In some areas north of LA they only have water from local sources, captured surface water and wells. These people face a true supply issue. In San Diego county the users have secured supplies from several sources and we even are bringing a desalinization plant on line this fall. The water from it is also going to be pumped into storage. Jack #$%$ Gerry is a true believer that people use too many resources and that he should determine the appropriate use of resources for everyone. The pig has a Hitler complex and he is just as demented. His friends however can consume all they want because, well you know, they're important.
The greens are watermelons: green on the outside and red on the inside.
With Sempra's planned split of the gas assets into a MLP, think it's to late. Getting something along these lines through the communist California government would probably be impossible.
The MLP division is probably fully occupying the time everyone at Sempra has these days. I like mergers that increase the company's stability, but things can go very wrong even when people are careful as happened when they bought the gas company. I think most utility investors will pass on more profits of they increase the risk of principle lost.
I think interest rates will be low for years to come, so good dividend paying stocks will command decent prices for the a long time.
You don't understand. It is very important that the elites have all the things that the modern world provides. After all they are the caretakers of the planet protecting it from us worthless masses.
Check out U N Agenda 21. Then see the language that is used in all the rules that are coming out these days.
In San Diego county there is adequate water to supply all the needs this Summer. Water that has been bought by the customers is being diverted to storage. The government has identified users that are using too much to be sustainable and drastically cutting the amount they can use even while the water us being pumped into storage. This is the deliberate destruction of property by the government to force a change in people's lifestyles. The legal way to achieve this is to pay these people for their property, (plantings, landscape). These people should bring suit for damages.
The water is just another dimension of the plan to reduce consumption to levels that some nameless faceless group declares appropriate. The only way to achieve this is to reduce the material standard of living of the American people.
The buying of support through welfare programs gives them a strong base. These dependent people say I don't have it, why should he.
If there really is an issue, the elites need to give up their planes, yachts, estates. social affairs, and all the things that consume in large amounts. This is about control. It is not about the environment.
You seem plugged into Sempra's future paths. Are they going to spin out some of the MLP to current SRE owners, or are they going to get cash? If the get cash will they use it to reduce the debt load or throw a special dividend to SRE holders. Most of the debt seems associated with the things that will go into the MLP. If they do this the cash return from the MLP could be very good I don't see how they could possibly use cash from the MLP to pay debt from the regulated side. I only have one other MLP and the tax rules for it are not as simple as for stocks, but I really like the high cash on cash return. The only problem I see with them holding the MLP is the communist governor and the left bureaucrats in this state may argue that the income from the MLP should be used to reduce the rates for the customers in the regulated businesses.
Sempra is going to split out the gas assets. It appears we will have the old utility, and a new separate entity dealing with the far flung investments. This may be a better approach than simply splitting the stock when it comes to dealing with the regulators. This red state thinks the profits from the activities of the non - utility operations should subsidize the utility customers.
I don't see a reason for a drop and I don't see a reason for it to go up. The earnings can support a decent dividend and they have time to get back on a growth path with one or both of the future pieces.
The big returns in the stock have already been made more than a triple off the low. Unless they have something under wraps there is no new product that can cause a rapid sales and profit increase. Investors looking for that should look elsewhere. A lot of decent companies muddle through periods, then return to good performance. HP has the chance to do this because so much damage was done by the 3 previous pigs at the top that it may be able to find it's footing now starting from the lower base.
3M is a perfect example of a company with useful bland products that makes a lot of money. HP can move into that class of company. They may have some fireworks, but the memistor should have been the technology that would kick it off. So far this appears to be vapor ware. Management loses credibility when they say something is coming and it doesn't show up.
Good luck to you in your investing, but I think HP is just going to muddle. I never was a good stock trader. Slow steady increments in identified good companies has worked reasonably well for me.
I doubt $50 is in the cards. If you want to get 5-10 % gains you might be able to trade over short terms, but with so much uncertainty in global economies this is really risky. You might have to hold it a long time for it to break even.
The EPS would indicate a higher price should be supported, but the continuing drop in revenue shows the underlying changes away from HP products haven't reached their equilibrium levels. The company makes so much profit percentage on printing that until declines there stop the floor hasn't been found.
