you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
I'm reasonably satisfied as a shareholder with the performance over the past 10 years. The share price over that time has increased by about 20%, and the dividend has trippled. As a value/income investor, that meets my standards. There have been quality control problems, but they have been faced squarely and dealt with. Such problems are not uncommon in mature companies of such size and complexity - Toyota's problems come to mind. Sales would argue that J&J's branded products are still doing well. Innovation has become more and more diffucult in the pharma area - big pharma in general is relying more and more on micro pharma to find targets and drugs to act on them. Layoffs and early retirement are the norm for this industry and others. Get used to it. I hope new management will continue to keep share values in line with inflation and keep increasing dividends. Voting my 5000 shares as I always have - FOR what they ask me to vote for and AGAINST what they ask me to vote against. I don't have the skills or background to manage a major pharma company, and nobody posting on this board does, either. You want to run a company? Start one.
Chicken, bought my shares 10 years ago, price was $66.23! Where do you get the stock price has grown by 20% over that time frame? Your name seems to indicate your intel...by all means just 'fall in line' with what the board tells you to do, don't read the newspaper, watch the stock price, or consider that the share price has NOT grown over the past 10 years. You want to continue your involvement with JNJ like this, fine...not for a large number of people who want to see 'real share price growth'!!
Well, laddie, if you'll check this max time chart for JNJ http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=JNJ+Interactive#symbol=jnj;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined; and scan to the April 2002 price, you'll see it at $52 and change. That was 10 years ago. Today it is $10 higher, and that is where the "about 20% increase" comes from. You can get the same information from a Standard & Poors report, taking the High/Low average for 2002. Sorry you bought at a high point. Before you resort to invective and insults, you might want to get a broader perspective. I've been investing for 40 years and have done well with a buy and hold, value and income approach. I worked 20 years as a section head leading a research group of 40 people in a major pharma. I've never felt qualified to vote against the BoD of any company I hold shares in, having selected those companies based on track record. If I become unhappy with performance, I sell and move on. Unlike the blathering posters in this string, I don't hold and complain. I do agree with your conclusion: this stock is not for every investor. That's pretty much true for all stocks. You might want to reconsider most of the rest of your message.
With all due resoect, if you are just going to always vote for whatever the BOD recommends and you think that is appropriate, why evne bother to vote? If you don't vote they just count your votes in the "For" total as an assumption anyway.
From your POV then, why even allow people to vote at all?
It's no "bother" to vote, and I like to let the BoD know that I affirm their judgment and leadership. It's not quite true that they just count your votes as "For" if you don't vote. You have to at least return the ballot with signature, leaving it blank, then they do as you said. But I like to give them a positive reinforcement by filling in the little boxes.
From my point of view, shareholders own the company and are entitled to vote. Shareholders also employ the company management and BoD. When I was a senior manager, I made it a point to not second-guess those who worked for me, except in the most extreme circumstances. So, sure, go ahead and vote as you wish, oppose everything management wants to do if you are so inclined. Or, you could do as I do when not satisfied with management - I sell my shares and move on. It's great having choices.
"I don't have the skills or background to manage a major pharma company, and nobody posting on this board does, either."
And nobody posting on this board has the skills or background to be President either. Yet not only do people on this board vote for President but most people probably consider it their duty.
You should vote based on your assessment of management performance. But much as in Presidential elections it's up to the big money who bets elected and what gets passed.