Did anyone else notice that their dividend was greater than their EPS last quarter? This is unsustainable.
I am not long or short. But I'd rather be short if I had to take a position.
I misquoted my source. From the 10Q: "Loans past due 30-89 days decreased to $18.9 million, or 0.31% of total loans, as of June 30, 2008, compared to $39.0 million, or 0.64% of total loans, as of December 31, 2007 and $68.2 million, or 1.13% of total loans, as of March 31, 2008. This represents a 52% decrease in loans past due 30-89 days from December 31, 2007 and a 72% decrease in loans past due."
What I want from this message board is debatable, but at least I have "skin in the game". Your motives are, as I've stated, just trollish. While I do find your pretense at omniscience amusing, I think that feeding trolls by paying attention to them is bad for message boards. I should have plonked you long ago. Never too late :)
"Past due loans were 3327k at 3/31 and 3911k at 6/30."
I got the above in 10Qs. If you're looking at 10Ks then you're not getting a current picture.
So that's what you want from this message board? Congratulations for making 12 grand?
My performance quotes are directly from the last 10K - I don't know the source of your numbers, nor am I interested enough to track them down. As for the stock price 3 months from now, I really couldn't care less. My investment horizon is much longer than that.
Since you have such a short horizon, maybe you would want to congratulate me on the 1500 shares I bought below $9?
"Last quarter UMPQ changed their policy to completely charge off assests as soon as they became non-performing. "Non-performing assets" is the final category before charge off, and as such all these assets are carried at zero value."
If what you said was true, how would there be any nonperforming assets on the book? Moreover, both nonperforming assets and charge offs are INCREASING. How is that good?
Let's move to your main point:
"More importantly, the past due loan category decreased 72% Q on Q"
Here you are just flat out wrong, factually incorrect. Past due loans were 3327k at 3/31 and 3911k at 6/30. That is an 18% increase Q on Q. But this is only a small part of nonperforming assets, so stay focused on the big picture here.
I have made it clear so far that I hold no position in UMPQ, but I am hereby announcing that this is a great short opportunity right here right now. Mark it, dude. Come back in three months and thank me for the great suggestion.
Don't try to figure out my motivation qniform, just listen to me. I speak the truth, and the truth is you should sell your shares above $16!
You really are a combative troll (that's redundant, I guess). Yes, there was a 6% increase in this category over 12/31.
While you appear to be able to read numbers, your analysis is faulty. Last quarter UMPQ changed their policy to completely charge off assests as soon as they became non-performing. "Non-performing assets" is the final category before charge off, and as such all these assets are carried at zero value. Ultimately they may actually recoup some value, but that's not reflected in their numbers.
More importantly, the past due loan category decreased 72% Q on Q (that's a good thing, in case you're not just a troll). Past due loans are the windshield of the banking business.
Finally, my question earlier in this thread wasn't rhetorical. If you have no interest in a stock, what possible reason do you have for being consistently negative about it? There must be thousands of stocks in which you have no position - what a busy troll you must be posting about them all...
yeah, I'm not to worried about it. Their management is pretty good, and they don't have a whole lot of bad loans on their books, so there is less worry that they'll need to keep a lot of cash on hand to cover potential losses.