Anyone who had some spare cash to scoop up the dip yesterday is already being rewarded (and will continue to be). Consider -
Dec 2005 - Dividend boost, $1/share special dividend and 5/4 split
Jan 2006 - 4th Q. with 43 percent increase.
Life is good.
Eh? What does the below post have to do with anything? What an idiot!
Re: Low Target $28.00, High Target $30.0
by: bkeepr46 06/24/04 11:29 am
Msg: 937 of 1194
Thanks for your post. What is the source of your info? I crtainly hope it comes to be true. I've found this to be quite the little cash generator!
Posted as a reply to: Msg 936 by feelingmutual
Well, let's see, you predicted the Seahawks would win the Super Bowl, that AOC would kick MMC's butt in 2006 and that PGR's stock would start going up beginning on 1/23. Is there anything you've ever gotten right?
ESLR investors have been having a number of great quarters.
to learn more about Evergreen Solar Inc (ticker: ESLR)
and the demand for solar power.
Is your name a reference to Maryland; or is it referring to your method of getting rich, as in "slow and steady wins the race"?
Yes, Siegel's original book is excellent. He said to buy index funds and hold stocks long term. He convinced me. Yes, it works!
But he wrote the subsequent book because he had something that is better. And the stats are compelling: low PE, dividend paying stocks out-perform everything else...including the index funds which he recommended in his first book. I can't do the book justice in a post here. He has a lot of stats and proof.
I remember when it first came out the media said things like, "he likes dividends." And I thought, "Oh, Ok, I do, too. No need to read it." So I didn't get it right away.
I was wrong. It's not just another investment book, IMO. If you want to get rich with value investing, you won't regret getting it and studying it. Once you do, post your reaction to the book. Thanks!
I'm nominating ArchMan for a treatise on investing. A poster a few replies ago referenced Siegel's latest (although now a year old) book. I would suggest you also look at Stocks For the Long Run, his original from (I think?) 1988 - same concept with the benefit of having been proved (largely) correct since then.
Archman is right though. Lies, damn lies and statistics. Stories about the # of people (or families) invested in the stock market tend to underreport how much they have invested. The reality is that the rich get richer and the "other 90 percent" divy up the table scraps.
Put me on "ignore"? Won't happen. You see, I know that sometimes you wish you were me. Oh you like conservative investments and you complain about today's brash and foolish young people, but there are times when you want to break away from the dull. There are times when you want to take an uncalculated risk. There are times when you wish you could parrtttttiiiieeeeeeee on.
"3 yards and a cloud of dust."
As a matter of fact, I did buy more shares yesterday. I already have more than enough. But when I saw the price slide leading up to the earnings announcement, I thought, "Oh brother...who's the moron selling?" What were the odds we'd see bad earnings after getting a special dividend the month before?!
Based on the .61 qtrly earnings, the stock has to go to 24 this year just to keep its PE of 10. That's a 13.6% gain from here. Add in the 2.6% dividend, and you're at a total return of 16.2% for 2006.
If earnings rise; or the PE expands; or the dividend increases; or there's yet another special dividend -- then the price goes over 24. The odds favor a total return of 16-20% this year. And as was the case the past 40 years, no one will notice.
I agree with everything thats been said. I just dont understand how a stock that had a 42% surprise in earnings could sell off, even the small amount it did. Buy on the rumour sell on the news? I guess. Regardless, I am a recent buyer and intend to be a long time holder.