gillie, if you use the Jan figures for WFC, you get a very misleading result. There was a brief period when it fell by more than 50%, compared with Dec or Feb. I was looking at the 5-year Yahoo chart when I made my comments. That shows July 2009 to present, with WFC increasing from $28.75 to $51.60, while RF increased from $4.93 to $10.36. That's a 179% increase for WFC versus 210% for RF. If you go back to Jan, the numbers for RF don't change much, but WFC starts at about $14, yielding a 368% increase. But, like I said, it's a misleading calculation because it was only briefly at that price. Is that what you were getting at?
No, no, ssshhhh, it's alright, nothing to be concerned about. The market will go up forever, and corrections don't happen. They're just trying to scare you, it's all a big conspiracy. Keep repeating the mantra of the board: no correction coming, stocks rising forever, this is a perfect time to buy - buy - buy - ssshhhh, just ignore what they're saying.
BBT, STI, WFC are valid comparisons for RF. Take a look at their performance since 2009, and you'll see that RF has done better, or much better, than all of them. I don't know what business you're an expert in, but "taking this long" to bring share price back to pre-crisis levels is absolutely normal for the sector. And I can't imagine why you thought RF stock was particularly "safe" for your retirement plan. If you have 10-15 years to wait until retirement, holding is a reasonable thing to do. But I really think you need to have a professional provide guidance for your investments. I suggest you visit the Fidelity office nearest you and let them take over. You really don't have a firm grip on the information needed to make good long-term decisions.
So you bought in 1996? Or 2000? Or 2008? If you bought in 1996 or 2000, you could have sold for a nifty 75% capital gain a couple of years later, after collecting a very nice dividend. That would have been a good move. Were you greedy? Or inattentive? What was your plan? If you bought in 2008, you were trying to be cute and catch a falling knife. Did you forget to put a stop-loss sell order in, to limit your loss to, say 15%? That would have been a good move. The current situation, over the last 6 years, has been the result of a much bigger picture, and RF management has done an exceptional job of restoring the bank's fundamentals. You should stop blaming others for your poor investment decisions and practices. And what is the meaning of: "When is this firm going hire get on a program" This bank is not a joke, but your post is sort of funny.
I think we're probably wasting our time pointing out the obvious. I've decided to take a long leave of absence from posting on the Internet, there being no evidence to suggest that posting has made a difference. Good luck to you.
Well, if HHI stands for Hilton Head Island, you might want to take a longer range view than just the daily tides. A search on HHI and sea level rise produces a torrent of studies, all saying pretty much the same thing: HHI land subsiding, ocean level rising, most ocean front under water in next 50-90 years. Here's an example: "Hilton Head Island, South Carolina is highly vulnerable to land loss from sea level rise and accelerated rates of shoreline erosion due to its low average elevation, low slopes, high tidal fluctuations, and exposure to seasonal storms. The island is a centerpiece of the South Carolina beach-based tourism industry which stands to suffer significant losses to infrastructure and ecosystems unless long-term adaptive planning is implemented. " At some point, there will be recognition of what is coming, and the value of those properties will plummet, long before they wash into the ocean. So, no, not because of tides rising and falling, but yes, persistent sea level rise would be a reason to sell.
So, if somebody on this board responded that "RF will beat earnings estimates by 2-cents, because they have found a way to increase foreclosure cost paydowns, by neutralizing the middle market" you would do what? Buy some RF? Point being, if you don't know enough to gather your own information and make your own decisions, you don't know enough to figure out whether the poster is "in tune" with the stock or in loony toons with the stock. You have a good day too. Oh, and it's "insight" not "insite."
Why do you keep asking message boards this question? It's so easy to find commentary on earnings, like this one from Zacks: "The combination of Regions’ Zacks Rank #3 and ESP of +4.76% make us confident of an earnings beat on Jul 22. " Do your homework.
