21).
Nonetheless, you make good points about engaging stakeholders but we simply differ in weighing how LMT does that.
Whatever the reasons, the bottom line is Lockheed and Shield AI ended up doing two similar social media stunts that aren’t going great in terms of how they are being received in the moment, which is the ultimate phenotypic assay readout for a social media effort, make no mistake about it. It’s like a C grade has been actor and a A++ multiple Oscar winning actor being caught on the same red carpet wearing the exact same thing that was controversial at best and silly at worst. It was a win for Shield and a loss for LM that they did the same mid reveal garbage; Shield should be ecstatic and LM PR department should be getting a Ferrari NASCAR earful from JT!
If LMT want to engage strategic partners, they could easily do that in person. the more they tried to keep it quiet the more people would talk, and the right kind of intrigue would have a better chance of building. Instead they copy pasta’d a shoe drop.
If they want to get their stock out of the shitter during the greatest defense stock bull market in at least 30 years, then aside from firing Jim and replacing him with someone with enough engineering and production experience to call bullshit on her own people, a simple analyst day in DFW or California - perhaps one for covering analysts and another for serious US institutional investors - are simple ways of giving those people a glimpse of the capabilities that would enable the production of this CCA, which in the end matters a lot more than what particular CCA one makes. But instead they showed color enhanced CFD animations.
That’s kinda what I was really saying but I take and like a lot of the points you made. As I said, it’s a management and corporate style and approach I take issue with, which normally would be bar talk but again look at their equity ownership - just a quick and dirty look but it’s ETFs and retail until you get to CapRe who owns less than 1.5% and the last filing shows them selling. compare that w BA or NOC. Fundamental institutional investors don’t seem to want to own LMT in the way they want to own other aerospace companies. Stocks are not everything, and may not mean much, but sometimes they can say a lot about things. For the record, the bombastic comments made by Jim on the last call suggests he gives zero foxtrots, so it’s all actually very consistent, but disappointing to me bc im old enough to want all three US legacy aerospace firms alive and kicking.
Also your last paragraph really hit home bc I just read a Code One archive article about LMs ATF winning strategy to allow the customer to have input on critical trades as a way of arriving at a final concept vs presenting a final concept with those critical trades already made. Point v well taken. Hopefully LM crams a beautiful CCA down my throat.
