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.