I glad you're happy with what JNJ offered, but I did very well with the GSK plan. The 401k matching provided an immediate doubling, and I was happy with the investment options offered. Pensions are nice IF the company remains profitable for 20-30 years after retirement. But in many industries--automotive for example--companies couldn't maintain payouts to both pensioners and shareholders. All things considered, given that GSK did not have great expertise in financial management, I'm glad they offered a 401k in lieu of a pension. Just my opinion.
With an announced shares offer priced at $71.50, why is the price still above $74 and rising? Not complaining, but past experience has been that share price falls to line up with offer price. Anybody know what's going on?
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.
That would be the largest increase for JNJ in something like forever. 20 cents much more likely. Nothing in the financials justifies more.
Because it's like a magic trick. You get free shares. If it's a 2-1 split, you get twice as many shares, without spending any money. They're free shares. And best of all, the price per share goes down by half, but the P/E ratio stays the same. Say a stock is at $100, with a P/E of 18, then it splits and now it's at $50 with a P/E of 18. Clearly, you'd rather buy a $50 stock with a P/E of 18 than have to pay $100 for a stock with a P/E of 18, right? Like I said, it's just magic, and those who hope for a split believe in magic.
Anybody notice this brilliant post? Just five short days ago, a big "sell, sell, sell" forecast, complete with the usual arrogant insults, from the wizardwart. Since then? Well, according to my simple math, RF is up almost 7%. Up 7% in five days after a "sell, sell, sell" post! WOW! With prognostic performance like that, he should go play the wheel in Vegas.
Nice increase from a percentage standpoint, but I'm surprised it's that low. Makes me wonder if there's some bad news coming, something that will eat into profits in a serious way.
Sorry habits, but a split doesn't do anything. And the stock NEVER "goes right back up to pre-split levels." When you look at a price chart, the prices are ADJUSTED to compensate for the split, so it APPEARS that the price immediately after the split is the same as the price immediately before. The post-split price doesn't actually rise to pre-split price until it doubles after the split. In the case of JNJ, that takes an average of 7-10 years. This is pretty elementary stuff. Check INVESTOPEDIA.
And you're actually arguing that despite the strong "underlying fundamentals of the business" that made JNJ a good investment, the price would NOT have risen from 100 to 130? The share price could only go up starting at 50? And according to your logic, that would be because without the lower price there would have been less demand because investors are too stupid to recognize good value? As we say here in the south: Bless your heart, I know you're doing the best you can.