When the split happens enterprise will not be able to rely in the cash flow from printing and that side of the split is very likely to have a very difficult time. The most reasonable ratios for the new stocks are 1 share in each new company for 2 held in HPQ. Any other approach and the per share price in the new will be too low.
I hope you're right, but I don't see how.
I'm not concerned about price action. I invest in companies that I believe will provide a reasonable income stream without excessive risk. I do favor a split for the reasons below though.
I do, however, think lower cost per share from a stock split is useful. This would help defuse some of the anti-business sentiment that runs rampant these days. We investors are concerned with getting a favorable return on our investments. There are millions of people who have been caught in the shift in compensation for their work caused by the globalization of business. These people feel cheated and they have a stick it to the more affluent people attitude. High stock prices on companies that supply basic things in the society add to this resentment. High stock prices on providers of non-necessities are lauded. When do you ever hear that Apple or Google or Netflix are charging to much for their products? Yet the ISPs and the telecoms are constant targets of claims of excessive prices. Medical solution providers face the same issues.
The fact is fixed infrastructure has to be built and maintained. Investors in companies who provide these essential things should be rewarded. The fact is the resentment is real, and ways to deal with it is one of the problems the management must address.
This is ideal. I think most of us think solar is good for those who choose it. The problem we have is that the utility is essentially supplying the people who put in solar with the reserve power for their instantaneous peak use and the power for when their systems cannot produce power. The cost of maintaining the infrastructure to do this is subsidized by the other customers.
If people go sola,r they need to go completely and get off the grid. If they stay on the grid they need to pay their fair share of maintaining the system. Current rules and technology do not provide this.
Anyone who opposes these concepts is just trying to get someone else to subsidize their power usage.
Hey sandia,, get a grasp of reality. You're green on the outside and red on the inside. You, your buddies in the White House, and that stroke Gerry in Sacramento are all the same. You arrogant pig quit trying to compel people to live according to your beliefs.
If you want something to worry about, take a look at the precipitation pattern in the southwest corner of the U. S. If this continues, 50 years from now the cities of Phoenix, Las Vegas, and the mega strip from TJ to Oxnard will be uninhabitable If you don't believe that can happen, take a look at the abandon Mesa Verde, and Salt River areas.
Shut your mouth, and get your shovel. You and your red buddies can finally have employment that fits your skill level: Moving dirt with a shovel. Start bringing water from the north east to the southwest or in 50 years we'll be more than happy to give area to La Raza. You'll fit right in with them.
Check some numbers. Californians use about 30 times more electrical energy per capita than Costa Ricans. So be my guest and shut off your lights, stay home from your job, don't use heat or air conditioning a tv, a radio, a computer, or any electric appliance. Don't use medical offices or operating rooms, don't use any of the things electric power makes possible. After you do this a few years, get back to me and let know how your life is. I live in a modern world with modern conveniences. I'm not about to give these up because someone else thinks he should be telling me what I need and how to live.
Your posts are either written by self serving as a solar profiteer, or those of an uneducated green passion person. I can't tell which, but you need to do some analysis.
Before you go around saying you have a panacea, do some evaluation. The inconvenient truth is that the electricity is an always on, on demand commodity. None of the solar advocates address this. When you come up with a scheme that fulfills this requirement, get back to us.
The best I can see is that the monthly charge for being attached to the grid should be increased for all users, and the power cost should reflect the energy actually used or produced. This will significantly reduce the long term ROI of solar. If you have another way to address the always on, on demand issue please present it.
Somebody has to pay for the support of the grid and non solar generated energy that is required, which currently is the only way I see to meet the always on, on demand requirement.
I think Hanes is a long term hold. The principal business is in items which continually need to be replaced. So the market is always there. Under Armor has the current fashion styles, but these change, although usually slowly as seen with Nike's dominance in shoes. I can never predict shorter term movements, but my past experience is usually a drop shortly after a stock splits then rising price again as long as the business fundamentals support it. Good luck.
You have no idea how companies work. There are several factors, but cash flow and expected future cash flow are primary considerations.
