So your investment system involves shorting stocks based on the price you predict for 10 YEARS out? Please, get back to us in 2024 and let us know how that's worked for you. No need to post before then.
So it beats on revenues and raises forecast and goes down almost 4%. Hate to see what happens when it misses.
There are 19 positions in my portfolio, and every one is at 90-95% of its 12-month high, which in most every case is also its forever high. They are also providing an average dividend yield of just over 3%, and those dividends are well covered in all cases. And even though income is my primary goal, I find myself not wanting to hold and suffer through another major market downturn - been there, done that, twice. Might not live long enough to see a recovery. No, there's no real point to this post - just thinking out loud. Good returns to all.
Congratulations on your choice to reinvest dividends. It's one of the simplest ways I know to build wealth. Start with companies with a long history of increasing dividends, and just stay out of their way. Have you done the same thing with any other companies?
Wow, 15 thumbs down and not one has anything to say. Guess you hit a couple of nerves by pointing out the obvious. Can't see anything in your post that anybody could disagree with, so it just must be a combination of jealousy and stupidity. Congratulations on sticking to a good strategy for building wealth. I've held JNJ for many years, never considered selling a share, won't ever consider selling a share, and the dividends cover most of our health care costs. Our XOM shares cover our gas and oil, and an array of pale-blue utilities cover the electric bill. T for the phone and so forth. It's all about dividends in my portfolio.
It's interesting that this post got 7 thumbs-down, but NOBODY tried refute the analysis. JNJ seems to have an abundance of investor/posters who don't want to be bothered by factual analysis or simple arithmetic. And as for the tired argument that lower price brings more buyers which increases price - individual investors hold only a tiny fraction of shares of this or any other blue-chip stock. Institutional holdings totally drown out any effect of 100-shares-at-a-time small investors. And institutional holdings don't make decisions to buy or sell based on whether share price is $20 or $200. Splits have no real effect on stock performance.
I've not seen anybody posting here who is actually opposed to a timely split. What I'm opposed to is the mindless raving about the supposed benefits and the claims that doubling the number of shares that small investors can buy will somehow drive the share price up. As I posted a couple of days ago, I'd be happy to wait until the price reaches $400, followed by a 4-to-1 split bringing it back to $100. Not anti-split at all, just in touch with reality and opposed to baseless claims of benefit. I would be interested to see your example of an investor who benefited from a split. That is, ended up with a profit that would not have been generated without the split. Hard experiment to run, but I'm counting on you.
sistermaryalice asked what the price of JNJ would be if it had never split. Yahoo only goes back to 1970, but since then there've been two 3x1 splits and four 2x1 splits, which means that1 share prior to the first split would now be 144 shares. Multiplying today's price by 144 brings us to about $15,000 per share, all other things being equal and never splitting. And, as she points out, that would make JNJ for most of us a rather difficult stock to trade. I'm not a big fan of splits, have no problem with stocks trading in the $100-$200 range, but I would have a problem with stocks trading in the $15,000 range. Just wish I'd bought 10 shares in 1970 and held them.
No, dividends are taxed at a maximum of 15%, not as regular income. And through a DRIP you can compound dividends. You're a good example of why nobody should rely on a Yahoo board for investment information.
I'd be really surprised if the institutional holders of RF shares didn't already have this information. It doesn't sound like a new development. So, I'm thinking that if it's a problem, it's already been factored into the price.
I agree that it's a great acquisition, may take longer than 2 years to realize the benefits, but as a long term strategic move, it's brilliant. You're wasting your time trying to reason with the deniers on the message board, but it's heartening to see another poster who is able to think through the arguments for the deal and reach the only logical conclusion. Hope the negotiations wrap up this week. Mega-deals are going to continue for the near future. I also hold T, and it is making a similar sort of move. Exciting times.
I'll probably regret asking, but could you tell us how a stock split would make a buyout easier? That's easily the silliest claim in recent board history.
Under the NEWS link, you'll find "Regions Financial Corporation Increases Quarterly Common Stock Dividend to $0.05 Per Share and Announces $350 Million Common Stock Repurchase Program."
You'll find the board a much quieter, and saner, place to visit. When I log in, the ignored posts appear briefly, then drop out of sight, and I smile as they go.
Immunotherapy for cancer is not a question of "one" but of an array of treatments. This collaboration is a long term strategic approach to establish a position in the therapeutic approach that will dominate the cancer field for the next several decades. And, even if that were not the case, and a sufficient rationale for the investment, why would it be possible to purchase any significant cancer treatment "for a song?" As a shareholder for some 20-years I'm certain that JNJ knows what it is doing. And I'm also certain that you have no expertise whatsoever in this or any other therapeutic area. Would you care to discuss this in more detail?
I can't find any correlation between TNX and RF. Pulling up the Yahoo 5-year graph of TNX and comparing with RF, since late 2011 the TNX has been almost flat, but RF has risen steadily and strongly. Looking at them longer term, there is no correlation whatsoever. There is no statistical basis for your argument.
He's right, the market is going to fall. But for income investors like me, the sell and get out advice may not be the best choice. If you look at the DOW chart, on MAX years, you see three distinct peaks, in 2000, 2007, and now in 2014. The 2000 and 2007 peaks were followed by severe lows 2-3 years later. Unless you are an incurable optimist - not the best mind-set for an investor - you would anticipate seeing the DOW around 12,000 by 2016-2017. And, you would decide now how to deal with that. There are several strategies, depending on your age, financial goals, financial situation - no one size fits all solution. So, yes, the market IS going to fall - it has always done so at some point - and it will do so again. Deal with it. And please find something more original than "Chicken little" to use in responding. GLTA, chickenguy.
Each time I open the RF board, I watch the IGNORED posters pop up, then fade away. I've been so efficient and persistent, presently there are only three posts on my version of the board, two of yours and one from fsbsgillie. There used to be a good group posting here, a pleasant place to visit. Maybe the three of us should buy a virtual bottle of good whiskey, to be virtually drunk by the last man standing. Wow, I'm definitely spending too much time on the internet.
Actually, you're wrong also, it's 6 pennies, from $0.63 to $0.69. So, you're closer, but you still fail basic arithmetic. And there's nothing lousy about a 10% increase.
I keep my IGNORE button busy, and I don't see any of it. That doesn't leave much activity on the board, but at least I'm not seeing pointless junk. Or that MBA creep.