You may be getting tired of reading about the dismal performace of AET stock over the past 25 years. I'm one of those long-term holders, and my posts must make you very tired! But it is a matter of record (I have the record) and there is no opinion to it. You have no basis to think that the stock performance has been other than poor (choose your word)! I'm quite sure that Mr. Huber would be among the first to agree; I'm sure that he is very unhappy with it. If AET were $118 (the all-time high), even that would not be so hot. But that price...or $99.. would certainly look good relative to AET stock's historical performance. Sure, AET was a great company-and may be now-but AET stock has not been a great investment for us long-termers; we are the ones who are tired....and tired of it! All of my less-than-happy posts on AET are related only to the stock. PS: I'm not aware that any posts on this message board are required reading. When I don't want to read a post, I don't read it! (Just something for you to consider.) I'm looking for some swift and bold action from AET. It's time !
on what has happened over the last 25 years. Here is mine. I was working for Aetna when it first offered us the Incentive Savings Plan (401). I went into mutual funds at the beginning and they did poorly. After a while I transferred to Aetna stock. My $1,500 bought me 100 shares. That�s $15 per share. Aetna split a few years later 2 for 1 and again a few years later 3 for 2. So, those initial shares grew to 300, costing $5 per. Aetna has paid a dividend in the 5% range for most of the last 25-30 years. In the ISP, those dividends are credited as shares of stock . At 5% a year, my 100 shares grew to about 875 at the point the stock was selling for $115, or about $100,000. If I got out at that time, I would have had a compounded annual return of 20%. If I made that same comparison 10 years later, with the stock selling for $50, I still get a 12% annual rate of return based on the $115. If I use $90 as the stock price (which I firmly believe it will be in 12-18 months) I get a 17.3% return on those initial 100 shares and a 8.8% return based on 15 years and $50 cost. For non-ISP owners, if you re-invested your after tax dividends into stock, you�d have about 70% of my numbers. Not great but not as awful as you make it out to be. The point I�m trying to make is that the growth in the price of a stock isn�t the only measure for how well a company has done for its� stockholders. Those dividends were a big attraction, pre-USHC.
hit the send key before I was ready. The point I wanted to make was that Aetna was not a growth company prior to being taken over by USHC. Where are the dividends factored into your return analysis. That $2.85 (I think) dividend return on a stock selling in the $50s wasn't bad at the time. That's why you old timers held on the stock. And, when it changed, you should have been smart enough to get out at $100+. It was going to be a different ballgame from what you originally bought it for. Right or wrong???