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.