I asked about this a while back, got hammered, but got good information. The current P/E reflects the $1.64B breakup fee paid to Shire. If you look at key statistics, you'll see that the forward P/E, which will not be affected by that fee, is only 13.6, very reasonable.
Do you guys still read his posts? Whatever he said, I think it was directed at my post, not Ochs. I have him on IGNORE and haven't read any of his posts for months. I can just barely see his name - all faded - with the note "Post hidden because you ignored this user" A truly fine feature of the board.
Almost back to Wed/Thurs highs. Glad to see it open up, suggests oversold yesterday. Maybe it will stabilize around this level.
I hold 4 bank stocks, RF, JPM and two big Canadian banks, and all were down today. RF was the most decidedly down, but all were moving that way. RF does seem to have a pretty firmly established trading range, and earnings and dividend increases are the only way out.
That's okay, taking a break, several good days in a row, RF deserves a rest. Just hope we can hold above $10 for a while, gather support for a push sometime in the fall.
Sadly, no, that won't happen. Those posts are robotic, doesn't matter what the stock is doing, just get the spam on the boards. This board is far from the worst. If you want to see how bad boards can get, between spam, politics and religion, visit GE or XOM. Seldom see even a single relevant post. There's probably a reason why Yahoo has no competition in the stock market message board service.
I worked at G/GW/SK for about 20 years. Your phrase "GSK strategy" is an oxymoron. Strategic thinking, strategic planning, strategic execution have never been a company strength.
And I just saw an article raising the possibility that GSK may scrap the special dividend idea and use the money for other purposes.
Well, maybe today is the beginning. Traders are worried about earnings. About time. Ten more days like this one, bring the market back to a more sustainable level.
How much of the RF rise do you think is due to the $7.5M decision? That had to remove some uncertainty, and it's a relatively small amount of money.
I'm no expert on these matters, but my understanding is that the government can't block outright a takeover of this sort. They can try to ensure that some number of jobs will be retained, but bottom line is that it's a publicly owned company. If management and shareholders agree to price, it will be sold. Just my opinion, would like to hear from anybody with real knowledge.
There is talk of such a deal. Used to work for Glaxo, retired when SK took over and created the most intensively micromanaged work environment imaginable. Don't know anything about the PFE culture, but it's almost certain to clash with GSK. It will be a rocky road ahead if it happens. But it does make sense from the PFE side.
An interesting article can be found by searching on "jeffrey rothfeder washington post." It's titled "The great unraveling of globalization" and it's highly relevant to the situation in which PG finds itself. About 60% of PG sales are outside the US, a level that may not be sustainable in light of what is taking place in the world marketplace. In an earlier post, puddintane criticized as a "sign of desperation" PG management forecasting of finances relative to "constant currency core results." I'd like to ask how else a company with 60% of its sales being made in currencies other than the US$ could possible be stated. The PG management has NO control over currency values, and thus NO control over the dollar value of non-US sales. PG is not directly mentioned in the Rothfeder article, but the downsizing and refocusing on core brands are consistent with how other international companies are reacting. Rather than posting mindless cheap shots at PG management, shareholders might want to try to develop an understanding of the challenges the company faces.
Good post, I appreciate your insight into this company and the sector. Do you think PG would ever consider - and would shareholders benefit from - splitting the company into 3-4 smaller companies, along the already established division fault lines? I hold PFE, and it has been setting itself up to do that for the past couple of years, and most analysts are positive, the comment being that it "unlocks shareholder value." As large as PG has become, it could divide into 3-4 companies that would still be among the largest market caps in the sector. Glad to see the nice little recovery today.
You are definitely correct about this, but I can't find any reason whatsoever for a shareholder to care about the influence of JNJ on the Dow. What possible difference does it make? And, since you've made the same error twice, it's "lessen" not "lesson" JNJ's influence. Comments such as "Get a clue" and "Rookie" don't add any authority to your posts. Do you get some thrill out of being rude?
While you're correct that PG has underperformed KMB and CLX over those time periods, there are several points you might want to consider if planning to start a position. First, compare the amount of cash on hand. PG is in a position to make substantial acquisitions of companies or product lines, or to carry out a buy-back. Second, compare the LTD/capital figures. Both KMB and CLX carry debt burdens 2-3 times that of PG. Should opportunities arise that require financing, PG is in a good position to take on additional debt as needed. For me, bottom line is that going forward PG is the consumer goods company of choice. The dividend pays a good part of my household products costs, and I'm satisfied with the yield. I'm holding long term.
I'm new to the T board, so previously unaware of treward. Don't think I've ever seen a poster be so wrong about so many things in such a short period of time. Is he trying to be funny?