Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 7:58 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

MetLife, Inc. Message Board

  • andxuan andxuan Nov 13, 2002 2:39 PM Flag

    message boards

    Seems lots of spleen venting going on this board. I recently purchased a position here and am very supprised at the content and texts of the board. Nothing useful or informative. Biting and scratching along with diatrabs of knowledge about the company. Grow up please.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Twi,

      I don't think the IPO price is relevant at this time to someone like ttmrun. In fact it's not relevant to anyone who got free shares because they were policyholders. My reason is simply because 100 shares is worth current price times the number of shares, and since everyone's cost basis in the shares is zero (I believe this is true), the capital gain is the same.

      Since we have no way to prove the number of shares they did sell at 14 versus what they may have sold at 28 if offered at that price, I say lets move on to other topics. Agreed?

      lol,
      punkin

    • Punk,

      You said "I'm not sure I understand your point about 10 stocks at $28 or 20 @ $14". That's exactly what I meant, that at $28 IPO price, it will be undersubscribed and at $14 it will be subscribed twice as much. And credibility is at stake that's why they proceeded to become public. Do u think the price would have appreciated or reached $70 (%150 spike) had they IPOd at $28?
      You know that the price of a stock always stabilizes at their real value. Let's take a parallel view of things in relation to the current price of $26 and change. So if they IPOd at $28, the current price today would still be at $26 and change (u may disagree).
      Let's say you agree with this assessment, which IPO price do you think is perceived as better today and which IPO do you think will attract more buyers today under the current state of the market and the economy. This is just MHO.

    • Twi,

      I'm not sure I understand your point about 10 stocks at $28 or 20 @ $14.

      Before I answer that though, back to the point of our earlier discussion, namely the IPO price.

      For the sake of arguement, I'll grant you it was the underwriters who wanted the lower price, but then ask yourself: Why did Met come public at a price 50% below where they felt it should be? The number of shares coming to market was the same so why take less money when they could have decided to postpone the IPO until market conditions improved, if they perceived conditions weren't good?

      As to the point about price, I've found through the years I've been investing and doing my own analysis, that price is generally reflective of the value of the company, especially when comparing companies in the same industry. Having said that, aren't we all looking for those stocks that Wall Street has dismissed because their not sexy or on the tip of everyone's tongue. After all, that's how Buffet has made his somewhat sizeable fortune.

      To put it another way, there is no reason that a $28 stock cannot go up 20% just as easily as a $14 one. Now if Met came public at $24 and then went up 150%, not only would they have more cash in the till, but the stock price would be about $45 right now.

      lol,
      punkin

    • Punkin,

      If I had to guess, I'd say it's the underwriters who opted for that low price knowing that it will definitely go up to what the stock really is worth and yes the fear factor that it might get undersubscribed. If you've been following it prior to the IPO, the speculation was that the IPO price will be around the mid to high 20s. And what did really happen, it rose even higher than the anticipated or expected IPO price in such a short period of time(less than a year). Punk, let's put aside the current state of MetLife and the economy, would there be a difference if during the IPO 10 stocks were bought at 28 or 20 stocks were bought at 14? and then take into consideration the stock price now which is 27, which IPO price do you think would have pared better for MetLife on the bottom line and perception? Just curious how you would rationalize this.

      You said "I am curious why you keep posting references to vulgar and cordiality and you'll respond in kind and terminating it at any time if I wish."

      I kept saying it because I had a bad experience from you before when you decided that "i'm not worth engaging in a conversation". And I did respond in kind to that insult when all I wanted is a civil discussion of MetLife's state of things. I would not have mentioned this but you asked.

    • Twi,

      The lower IPO price put less money in the till to do M&A, so we are left with the question of who wanted it low: Met or the underwriters?

      The only reason I can see why the underwriters wanted to lower the price was because the market wasn't good and they didn't want to get stuck with a lot of stock by having it undersubscribed. However, as most posters on this board I think will agree, Met had adecent name, brand recognition and the dot com bubble was unraveling that in turn would eventually mean fewer investment banking opportunities thus much lower fees, so why not take this as high as the market would bear?

      Met, as history has borne out, could low ball it and then gain kudos for having the price increase significantly during a bear market. However that also meant, as I said earlier, less cash for one of the main objectives for the IPO, namely M&A activity.

      Where's the truth, I frankly don't know, maybe someone else has a better perspective.

      Even on a good piece of meat one does not trim off all the fat lest the meat dry out during the cooking process. Hope the analogy works.

      I am curious why you keep posting references to vulgar and cordiality and you'll respond in kind and terminating it at any time if I wish.

      Is that the way you'd prefer to carry on a discussion?

      punkin

    • Reb,

      Gotta hand it to ya, your posts are great. It does take me twice as long to read them though, but they are worth the time.

      punkin

    • Twat says ta punkin agin, They are building good will all over the place, and I need not mention what those are.

      When ya say 'I need not mention what those are' thits cause ya probly aint got no freakin idea whut ya be talkin bout anyways. Ya dont no whut 'those are' do ya lassie. Cause there aint bin no good will - ceptin in Benmoshit's poket.

      Sum o us on this here board may use obseen languege but you ya little twerp is an obseen little rodint fo supportin thit norwegian shithead. Bettern ta speek obseen thin ta be obseen. An you little girl is obseen.

    • IPO at a low price, yes. But I applaud it to whoever made that decision. You may disagree and I'll respect your opinion. Can you see the implication and ramification if it IPOd at 26-28? Oh my, these "friends" of yours would have gone bonkers especially when the stock hit 20 . At least for the time being, MetLife appears to have a good grip on the bottom line. They are building good will all over the place, and I need not mention what those are, which is essential in this line of business if they want to retain the customer base that they have even potential ones in the future when they push the button on M&A.

      As far as trimming the fat, my friend said there may still be some room for that but I agree with you 100% that customer service will be affected somewhat if it's overdone and of course every management knows this unless they are on a self destruct path. Your know-it-all "friends" from Shangri-la should open up shop and advise all the companies what their management should and shouldn't do, after all they have all the answers for what ails MetLife.

      You can terminate our cordiality anytime you want if you wish but I still respect you as the only objective person in this board. Alpall is I think is a very distant second and with a foul mouth but I do respect his opinions. Punkin, I only reciprocate in kind. The others, they are just plain bashers.

      They have me on ignore, so they won't read this, we'll see.

    • Twat says ta punkin, Cite one company as big or bigger than Met itself, the answer is none. Thit bout says it all dont it.

      Ya be a leeder ya shoodnt be goin round town kumparin youself ta the rest of tha herd. Ya shood take tha bull by tha horns and show tha rest o em how its dun. Specially when ya has jest bin given billions o dollars to make yor herd bigger. Ifn ya caint deliver than ya needs to git out o tha kitchin, right girl.
      No sense hirin a trail boss thit dont no his north from his south. I gess ifn ya aint got no destnashun in mind ya caint be goin the rong way. Maybe thits that there benmoshits plan.

    • Let me ask this question: Do you think the MET IPO price was lowballed? Doesn't matter who's idea it was, just a yes or no.

      To your point on conservative style at Met, that went out when the IPO came in.

      I couldn't think of any other possibilities off the top, but I have to believe there were others out there that Met's management was at least looking into.

      And last, there is fat that can be cut in most companies, but there is that line that once crossed causes a drop off in customer service, and that results in lost revenue opportunities and then lost income and so on and so on.

      Has Met reached that level yet? I don't know, but it is something management has to be aware of, and realize it before they cross that line. That's all I'm saying.

      punkin

    • View More Messages
 
MET
54.44+0.35(+0.65%)Jul 30 4:02 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.