Comparing a dividend yield with your other examples makes no sense. Comparing PEs across sectors makes no sense. JNJs dividend yield within the pharma sector is just average, several others are higher and also growing. JNJs PE within the pharma sector, and within its own historical valuations, is not low. If you think that use of slang makes you a good communicator, by all means keep it up. I never take financial advice from, or give credibility to opinions offered by, anybody who uses poorly defined terms or who can't spell words relevant to the discussion. But, it's just a message board, and you're entitled to post whatever you choose. Sorry if you feel my response diminished your message.
Are you referring to the price fall on Thursday? The one that saw the entire market sell off because pro-Russian rebels shot down an airliner? Do you give any consideration to the US and world economic picture in assessing RF performance? Or do you just blame everything on your conspiracy theory? On that note, if you've seen this so many times, seems like you would have learned how to game the system. Just take a position, hold until there are three positive articles, and then dump your position before "they" can dump "their" position. Dump before the dumpers. Then you can write a book about your system and be famous
Sorry to burst your conspiracy shorts bubble, but I'm long for years and holding. Sky's not falling, but JNJ share price is, along with the rest of the market. It won't go to $40, but it's not finished going down. It would be a Buy at $85, but not much before that. You want more at $100? You can probably find someone to sell it to you.
Good call, we'll get an under $90 chance to buy next week. Maybe $85 the week after. It's going down along with the rest of the market.
There is so much bad news, unrest, very high potential for Middle East/Eastern Europe all-out war, I'm thinking cash is a great place to be for a while. Wish I'd thought of it a week ago. I don't think this is a temporary situation, think you'll have much better buying opportunities in coming weeks or months.
The PE is not low, it's close to its average upper level for JNJ, and it's in line with its peers. The dividenD (note spelling) is solid but not great, also in line with peers or a bit low. Earnings are solid. It's fairly valued, no reason for it to break upward anytime soon. Behavior in the market is being driven by sellers, not buyers.
7-10% annual growth is not a sustainable rate. At 10% growth, the share price doubles every 7 years, meaning that from today's price, JNJ shares would be at $840/share by 2035. And $1680 by 2042. $3360 by 2049. Not going to happen, can't happen, can't happen for any large company. How could JNJ double its earnings every 7 years? I would be more comfortable predicting growth slightly greater than the rate of inflation, something on the order of 3-4%, doubling every 18-23 years.
Since June of 2012, JNJ share price has risen 70%. The conservative earnings growth forecast signals that steep rate of increase will not be sustained. JNJ will remain a solid income stock, and will continue to grow in proportion to its earnings. But, it will not continue to be an aggressive growth stock. For growth investors, the JNJ party is over, and they will be rotating out of it and into something else. I bought it based on value and income, and I'll hold on the same basis. Maybe the party isn't over. But the band has quit playing, and the bar has called last round. You can stay, but it's going to be quiet and boring.
Standard & Poors has a 12-month target price of $13. That's not for year's end, but for a year from now, but if it's a progressive rise to that level, something north of $12 by year's end would be expected. I still think it's all about dividend and yield. In today's income-driven investment climate, it takes a 3-3.5% yield to qualify. Long way to go.
No, used to raise chickens, and got the nickname at work when somebody said "Go ask the chickenguy." I agree that the otc product values can be accurately determined. But that's not where the assets growth is occurring, because they aren't increasing in value. The growth in assets, and resultant growth in stockholder equity, is from either the pipeline portfolio or increased real property. I'll take a look at CALM, but am primarily an income investor - getting too old to keep a close eye on gyrating stock prices.
I agree with your conclusions, but I wouldn't have chosen stockholder equity as the metric to justify the analysis. In the assets - debits calculation, for a pharma company the debits are pretty clear, the money owed on borrowings. But pharma assets are much more complex to assign value. Apart from physical assets - land, buildings, equipment - the calculation requires assigning a dollar value to such things as patents, drugs in the market, compounds in development, maybe even "good will," whatever that means, and this calculation is based on numerous assumptions. In the case of JNJ, the rise in stockholder equity over the past several years has been entirely on the asset side, with debits staying constant or falling a little. So, while I'm sure the calculations are made according to the best accounting standards of conduct, it's not a metric that I find particularly compelling.