According to the Splits History site, the pre-split prices were $50.75 in '89 and $35.62 in '82. Where are you getting your numbers?
No, I'm a careful investor who picks entry prices and waits patiently. Prices go up and go down in the short term, and tend upwards in the long term. History is on my side when it comes to getting in at my chosen price. No guessing involved. If it looks like I'll never get in at my price, I move on. You have a really #$%$ attitude. Think I can see why you get so many thumbs down.
I'm surprised to learn that. I thought all major pharma had gone to 401K, self-directed plans. I worked at GSK, and they switched 30 years ago.
To those who replied saying that they have no problem buying a stock when it's at it's all-time high: go right ahead. I'll keep my money parked in savings until it pulls back 10-15%, and then I'll buy 10-15% more shares than you will. So I'll earn 10-15% more in dividends, and I'll do better in capital gains, maybe by a lot depending on how long I hold. But, you go right ahead and buy at today's price. After all, JNJ can only go up, right?
"Pensioners" (do people still get pensions when they retire?) who are so clueless about the market that they would not purchase JNJ at $100, but would purchase it at $50, should just buy mutual funds and let somebody else make their financial decisions. Or, better yet, get advice from a professional. Such "pensioners" should not be purchasing individual stocks.
I opened an ALLY savings account, where I can park cash and earn 1%. It's not a lot, but it makes me feel a little better about holding cash. I agree about market in general--too many stocks sitting at 52-week or even all time highs. The ALLY account is linked to my stock account, so easy to move cash either direction. Just a thought for your dilemma.
Are you saying that higher yield is worse and lower yield is better? You've said in other posts that "They need to figure out how to get the yield down." There are only two things that lower the yield: a reduction in dividend or an increase in price. As an REIT, they must pay out 90% of earnings, so a reduction is not possible; and they have no control over the price. They can not offer shares "at lower yield." Since REITs must pay out 90% of earnings, they can not raise capital organically to grow. They must sell additional shares. The capital raised is used to acquire additional properties which generate additional revenue, which sustains the dividend, which determines the yield. I'm an income-oriented investor, I've owned a variety of REITs over a long period, and I'm beginning to think that you really don't have a firm grasp on the REIT concept.
"Due course?" Whatever. The last split was in 2001. It took 14 years for the price to double. Which means the price increased on average 5% per year. I guess those "great unwashed" (could you be any more condescending?) just weren't all that interested in doubling "our money." If past performance predicts future performance, it will be 2030 at the soonest when "our money" doubles again.