" Eventually, they will have to go into debt to sustain the dividend, which is a lot more than double the eps."
You see, Earnings Reporter, this is what is called an apparent inaccurate statement made by you. The diluted earnings per share over the past 12 reported months are about $1.80. Anyone can look at the financials and calculate this. ($1.95-0.15 using their unaudited reports on their IR site). The dividend is $0.80.
But perhaps you would like to respond with more untrue quotes about me intentionally manufacturing someone's comments on a message board, and continue to avoid addressing cash or cash flow in your assertions that the company has to cut the dividend.
"You lied and still don't acknowledge the mistake, which means it was not a mistake -- it was a lie."
That's an elaborate conspiracy theory you have there. My response to your point advising what the poster said corrected the previous statement on the poster's self-described trading habits.
"Do you attack the longs when the stock is going up?"
You do know the stock has gone up today, right?
"There is a word for you on message boards: Troll."
Easy there, Earnings Reporter, if you want some credibility, why don't you post that the company had adjusted earnings last quarter, since you seem to keep forgetting to mention that in your "earnings" commentary about losses. Also, why don't you use cash flow information to justify your assertion that the dividend is unrealistic?
" I came after Cramer said to dump this stock."
The poster wants us to know they have shorted this since the 60s and now wants us to know that they are shorting successfully quantified sums of money at lunch. Any response to that can be labelled personal because the information is personal. But since you call yourself "Earnings Reporter - Newsflash! People comment on what other people post on message boards. And if someone says they have been short from the 60s to try to sound credible, they would have sounded even more credible if they were posting here since the 60s.
Okay, so you changed your story from: you've been short since $60 to you've been day-trading this at lunch for the past year. So you want us to believe that you have been day trading for the past year, and making what you call tons of money, and never commented on this board until the stock closed at around $34, and never lost money when the stock went from the 60s to the 70s. And never had anything to say then. And post negative comments about this stock when you have no position going into the day instead of posting them at lunch when you would want to see the stock go down. And that this stock magically goes down at lunch every day, and the computer algorithms that trade aren't smart enough to know that to beat day traders. Okay, yeah, what-ever!
Whatever you see does not necessarily represent everywhere. It looked like a 2 hour cab line up at the North Las Vegas Premium Outlet mall several weeks ago. Fashion show mall was the most crowded I've ever seen it. Finding a parking space at any mall in Toronto is tricky, even on weekday afternoons weeks ago.
"I just started watching Dexter for the first time. Finished the first season and part of the second."
The best seasons are 1, 2, and my favorite two episodes: the final episode of season 6 and first episode of season 7. You can probably skip everything in between, but I did get sucked in by Netflix when I could have been watching this on my cable subscription for years. That's what Netflix is doing right: letting people start from the beginning and binge watch on demand. I also find myself watching all the AMC stuff, prior to which I didn't even know I was already paying for AMC as part of my cable package.
RL would be a good combo, as RL is already in this space with Club Monaco. I'd add PVH to the list since they paid about $3 billion for Tommy Hilfiger, and I doubt Tommy was ever as popular as Abercrombie or Hollister anywhere. I'd also add Kering to the list because it would be a good way to get on the NYSE, and they already have a lifestyle division in addition to their luxury division. These are all *guesses*, shorts. I know some of you will get angry that someone on a message board may guess what companies would be interested in another company based on other company's profiles and history.
Yeah, it also seems you should be looking at cash flow statements before you suggest the small dividend on a low share count will be cut any time soon. As for a 5% to 6% dividend, you would need the stock to fall to levels below 2008 and 2009 lows.
Sorry to inform you but in 2008 the company had one overseas store in London. Now international is a significant part of its business. In 2008, the CEO refused to discount for some time, resulting in people shopping at the competition. They've learned the lesson they have to discount and have done so profitably. They also wrote off an entire chain in 2009, and still eeked out a tiny profit. Oh and in 2008-2009, everyone thought the entire financial system was going to collapse. They are writing off Gilly Hicks chain stores, but with none of the other factors going on right now, good luck at reaching the levels you predict!
