% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Ryland Group Inc. Message Board

  • catd100 catd100 Jan 27, 2000 3:12 AM Flag

    RE : buy 1997 and Ryland

    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
    1/26/99 13:34Hours
    "3-4 years purchased at 13 7/8 with
    dividend of 60c/ share"
    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)
    1/26/00 13:34Hours
    expected that the switching of coasts for the HQ would
    cause a stalling of time
    "I cannot imagine it will remain below a PE of 8
    after the current uncertainty is resolved."

    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

    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

    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
    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

    In any event I hope it works out for
    PS: I would love to hear from any Ryland Rep. who can
    explain this activity.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • 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
      Sorry for the long post, buy1997.