True, I guess I just wonder about "former" growth stock darlings such as Gillette. With a high P/E ratio they fall into the realm of some pure growth stocks. However, as they become more ubiquitous in the country is there something wrong with becoming a "widows and orphan" fund. Growing, for growth sakes, isn't always the answer. And, what worked for the company years ago doesn't necessarily mean it will work in the future. However, I am not panicking or necessarily down on the stock. But, it is always nice to have a decent dividend for a company this large. Then again, Wal Mart pays a pretty meager dividend as well. Oh well, just wait and see, I guess
I would guess this issue has been bandied about already, but I was wondering if Walgreens has made any discussions about significantly boosting its dividend yield. The dividend right now is pretty paltry. And, while growth companies usually pay a minimal dividend, the last few years haven't been too kind to Walgreens (at least stock market wise). What repurcussions would there be if Walgreens opted to boost dividend closer to 1-1.5%
Hey Brainiac. SSB analysts also really touted AT&T and Worldcrap only to see them fall around 70 percent in less than one year. They are such lame asses, they don't even try to pretend they provide independent research.
This link was posted on CNBC's web site. Go
figure. Analyst picks CVS over Walgreens. Not my words,
so if you have a beef, take it up with the
We now can add a new excuse for the lousy
Walgreens performance. It's the gas prices. Sure, why not.
Everything and everybody but the old "build one on every
block and canibalize each other" approach.
Isn't that all that all the cheerleaders are
doing. When they tout the great success the company has
had in the "good old days" isn't that hindsight. As
for the one idea company . . . Yikes. As for all the
"loosers" (actually it should be losers, if you lost money
over the past five years you were stupid. The key is
to keep it. The biggest problems many of you
cheerleaders have is falling in love with the stock and
becoming blind to it.
Consider this you put that $1,700 into Cisco in
1990 that would be worth $1 million; $1,700 into AOL
in 1995 would be worth $76,000; $1,700 into EMC,
also $1 million; and Home Depot, 1987, $115,000. I
won't even get into Dell's performance.
don't be that impressed with Walgreens performance.
There are many, many, many others that can easily top
that $28,000. And, if you are hoping to pay for three
kids in college any time in the next 10 years you
better start looking for some growth and not the
passbook savings performance (almost, but not that good)
that Walgreens has been generating lately.
Hey dog, according to the cheerleaders, there
aren't problems with Walgreens. Just people like us who
don't see the wisdom of the Walgreens way. Building
stores on every block worked in the past and by golly it
will work in the future. Who cares if they are
canibalizing existing stores. Opposition by cities to some of
there locations. What do they know about what's the
best thing for the city. That internet thing. Ahh,
it's just a fad. Insiders selling off a majority of
their shares. Ahh, it's nothing. Analysts rating CVS
better than Walgreens. What do those Wall Street types
know. Everything is AOK in Walgreen land for the
cheerleaders. Perhaps we should starting calling these folks
the ostrichs. Stick your head in the sand and ignore
the problems. Yeah, that's the ticket.
You know you cheerleaders are a real hoot. Now,
since you can't defend Walgreens any more you resort to
name calling and abusive language. You have burned
through all the excuses, so I will give you a couple more
you can use over the next several
Walgreens is down because of Clinton/(republicans, take
Walgreens is still recovering from the
split (from early last year)
Walgreens has been hurt
by Rite Aid (oops, already used that one a few
Hope that helps Barbie Invalid and Whinny, whinny,
whinny. I will be more than happy to offer more weak
And of course I expect the infantile
abuse curses. No big deal.
It drops down when the market goes up. Heading
down. Look out below. You know wagisadog, all these
cheerleaders seem to become quite vulgar as they grasp at
straws to explain the crappy performance of this stock
moving on two years. Oh, year, in the past it did so
great. Foul language and other immature responses to
legitimate points about the company's performance. The
reality is that all the excuses have been burned through.
I think you should change your name. Perhaps
wagisadogwithfleas might be more appropriate. The way this stock has
performed more than since early last year your handle does
a grave disservice to all the loyal canines out
yep, for all the cheerleaders who said Walgreens would
soar when high tech went in the dumper I am waiting. .