I posted earlier I was talking about net income. My math indicates Yahoo is correct and *including charges*. $145.8 million net income for ANF over the past four quarters. If you take out the charges last quarter, my math indicates $201.9 adjusted income for ANF, which would be a trailing p/e of 12. Which is cheap for a company with high margins in many countries abroad. Of course, do your own math. But it sounds like you may need to research the difference between gross profit and net income. Especially since net income based on charges seems to be what you're basing your arguments on.
Let me help you out - ANF has a summary of their financials over quarters or years on their investors relations site. 157.2 mil - 7.2 mil +11.4 mil - 15.6 mil.
I didn't check the Amazon math because I don't own shares.
Again, I was looking at net income, not gross profit. And again, this was just for fun. I don't think the fact that Amazon has been unprofitable in recent memory is exactly a secret.
Yahoo is testing a new message board system. If you look at enough message boards, you'll probably find a blank one saying that and asking for your input.
Why are you talking about revenues? I was talking about Yahoo Finance trailing 12 month numbers on profits. In ANF's case, I'm going to assume they back out one time charges. And I posted this for fun, with the knowledge that Amazon is not very profitable despite all of that revenue.
And I'm happy you're using the name "earnings reporter" - maybe one of these days you will remember to report adjusted earnings. But it is good you are posting there are "mostly" shorts on this message board, because that must scientifically mean the company is in trouble and certainly mean all of these new IDs posting the same arguments are different people!
I know this is a meaningless comparison, but it is interesting. 145 mil vs. 132 mil, if the Yahoo Finance numbers are right.
What are you basing that point on? The Lone Ranger original trailer had less than 5,000 likes on YouTube vs. over 35,000 for the new Hunger Games movie. The Lone Ranger made $260 million worldwide, which actually puts it in the top 30 worldwide grossing movies of the year. A lower budget movie with those numbers and better reviews would have been viewed as a success.
And I'm seeing about 12,000 people liking the Wii U Community page on Facebook vs. 6.8 million for the original Wii. Your two examples don't seem to support your point, unless you have stats from somewhere else to back up what you said.
Yes Hiram, I agree with that being a problem with social media. I do believe watching what is going on is better than not keeping an eye on it. Then I try to guess whether what I see may be worth giving any weight to. I do know that at least one of the big internet companies cracks down on this type of manipulation. Also Engaged Capital used a graph of Facebook likes in their letter to Abercrombie's board, so maybe some big money pays attention to social media.
I was talking about Instagram likes of a photo posted this week and information of new store openings that are available on Facebook. So when 50,000 people like a picture on Instagram, that's a good number, if you compare it to other photos of teen retailers. Does it suggest the brand is out, as you've been posting? What is your research that says this is out again? Visiting stores in America and talking to some students?
At what price would I sell the stock? If my thesis changed, then I would sell it. If it moved up and I felt it was overvalued despite my thesis I would sell it.
And I don't think my comments were inappropriate about your "warning" given you said my comments were lame and I should get out of my hospital bed and visit a store. I've been in stores in multiple cities over the past few weeks. You should hop on an airplane with all the money you say you're making and take your class on a field trip to Asia or Europe and let us know if the four wall margins look like they're greater than 30% target abroad as the company has said.
While you tell us about your warnings about what you think will happen with this company, I'll prefer to look at what the people on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are telling me. Almost 50,000 people on Instagram like the pic of the new Hollister store opening in Japan this week? You must know that people in their 30s and older, with money, wear that brand there, because you've been doing so much research, right? And other new stores are opening in Europe and Asia that anyone can look at on Facebook. Yeah, it's not about "getting out," I'll be happy to buy more if your predictions hold true, which I doubt they will. I'd wager the company will buy more shares, too, as they have been doing throughout the global recession/recovery.