If history is any indication of the future then you can rest assured that BBT will not ever stop buying banks and insurance agencies.
BBT has been on a buying spree for lots of years and are not slowing down.It might pay one to compare what other stocks have done in the last 25 years.The question is what would your investment be worth if you had cashed out at $38 or so a share in December,1998 and reinvested in another stock. What would your return be in today's market. Basically this stock has only had the dividend return for at least the last 5 years. However, check out the annual proxy statement and find out how the return has been for the top executives. The shareholder has taken the brunt of the lack of return on investment and the top boys have done well. Seems like there should be a sharing of the pain.
Wondering if BB&T is going to keep buying is wasting brain cells. Mergers are a line of business as announced to the world in the Annual Report and at S/H meetings..and for 20 years JAA has made them work. If the strategy is too risky for you..Sell!
Looking in the rear view mirror, particularly from '98 to present when the the economy was in recession is 180 degrees out of focus akin to navel staring. What's wrong with a 10,15 year test?
The real question for an investor is how is this stock going to perform relative to peers in the future with an improving economy. Figuring out what BB&T is going to do in the future is not rocket science, JAA has told the world training employees, serving customers, buying things at a price that meet very discliplined merger criteria, i.e.
. cash basis EPS accretive by year 2
. GAAP EPS accretive by year 3
. Internal rate of return 15% or better
.Cash basis ROE accretive by year 3
. cash basis ROA accretive by year 3
. Tangible book value per share accretive by year 5
. keep leverage capital ratio above 7%
. Create acccelerated dividend growth potential by year 5 for current BB&T shareholders.
is the strategy for the company. So, seems to me you like the strategy, the management, the markets served and the s/h returns and enjoy good nights sleep and above peer total returns, or you don't have the stomach for the strategy, sell and find another pony to ride.
Seems like a pretty simple uncomplicated investment world to this retired old codger whose first career was finance and second career is grandkids, golf, and spending dividends.
I like companies who tell you what they're going to do and do it..don't invest in those who don't know or won't tell us little s/h what they're going to do.
This is way too long and I apologise, just venting a little after some of these verbal eruptions.
I think if you'll check the peer groups they use on their annual proxy statements the last few years some of the group seems to change yearly. How convient to drop some high performers and maybe add some low performers. The list in my earlier post was not my list, but the list from the WSJ. I would think the WSJ wouldn't favor one of the group over another. They would be neutral on the subject including what kind of financial they are and where they are located.
However, I am still wondering what the answers are to my earlier post questions which follows. My point is what is there that would make one believe that they are doing anything different now then they have be doing the last five years. Put buntly they seem to be doing the same things they have for the last five years. So is the return on this investment going to be what the economy gives us for the next few years? What is different about the situation for the next few years other then the economic condition ?
Yours for better investing and more money in the shareholders pocket.
Jim,Jim ,the difference is John A,Kelly King ,Scott Reed and the big boys are getting rich .
Hell they get all those cheap options .
What we need is a big time investor like Warren Buffet or Carl Ican that want take no
Wait ,they set the awarding program up themselves.That explains its.Thats right let the kids grade there own paper.Give me a God Dam break.
When you're right, you're right. Seems like some of the people on this board just don't get it.
Looks like more of the same to me. The big boys getting theirs and the shareholders taking the crumps off the table that might slip through to the shareholders.
That was the reason behind my last post. Does anyone have any valid reasons that this company is doing anything different that will affect the share price then they have been doing for the last five years. This is the only thing that would affect the stock price other than what the economy will naturally give.
Another thought is that if everyone just goes quietly into the night what would the top executives do? If some of us are looking at them and they are still increasing pay and incentives like they have in the last five years what would it be if on one was watching?
Just my thoughts and opinions.
Jim, you've been reading too many conspiracy novels.
The peer group changes only when smaller banks are dropped and larger ones in BB&T's size group are added as BB&T grows and the changes are approved by regulators. Do you really believe a company can pick only firms they compare favorably with? Come on! Regulators won't let banks arbitrarily "cherry-pick" peers.
The WSJ list didn't purport to be a peer group or they would't have mixed banks and thrifts as another poster pointed out.
Lastly, the answer to your question re: what BB&T plans in the future is easily available to you on the quarterly webcasts with analysts available for several days after earnings are announced each quarter also attending the annual meeting will answer a lot of questions and some folks pick up the phone and call a senior officer. I'm sure you know no-one can get "forward-looking information" that hasn't been released to the total investment community.
At this point I'm going to agree with Stock....Sigh!
You might want to take a look on page A13 of the WSJ for the date of October 28,2003. I think you'll find at the top of the page a chart with the headline "Are Bigger Banks Better?" subtitled "Net Income and Total Assets for U.S. Banks". BB&T is 13th on the list and listed directly below in 14th place is Golden West Financial. The WSJ seems to compare them. I had originally compared the two listed above BB&T and the two listed below as possible comparsions for returns in an earlier post in reply to the question of what would be a good comparison on returns. In fact I believe I even stated would this be a good comparison.
Conspiracy theory (novels) or whatever. If you will look at the peer groups for the years of 2000,2001 and 2002 and compare you'll find that it does look fishy. The increase in the stocks dropped from the peer groups are better than the increases (decreases) for the stocks added to the peer group. This is fact regardless of what one believes. Be sure to check each year. After a couple of years most people begin to suspect a pattern.
Hate to tell you, but some people actually do reseach.
On your comment about the SEC my personal experience had been that unless someone reports a problem they usually let it slide unless it is grossly out of line. If you doubt this where were they on the mutual fund, the New York Exchange, Enron and all the other messes that have happened. It almost appears that they react after bad things have happened.
Lastly my original question was and still it what is BB&T doing differently today then they have been doing the last 5 years? If they are doing the same things then the results should be the same as the last five years. Wasn't looking for any insider information just trying to figure if the only variable in them was what the economy was going to do.
Yours for better investing and returns,