.and waiting . . . and waiting.
You take these cheerleaders must too personally.
These guys have burned through all the excuses they can
come up with. I almost find it comical how they end up
blaming everyone and everything for the lousy performance
Walgreens has produced last couple year, while touting how
great the stock performed eons ago. My favorite is when
they school us on the proper way to invest. Now the
Rah Rah gang is starting to get into some serious
name calling. What do I smell . . . desperation. What
This is for all the cheerleaders/apologists for
Walgreens. I happened to come across this item in Barrons
Online ranking the top 500 U.S. corporations for how
they peformed for investors. Walgreens ranked 350 out
of 500 with a grade point average of 1.5 (although
it has been several years since school I believe
that is a solid D).
here is the info from
We graded the 500 largest companies in terms of
market capitalization according to four criteria. The
first was their stock-market performance, relative to
the S&P 500, for the 12 months ended March 31. Next,
we examined their median CFROI for the past three
years to determine the returns they were generating. We
then factored in their forecast CFROI growth for the
current year. Finally, we looked at top-line revenue
gains or declines for the past year, to check whether
the company's growth was from fundamentals or
financial engineering. (For financial firms, HOLT
substituted real return on equity for CFROI, owing to the
different nature of their assets.) The companies were
awarded grades according to where they ranked in the
group. To complete the report card, the companies got a
grade-point average, with 4.0 being the equivalent of
straight A's. Among those with the same GPA, their ranking
was determined by their forecast change in CFROI.
(Details on HOLT's methodology are available at
The winners were those companies that not only were
bid up by a giddy stock market, but those that also
generate strong, and growing, cash-flow returns. Not
surprisingly, what might be called our Dean's List is dominated
by New Economy, technology-based
Walgreen Stock Market Return D
3-year Media cash flow
return on investment CFROI, D; CFROI Growth, C; Sales
Growth, C. GPA, 1.50
I suppose cheerleaders
can blame this on any of the following: Rite Aid, the
stock getting ahead of itself, fools who are interested
in tech stocks, the stock taking an extended
breather, the president, Congress, Managed Health Care, the
lack of sick people. Did I forget any other sorry
excuses cheerleaders have come up with. I am sure I will
hear all of them, as well as abusive responses from
some of the illustrious cheerleaders on this board.
Walgreens hasn't "not done anything the last
year. It has been a negative performer. I wish it
didn't do anything. Instead, more declines. Down 2
percent for the month, 6 percent year to date, 10 percent
last 12 months. A helluva impressive performance from
such a world beater. I know, all the learned
cheerleaders will drag out all the old lines, how great it did
5 years ago, it is the top performer, blah blah.
Last I checked CVS has been climbing. Year to date it
is up 14 percent. FActs is facts.
So, according to your logic, it's better to be in a boat that is sinking, but isn't sinking as fast as another boat. Interesting logic. Rah Rah
While touting what a great performance Walgreens
has done over the last three years take a look at
other retailers over the same period of time with that
Target -- $33,241
The Gap -- $48,000
Home Depot -- $50,000 . . .
so, if you match it against the dog stocks in drug
sectors, sure it smells like a rose, but . . . if, you
match it top flight retailers it doesn't look that
impressive. Yeah, I am sure a bunch of you cheerleaders will
throw out how many shares you have gained, and likely
some name calling. To me it just confirms you can't
listen to anyone who doesn't buy the BS line.
We have been hearing this sorry excuse for about
a year. Blame others. Blah Blah Blah. Dow up 200
points and Walgreens drops. Cripes, this stock is having
problems and blaming others for the problems is a sorry
The InvestJoker. Good call. Here's a post on the
3Com site I came across
"I sold my 2000 shares
in august at 23...hahahaha bummer" --- nice
Let's see. . . 3Com now at 104 and change. That's a
smooth move. Yeah, you're the man. The savvy guy that
With Walgreens getting hammered every
day you have to resort to name calling because your
stock is outta here. You cheerleaders can't stand the
fact that what worked in the past doesn't necessarily
work in the future. Blame other drug stores, retail
sector, Greenspan, whatever. The reality is the stock
down for week, month, year to date, last three months,
etc. Don't you have some cheerleading practice.