I do agree that mutual funds are generally not a good way to invest, but dividends from dividends are not a problem compared with payouts from the mutual fund from capital gains. In tax deferred or advantaged account this is not as much of a problem. However, the expense costs of mutual funds really cripple total accumulated returns over long periods. These would be acceptable if mutual funds actively and successfully managed money, but they don't. Read any prospectus and it will tell you the fund is required to be invested with 90% + of its money at all times. Investors are paying for what over time will probably produce less than market average returns. If mutual funds are the chosen method, index ETFs offer the best apparent approach.
There is no place other than the market now for investors to get the cash flow to provide for their needs. The policies of the government and the Federal Reserve make it impossible for people who normally would use savings types of accounts to provide cash for living expenses. These policies are like making a patient take a potentially fatal drug to combat cancer.
Additionally, it is in the law that corporations must pay dividends from income above levels needed for certain uses. Buffet is a using a loophole in the law to essentially conduct what should be criminal action.
Not until it is at least 200. We would be better off if they didn't split it below 300. If the company continues to have good performance they need to up the dividend though. We have to wait almost a year from now until the next one. It should go up at least 30% unless something unforeseen damages earnings in the rest of the year. It's time to pay us long term share holders.
Don't merge. Wait until BP expenses from the Gulf disaster force them to sell assets. If crude prices stay low, this will be necessary. Then cherry pick the cream and let BP try to make money with what is left. Maybe they can even go BK. That would put an end to endless extortion BP is enduring at government hands. It was a terrible event and they should pay, but the government is just being abusive in the way they are dealing with this. That's what you get when a Marxist President whose favorite pastime is bashing corporations and other productive endeavors is calling the shots.
It's a factor that individual solar will affect the industry. There is a basic problem with this rendering local utilities obsolete. As more people shift to solar, the concrete cave dwellers, industries, a lot of infrastructure will still be dependent upon the utilities. They are going to pay a higher percentage of the cost associated with the system. Also electricity has to always work. A few years ago the San Diego area had a region wide black out. This was a disaster for people trying to get home from their jobs because all the traffic control was out. Reliability, always there on demand, supplies to people who cannot gather enough sun light for their electric needs will require non-solar electric sources. The best solution for this I can see is to up the meter charge to cover the basic infrastructure costs spread across all the users. Anyone plugged into the grid should pay a portion of the cost of running it. Roof top solar is part of the energy generation solution, however the distribution system needs to be maintained. It's always nice to think of the upside, but the law of unintended consequences comes into play over and over again.
The bigger risk for Sempra is how the natural gas investments perform.
Good luck to you with your investments. I hope we can both make money.
It was a little better than 3% in 2010. At that rate, we would be a little higher than $3/year. The high payouts associated with utilities usually go hand in hand with slow share price appreciation. Sempra's price appreciation appears more growth stock than dividend income utility. The company has huge capital expenses with the LNG, NG expansions. I don't have the latest costs from these developments, but they have to balance the debt load and the payout. Hopefully they can raise it to $3 +, but this large an increase might have to wait a cycle. Maybe they could do two increases in one year, six cents for the first two quarters, then another six for the second two quarters. At the end of that year, we would be about back to 2010 yield. The company is making huge investments in the NG area. If they deliver as planned, we should have a nice income stream for years, but this is already priced into the stock. They may have to wait until they actually start shipping the LNG to boost the dividend much.
This investment has delivered the cash income I chose it for years ago, and the price appreciation is very nice but of little real use to me since I bought the stock for the dividend, not share price appreciation. I think the price appreciation will not continue, and the share price will again only rise slowly from here. If I were good at understanding this stuff I'd have a lot of money, rather than being concerned about increases in dividends to give me more spending money. When I look back at all the stuff that has happened, the settlement costs for the gas, the SONGS problem, the electric price scams of early 2000s , the big renewable, green push by the California Government , the reversal in gas supplies in North America, it is amazing the company has done as well as it has.
GE's recent emphasis on producing oil field development products appears to be heading for hard times. I expect there will be significant profit reductions from these business segments. The earnings reduction may be more than a cent a share this quarter. Do other people feel this is significant to GE for this quarter and going forward?