Did a write up about BofA on my blog. Would appreciate any visits or comments you all could throw my way.
p.s. don't have a position in BAC
Citigroup is continuing to sponsor the rose bowl despite having received huge amounts of bailout dollars and having negative earnings.
My wife took a modest postions in Nokia last week.
Thought you all might be interested in her rationale.
Here is a bloomberg news clip thats relevant for PVX.
If you get a chance feel free to visit my blog as well, I am long about 900 shares PVX.
I might add a bit, but frankly, in this industry I don't want to overly concentrated in one stock. At this point I'm looking at more conservative investments for my monthly income.
Right now I like VBMFX, its only got a 5% yield, but its a bit more solid than the energy sector right now.
You are the only one discussing race here.
By the way, the chairman of the GOP, Michael Steel is an African American.
Under Clinton the SEC went after about 69 major cases of fraud a year. Under Bush II they went after..maybe 7.
The Madoff scandal has strongly indicated that the SEC is throughly captured by big business interests.
Good call on AAV. Your views have unfortunatly been bore out regarding this trust.
If you don't mind my asking, what other high yield stocks do you like? Anything outside of the energy industry? Anything really innovative or profit powerhouses you'd point us to?
Yo, I'll second that. I'm long about 3000 shares and would like to know when the price will be recovering.
It may be time for shareholder action.
You know what I'd like to see...an interview with the former CFO, the one who was just let go, to get his take on the situation.
PETA is planning an anti-McDonalds PR campaign next week.
More info on our blog:
I do not have a position in MCD.
Don't know how many of you saw this, but I came across a posting about UMPQ's taking the TARP money. Check it out:
Does anyone know if AAV's senior management is planning on doing a share buyback or any other action to take advantage of the very low unit price?
Just to add some context to this debate.
Here is the wikipedia entry on shareholder rights plans.
The operant text is:
"Effects on shareholders
The goal of a shareholder rights plan is to force a bidder to negotiate with management. The effects are twofold:
Positive effect: it gives management time to find competing offers that maximizes selling price.
Negative effect: it discourages takeovers, potentially preventing inefficient management from being replaced (hence reducing shareholders' stock value)."
Again, why build in a poison pill if you aren't worried about a takeover?
Me and my 2,750 shares are voting NO on this bad boy at the meeting.
Yeah, I hate to say it, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the current management. I've watched this stock from from 14 to 4 dollars a share - granted there were things the company could not control, oil prices, etc. etc. - but fundamentally there are problems with how the company is run.
I therefor do not buy the state explanation that there is NOT a buyout offer. If there was no offer or no offer immediately expected, why else would they care? Nobody has anwered this question to my satisfaction.