I have personally worked with Ryland in 600 unit+ subdivisions, as the General Contractor's Rep., and in other functions in other activities with Ryland. I would qualify the following by saying unequivically; In my experience Ryland is no better nor no worse than any other large home builder IE: Ryan Homes.... and furthermore found Ryland to be generally sound in product and well as conduct. However buy1997, I have no small difficulty relating one of your posts to the next. Example: POST: 1/26/99 13:34Hours "3-4 years purchased at 13 7/8 with dividend of 60c/ share" POST: 10/29/99 18:56Hours You ask hwright979 to "elucidate" a fine $10.00 word. But further say "long rumered" which you attribute somewhat disdanefully to the Washington Post, reguarding a move in operations. In fact this was public knowledge on 10/29/99. (The intention to move major operations in new and reconstruction as well as all operations to California) POST: 1/26/00 13:34Hours "I expected that the switching of coasts for the HQ would cause a stalling of activity....one time charge..." "I cannot imagine it will remain below a PE of 8 after the current uncertainty is resolved."
In the above you seem to repudate the possibility of a move then accept it. In fact, reading the posts, you seem to say that you both find it farfetched and also predict it and its outcome (The move that is......)
As for a PE of 8, As of 02:00Hours its 1/2 of that and falling. The breakup value of the company is +-50% greater than the stock price. Book Value is $26.20 with 14.3 outstanding and 12 million in float.
You had a very nice profit in this considering that Ryland was over $30.00 just a shot while ago... Why not take a fair 4 year gain and leave??? ( To answer for myself before you ask, yes I too buy and hold with a large % of my holdings. But run as follows... )
I for one would agree that this looks like a great buy, in fact I am pushing an option as I type this. However as the old man said when you smell a rat you dont have to go deeper into the sewer to be sure its a rat, if it smells like a rat.... it will still be a rat no matter how close you get, leave it alone. The option will loose little and gain much if Ryland is merged or broken. If not.... Well I smell a rat and know one when I see one, little lost.
As for your POST: 1/26/00 17:38Hours I would agree that the SEC Act of 1934 looks like a fine protection for the average investor but I say "Green Mail - IE: I.B." It sounds good but doesnt work. See above, the old man was right.
In any event I hope it works out for you, Respectfully; email@example.com PS: I would love to hear from any Ryland Rep. who can explain this activity.
I have long been a Ryland shareholder, but have substantially increased my position as the stock fell. With the price at 17 (as I write it seems to be heading back up, having hit 15 1/4 earlier today, which is the lowest it has been for almost three years, I think) I am certainly down overall. I would agree that averaging down is not invariably a smart move, but this is not a stock which I have large concerns about. I think it is basically or usually under the wall street radar screen with under 100k shares traded, although that is not the case today with the earnings release. I would put the stock that I bought yesterday in the "short term" category, assuming the stock recovers reasonably from these levels. Long term, I am comfortable that it will head back through the twenties once the HQ move has been completed and earnings remain strong. Of course, new information could change my attitude at any time.
Regarding the move, you seem confused by my 10/29 post. I know it was public knowledge on that date. I was rather annoyed with the company because the Washington Post stated on or around that date that the move was "long rumoured", whereas in fact there had been no statement from the company until close to that date. My query to hwright979 was related to why he seemed to be bearish in his first post. I wondered if there was something (other than the move) negative which produced that opinion. He responded regarding the hardship to the people in the East Coast HQ, which is commendable but, other than from the perspective of severance packages, not highly concerning to the future prospects of the company. But with the move they should not allow rumors to leak out, it is a breach of their fiduciary duty to us shareholders. Which is a nice segway to the SEA of 1934 . . . Regarding the nice profit I had when it was 30. You may recall that with the change in cap gains, initially the time period for holding to get the reduced (long term) cap gains was 18months, then in 98 it became 12 months. Having bought initially in early 97 (I checked, and it is three years since I first bought) I wanted to hold for the lower CGT rate which I figured to be summer 98. I figured incorrectly since 12months was the new LTCG holding requirement. I missed my chance in early 98, for by the time 18 months elapsed, the stock had gone down some and I again considered it undervalued. Later I added to my position on several occasions. Regarding a rat - if this stock were a lot more heavily traded than it is, I would be convinced there was a rat I had missed. As it is, I just think it is presently a great buying opportunity. Regarding the SEA of 1934 - I agree that it sounds better in theory than it works in practice. I have a low opinion of the lawyers that look for a company that has had a big fall and then seek out shareholders for a class action suit. In my view, they are largely out for themselves since they seem to be better at generating fees for themselves than recovering money for the allegedly injured shareholders. That being said, the company should endeavour to comply with the act and that requires prompt disclosure of material facts. This is a very large position for me, so I am hopeful it works out for all of us RYL longs. Sorry for the long post, buy1997.