The market is up big and C barely eaks out a gain. JPM and BAC participate. Look at the gains for the broker stocks - yet C with SSB gets no respect. What gives??????
To further emphasize the point, check out the prices (both real and adjusted) around the time of the last stock split and today.
Comparisons for long periods of time can be useful if you know the history of the company. For example, BAC had a horrible management team for a long time going all the way back to Hugh McCall and the company was named NCNB. Their stock price suffered until their board finally recognized what had to be done. The old management was replaced and new management and new business strategy was developed 3 - 4 years ago. Since that time, BAC's stock doubled, split, and is about the same price as C today.
JPM has kept the same management and same strategy and well, it stock price reflects it.
Citigroup really hasn't done a thing since it acquired The Associates several years ago. That acquisition brought in a different breed to C and not a very good one at that. While it has been very profitable, as has Citigroup's overall strategy, C's reputation has been stained badly. Weill totally underestimated the impact all the scandals would have on C's stock price. He should have fallen on the knife a long, long time ago.
Your strategy is probably sound on the business fundamentals. I really don't know. Charts are what they are. They do not tell the entire story and for that either following the companies closely, or heavy research, are very revealing.
I guess I am from the old school of investing. First, I don't accept any advice that is given gratitiously on a message board. Second, I don't share what my strategy is. When I announced that I capitulated on C's stock, I did it for my own reasons related to how the company is being managed. I have met my goals and that is all that counts. I do like to follow Citigroup closely and will get back into it again when significant changes are made at the top. Frankly, I think Citigroup is at the stage one of its acquisitions, Solomon Bros., was many years ago. They booted management and Warren Buffet, its largest shareholder, stepped in ran the company. Citigroup is in a deep funk and has been for about five years. That is why I chose a five year chart for comparison purposes. A very dramatic change will have to take place to get it out of its funk. I chose not to own the stock because Weill is not going to leave on his own and the Board is not going to kick him out. When he is gone, I will probably get to love the stock again.
For what its worth, as a long time C employee before and after the merger, I can confirm James' sentiments. This company is a money machine but I don't think the current leadership or BOD has a clue how deep the ethics problems are. Its a culture in C now and nothing short of wiping the slate clean will change it in the short term.
One thing that would help would be to have a couple of the high and mighty from the regime walk the plank...starting with Sandy himself. Perhaps the sight of that would shake the senses of the rest of the management team.
If you have automatic reinvestment of dividends for a retirement account, the lower price works to yoour advantage. The dividend buys more shares at the lower price. With a tax deferred account this is the best of all situations.
Thanks for the defense. I really appreciate it. Can you contact me offline? I'd like to discuss my current investments and let you know how they are doing so far. I lost your email address when my previous disk died. Thanks again. I've put those two people on Ignore so I don't have to put up with their idiotic remarks.
I have mentioned a few times that the ST chart has not been performing all that well and that I was using the LT chart for my portfolio. If you didn�t know it, I have not made any of the ST trades this year. The ST trades work better in volatile markets.
Comparing stocks over long-term periods is an extremely useful investment tool if you know how to use them. If you don�t, it can be seriously damaging to your portfolio. I have spent many years studying these relationships. A lot of people think that the a stock that has under performed another for a given time frame is the stock to avoid. Actually, just the opposite is true. Over time, many stocks in the same sector like BAC and C perform the same as one another. I�ll give you an example: In Oct 2, 1986 BAC was a $.29 and C was at $.30. You could say that C was a 3% premium to BAC. Today BAC is at $45.85 and C is at $46.88, a 2.8% premium, virtually unchanged.
If investors were to buy BAC when everyone hated it and sold C when everyone loved it, a lot of money could have been made while others followed the crowd. Since 1986, the discount for C has been as much as 61% (Jun 26, 1989 -BAC $1.28 vs C $.50). By contrast, C has had a premium to BAC by more than 200% (Dec 7, 2000-BAC $14.49 vs C $43.49). I�ll bet C investors were gloating and telling BAC investors how stupid they were not to be in C at that time, using charts like yours as a comparison. I hope to encourage you not to fall into that trap. C has been outperforming BAC since I got my LT buy signal Dec 31, 2004 and I expect it to continue.
The chart for comparison purposes is supplied by Yahoo - not me. If that is not suitable for you, no big deal. Choose whatever you like, or don't choose any at all. If you include dividends for all three money center banks, I suspect the result will be the same. The only one that performed very well is BAC.
The ST signals you have posted have not been very accurate over the past several months. What makes you think your strategy is any better than any one else's?