Would someone please tell me again how great this stock and company are doing. What a great job management is doing?
Earnings in 2002 were $2.78 a share and in 2005 they finally manage to get to $3.00 a share.Would someone figure that great increase in profit per share for me?
Come on Fan, Wilson, Stil, Nancy and the others and try to convince this board what a great job JA and company are doing.
By the way whatever happened to Bowtie? He sure got quiet. Oh, just for the record I stil have not received an apology or anyone saying they were wrong.
Don't understand your facination with JPM. Their stock was trading at $55 five years ago (vs. $38 today) and this quarter Dimon acknowledged that JMP is having difficulty reaching performance goals, however, "We are working hard to get there in '07."
For some reason, JPM included a one-time pretax gain of $1.3 billion from the sale of brokerage firm BrownCo in its operating figures, which analysts viewed skeptically. One analyst even said that JPM could have reported as low as 50 cents a share, well below the 72 cents consensus.
Quoting analyst Meredith Whitney, "The (JPM) quarter was bad, and the basic message is stay tuned until 2007."
I'm still kind of unclear on how you're calculating yield. Are you dividing the dividend payment by your cost basis as opposed to market value? So if your basis was $5, at $.70 dividend your yield was 14%?
If not, could you provide calculation so that maybe I can understand better.
Congrats on the return on your original investment, but I think with a powerful franchise like BBT has, returns could be even better.
Fair enough on the expense issue. However, I think its kind of irrational to expect to cut costs on the things you mentioned while at the same time spending more to hire talent. Paying higher salaries to compensate for lack of expense reimbursement seems to defeat the purpose no?
Understand the current rate environment's impact, but BBT has underperformed pretty consisently over the past several years in various rate environments. Other banks(hint JP) seem to be able to manage better in current environment.
"What I think you are saying is that you've owned the stock for so long, and your basis is so low that your annualized return over a period of time has been 9%."
No, what I am saying is that if the dividend rate ($0.70/yr) then extant (12/31/98) had remained in effect (it was raised during the year), based on my cost basis, I knew I would realize ~9% just by collecting the dividend [I believe you may have forgotten to account for the increase in the dividend rate, since].
The return on my original investments, over the life of the investment, is much, much higher. The premise that my average total return (realized and unrealized) has dropped since '98 is correct, however.
"Take this latest quarter's performance for example. Not meeting goals was attributed to increased non-interest expense. According to last quarter's call, the focus going forward was on new cost-saving methods."
Ny, you are confusing last quarter's call of cost savings (i.e. cell phones, lodging, meals, contracts, consultants, etc.) with this quarter's message that the bank is taking steps to aggressively drive income - A significant increase in advertising, the hiring of more revenue-producing employees in metro areas such as Atlanta and DC and revenue-based incentives. These noninterest expenses are being employed to drive income, not cut expenses. Big difference.
And just for the record, noninterest expenses were not the only reason for a difficult quarter. In fact, more to the point, it is the difficult interest environment. One cannot overstate the impact compressed margins are having on all banks. It is, without question, the biggest factor affecting earnings
In this case, yes 3% is better than 18%.
Wachovia had a one-time gain of more than $200 million dollars (after tax) this quarter from the sale of a corporate trust unit to US Bancorp. Without it, Wachovia's earnings would actually have been down.
In comparison to that, a 3% gain from core operations looks pretty good.
Theoretically, you could pick and choose any point in time to analzye performance. My comments were in reference to BB&T's long term ability to effectively grow and manage their business.
I dont assume that everyone who posts on this board bought stock in BBT in 1998. I do assume based on the company's history of acquisitions, that there are many institutional and individual shareholders who have large positions in this stock(through acquisition or outright) that they've owned for long periods of time(10+years). I think a case can be made by these long-term shareholders that management hasnt performed as well it could have. How many quarters now has Allison been disappointed in company performance or not achieved goals?
Take this latest quarter's performance for example. Not meeting goals was attributed to increased non-interest expense. According to last quarter's call, the focus going forward was on new cost-savings methods.
I'm pretty surprised that somebody who sets goals and fails to achieve them multiple times
is still in a position to set new goals.
...........BBT's max chart shows that the stock price hit a sort of ceiling back in 98 and has been moving sideways - it is too much stock dilution or slow earnings growth. The N. C. Legislature interfered with interstate commerce by blocking SunTrust from acquiring Wachovia at a higher price and fewer branches would have needed closing. That was not a good day for rule of law or free enterprise.