Wed, Oct 1, 2014, 6:48 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

Walgreen Co. Message Board

EgadsPeople 102 posts  |  Last Activity: Oct 17, 2003 8:27 AM Member since: May 7, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Dividend

    by EgadsPeople Oct 16, 2003 5:15 PM
    EgadsPeople EgadsPeople Oct 17, 2003 8:27 AM Flag

    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

  • EgadsPeople by EgadsPeople Oct 16, 2003 5:15 PM Flag

    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.

    Up yours

  • EgadsPeople by EgadsPeople Jul 28, 2000 12:46 PM Flag

    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
    analyst

    http://www.cnbc.com/commentary/commentary_full_story_stocks.asp?StoryID=20324

  • Reply to

    May & June Bad for WAG Stock

    by waytogob Jun 22, 2000 2:42 PM
    EgadsPeople EgadsPeople Jun 22, 2000 10:25 PM Flag

    You shouldn't buy Walgreens on any day that ends in the letter Y

  • Reply to

    wag is good

    by conrad_vanorton Jun 21, 2000 10:43 AM
    EgadsPeople EgadsPeople Jun 21, 2000 12:19 PM Flag

    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.

    Go,
    Rah, cheerleaders.

  • Reply to

    No Debt - YES

    by wilburpost92620 Jun 13, 2000 2:15 PM
    EgadsPeople EgadsPeople Jun 16, 2000 9:47 PM Flag

    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.

  • Reply to

    No Debt - YES

    by wilburpost92620 Jun 13, 2000 2:15 PM
    EgadsPeople EgadsPeople Jun 14, 2000 9:25 PM Flag

    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.

    So,
    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.

  • Reply to

    ATTN: Walgreens Headquarters

    by wagisadogwithfleas May 30, 2000 10:24 PM
    EgadsPeople EgadsPeople May 30, 2000 11:02 PM Flag

    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.

  • Reply to

    preemptive post (wagisadefect post)

    by whinewhinewhine May 30, 2000 4:01 PM
    EgadsPeople EgadsPeople May 30, 2000 10:33 PM Flag

    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
    months.
    Walgreens is down because of Clinton/(republicans, take
    your pick)
    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
    times)
    Hope that helps Barbie Invalid and Whinny, whinny,
    whinny. I will be more than happy to offer more weak
    arguments.

    And of course I expect the infantile
    abuse curses. No big deal.

  • EgadsPeople by EgadsPeople May 24, 2000 5:19 PM Flag

    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.

  • Reply to

    Save Kahiki in Columbus

    by dalchicago May 3, 2000 10:29 AM
    EgadsPeople EgadsPeople May 4, 2000 11:03 PM Flag

    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
    there.

    yep, for all the cheerleaders who said Walgreens would
    soar when high tech went in the dumper I am waiting. .
    .and waiting . . . and waiting.

  • Reply to

    Deleted Message

    by yahoo May 11, 2005 9:04 PM
    EgadsPeople EgadsPeople Apr 27, 2000 9:54 PM Flag

    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
    a hoot.

  • EgadsPeople by EgadsPeople Apr 22, 2000 2:10 PM Flag

    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
    Barrons
    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
    www.holtvalue.com.)
    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
    companies.


    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.

  • Reply to

    Deleted Message

    by yahoo May 11, 2005 9:04 PM
    EgadsPeople EgadsPeople Apr 18, 2000 11:53 PM Flag

    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.

  • Reply to

    Numbers again!

    by follow_funds Mar 13, 2000 10:47 AM
    EgadsPeople EgadsPeople Mar 14, 2000 11:19 PM Flag

    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

  • Reply to

    Paitience is called for

    by vepavepa27 Mar 4, 2000 4:55 PM
    EgadsPeople EgadsPeople Mar 5, 2000 11:19 PM Flag

    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
    same $10,000

    Target -- $33,241
    Walmart --
    $43,000
    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.

  • Reply to

    Jolt............

    by peoria_investor Mar 4, 2000 12:35 AM
    EgadsPeople EgadsPeople Mar 4, 2000 12:43 AM Flag

    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
    excuse.

  • Reply to

    se4321 says.......

    by peoria_investor Mar 1, 2000 12:21 AM
    EgadsPeople EgadsPeople Mar 2, 2000 12:50 AM Flag

    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
    call.

    Let's see. . . 3Com now at 104 and change. That's a
    smooth move. Yeah, you're the man. The savvy guy that
    you are.

    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.

WAG
59.04-0.23(-0.39%)Oct 1 4:01 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.