No problem, I've done the same thing. Humor, sarcasm, irony are frequently missed in posts and emails, because print is toneless and expressionless. Maybe we should ask Yahoo to enable emojis on the boards.
What are you talking about? RF doesn't have branches in Europe. Some of the British banks are closing branches, but that's been in the works for a long time. We'll see it here over coming years as brick and mortar takes a back seat to electronic banking.
And here's the whole story, 158 pages. Just one click.
No, new posters are more than welcome. But, they might want to establish a bit of credibility before accusing management of trying to conceal information. We're all sorry that you had to click three times rather than one to find the information. You're certainly entitled to a much less stressful life.
And I just realized this is your first ever post on any message board under this name. We're sure grateful that you chose the RF board for this unique honor.
It's all there, at Regions, Investor Relations, Financial, Regulatory. So c'mon dalgarnif, don't be such an incompetent poster, you only make yourself look worse when you make unfounded accusations. There is nothing deliberately vague, nothing hidden. The results at this time are still just numbers. None of the banks have provided an interpretation, and it's not apparent to me whether buy-backs or dividend increases will be approved/allowed. You need to try harder to find information before accusing management of poor performance. The incompetent idiot label fits nicely with your failure to find the results.
In what way is it "not fair" that there are things that people want/need but can't afford? If you really think that "that's the way it is" and by "it" you mean life, are you saying that life is inherently unfair? Would life become fair if all the wealth in the world were evenly distributed to all the people in the world? Total wealth of the world is now estimated at $241 trillion. Divided by 7 billion people, everybody would have about $35,000. And NOBODY would be able to afford a prolonged course of cancer therapy. How's that for fair?
So, what are you recommending? That pharmas should voluntarily reduce their profits to unburden the system? Take money away from their shareholders and give it to patients? Or, like Canada, do you want government to control the market? Do you want government to control only the pharmas, or every aspect of the medical care system? And only pharma, or do you want government to control all sectors, all industries, to make sure that everybody can afford everything and nobody burdens the system. Maybe you should try thinking before posting.
An idiotic comparison. Drugs are a product, sold in the market at a price determined by cost, demand, and competition. Drug companies are publicly owned, and they have no responsibility to anyone but their shareholders. Contrary to what is commonly claimed, health is a commodity, and we purchase our health as we purchase shoes, food and shelter. Prices are and should be set at what the market will bear.
Well, somebody must have access to the Vogue financial information, and it must look like a positive acquisition for JNJ, if the morning performance is in response to the announcement. JNJ does a great job of bolting on acquisitions, letting them maintain their individual culture and continue to do well what made them a desirable target. Don't know why other businesses haven't figured out how to do it the same way. I was at Glaxo through the Glaxo-Wellcome and GSK acquisitions/mergers, and the process was toxic, the outcomes disruptive and destructive. JNJ has a better way.
I've searched for financial information about Vogue, can't find anything. I know it was privately held--at least until Carlyle Group bought in--but there must be something about sales, earnings, debt, somewhere. Anybody found a source? I'm just curious to see what we're getting for $3B.
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.