LifeLock has been sued more than 80 times ..show me another company with that many lawsuits...
FYI- over the past three months, insiders have sold 4.45 million shares (with no purchases).
Even the insiders think the stock is overvalued.
Another reason why LifeLock is not a value investment is that it has some serious legal problems. In 2010 the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, ordered LifeLock to pay $11 million to 35 state attorney generals. The attorney generals had alleged LifeLock made false claims to sell its services.
"The FTC's complaint charged that the fraud alerts that LifeLock placed on customers' credit files protected only against certain forms of identity theft and gave them no protection against the misuse of existing accounts, the most common type of identity theft," an FTC press release stated.
The Courthouse News Service reported in March 2014 that LifeLock has been sued more than 80 times in recent years. The suits include a securities fraud class action brought by shareholders that charged the company was not complying with the FTC order.
Former Executive Makes Serious Charges against LifeLock
Another lawsuit brought by LifeLock's former chief information security officer Michael Peters makes even more serious allegations against the company. Business Insurance reported that Peters is alleging he was fired to conceal the results of a risk assessment he had made of LifeLock's data protection systems.
The assessment revealed that LifeLock was only doing 27% of the minimum intrusion prevention, encryption, data leakage prevention, and other security measures needed to protect customers' data, Peters alleged. Peters also claims that LifeLock's Chief Financial Officer Chris Powers and Chief Information Officer Rich Stebbins ignored his risk assessment and manufactured a reason to fire him. He claims his firing violated federal laws, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Consumer Protection Act.
"Mr. Peters concluded that millions of customers were at risk given the data LifeLock possesses and was incapable of protecting," the lawsuit complaint in Peters v. LifeLock Inc. et al. filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix on March 20, 2014, alleges.
I never said that stock splits alone makes the stock goes up. I said the chances of the CVS doubling at $50 is a lot higher than the chances of it doubling at $100 and if it does double (post split) then you have twice as many shares. I see no downside to for the retail investor like me for CVS doing a split at the current price. The last 2 splits have been very successful.
"We are disappointed by the failure of QuantX to meet its contractual obligations. Since our inception, QuantX has been a valuable and important relationship that helped accelerate the growth of our client base as well as our understanding of the intricate workflows between managed account platforms and single-manager hedge funds," said Brian Storms, CEO of Liquid Holdings Group. "QuantX accounts for a significant portion of our revenue." For the quarter that ended September 30, 2014, QuantX accounted for 61% of Liquid's software services revenue, while managers to whom QuantX allocated investment capital represented an additional 34% of software services revenue. Liquid expects that there will be no interruption of services to the managers having a QuantX allocation, though no assurance can be given that they will continue as our customers. -
They reiterated a Perform rating on the stock and said they think the stock is range-bound.”
Again I wouldn't ' even consider CVS for dividend income. There are stocks out there that pay a WAY better yield than CVS You also have to remember that AAPL paid $2.9 billion in dividends this year which beat out Exxon Mobile. . INTC Dividend Yield was at 2.7%...you should consider those for dividend income
To me CVS' dividend is so measly it's not even worth my attention. I only care about the stock appreciation which in this case CVS has been a huge winner.
Director William G. Lowrie bought 5,000 shares of WPX Energy stock in a transaction dated Monday, December 15th. The shares were purchased at an average price of $10.35 per share, for a total transaction of $51,750.00. Following the completion of the purchase, the director now directly owns 155,325 shares in the company, valued at approximately $1,607,614.
After Apple's Stock Split, Price To Watch Is Now $100
What a difference a month and a half makes.
In April, Apple announced it would undergo a 7-to-1 stock split that would bring its share price down from the stratosphere. But that’s not all that’s changed. On Monday, after the price dropped 85% in the split, Apple shares are not only more accessible than before — they’re also more attractive.
Leading up to the announcement on April 23, Apple shares were down 6.5% on the year. Since then, the stock has rallied to heights not seen since 2012. Why? Part of it may be the stock split, which makes shares potentially look more attractive to retail investors. It also opens up a chance for Apple to be added to the prestigious Dow Jones Industrial Average, something that would have been impossible at prices exceeding $600 per share.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Apple's hottest product this week might end up being its own stock
The tech company's seven-for-one stock split officially went into effect Monday, making shares of the tech giant more accessible to the little guy. The stock currently trades around $94, significantly down from Friday's closing of $645.57.
CNNMoney asked readers if they plan to buy Apple (AAPL, Tech30) at its lower price. We received over 220 responses with the vast majority enthusiastic about purchasing shares for the first time or adding to their stake.
Trading of the tech stock is slightly heavier today, although many people say they intend to buy shares throughout the week.
Related: Apple just got a lot cheaper
Here's a sample of what everyday investors are saying about the iSplit:
Sandra Samuels (Winston-Salem, North Carolina): The 74-year-old didn't waste any time snapping up Apple shares after the split. She bought 300 shares Monday, which was on top of the 700 she already owned (she had 100 shares before the split).
"Everyone in my family owns at least one Apple thing," says Sandra.
When asked about the criticism that Apple hasn't rolled out any big game changing products in recent years, Sandra would hear nothing of it.
"I don't listen to anybody on Wall Street. I'm 74 years old, so I've been around a lot longer than they have," she declares.
She's not selling Apple any time soon, if ever.
"When my husband was still alive, we decided to buy and hold. Now that he's gone, we manage it the same way," she says.
Rich Stauffer (White Plains, New York): Rich, a retail general manager, has been an Apple shareholder for the last four or five years. He first purchased shares at around $238 each, and he plans to buy more now that the split has occurred.
"Although the split is purely psychological as the value of the shares remain unchanged, I believe it becomes more affordable to the average investor who would like to invest in the company," he says.
While he acknowledges the Apple skepticism, Rich believes the company will continue to innovate.
"As long as they continue that process, they're definitely going to grow," he claims.