Those are among the most ignorant comments I have read on this board. You are not a person of significance in the running of any hedge fund.
if you own 100 shares of a stock @ $10/share the value is 100 x $10 = $1000. When that stock splits 2 for 1 you now have 200 shares worth $5 each. 200 x $5 = $1000. Your wealth has not increased. You just own twice as many shares. Stock splitting was once a useful tool for promoting the sale of stock. Brokers usually required purchases to be minimum of 100 shares, thus a higher stock price meant individuals needed a larger amount of money to buy 100 shares and could be discouraged by high prices. In today's discount brokerage environment you can buy any number of share you desire and invest with a relatively small amount of cash. The practice of stock splitting is becoming less common.
Silverhorseshoe, it really doesn't take much concentration to be long KNDI. A little indulgence of the shorts is of no harm, and most certainly has some entertainment value. Class and professionalism have are meaningless on these message boards where probably less than 5% of the posts are educational or offer a new perspective. Save the class act for the real world and have a little fun here.
beach, you make some interesting points, but you get a little carried away also. Do you really believe the US belonging to NATO is an act of benevolence? Do you really believe education in the U.S. is superior to that available in Europe? Maybe in certain University disciplines but certainly not in K-12. You're worried about tax deductions? Lower the tax rate and phase out deductions. Neat and efficient package if you ask me. I pay my taxes too, but I resent the way they are spent. One truth regarding U.S. politics. No matter how high the taxes, the debt will grow. There is a deep seated spending mania pervading Washington DC.
beach, I didn't mean gotcha as in I've got you, I meant I understand your point. When you try, you demonstrate useful insight and knowledge. It is when you come around with your nose in the air and quote unintelligibly that I have a problem with you. Thanks for your contribution to this thread
Yeah, it hit the high for the day about a minute before the close. Tomorrow it has a good chance of running higher.
There has been too much good news of late and only 4 weeks until earnings. I don't see much opportunity for a significant dip from this level.
Gotcha. So all those crying foul, that Walgreen would no longer be paying US taxes, and that an inversion would cost taxpayers $4 billion, are exaggerating the facts? Walgreens would continue to pay taxes on profits made operating 8000 drugstores in the U.S. , but their parent company could use loop-holes to avoid some of those taxes.
that (19%) would be consistent with recent increases. I suspect that is what we will get if the board of directors finds it feasible with increased demands on cash.
beach, you really lost me there. If the U.S. corporation inverts it is no longer a U.S. corporation and pays no U.S. taxes, so how does it get a $60 million interest deduction? You can't have deductions, if you don't pay taxes.
If you take that 238% growth and assume they continue that rate of growth for a year you get north of 500,000 vehicles sold in q2 2015. I'm not predicting that. It's just that 238% growth is great, and phenomenal if sustainable.
Apple, Inc., the world’s most valuable technology company has $102 billion in offshore accounts and shifted billions in profits out of the U.S. into affiliates based in Ireland, where it negotiated a tax rate of less than 2 percent, according to a report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
So let me get this straight robbsbeach, you think this tax diversion by Apple is OK, but you don't think Walgreens has the right to consider inversion for tax purposes? I don't follow your argument. Please explain.
You paint a gloomy picture, but then that's what you always do. You have been consistently wrong. Walgreens has a large and talented legal and financial staff. The finance arm was moved to Switzerland a while back. They also have Pessina, the driving force behind Alliance Boots and now the largest stockholder in Walgreens and he is a director. Much of the talent of Alliance Boots will remain on board. The United States is saturated with drug stores. There is still some growth left stateside, but it's limitited. I would much rather see the company expand internationally than to expand into other lines of business in the USA. CVS is no doubt looking for a similar opportunity .
It's OK with me if, under the current law, WAG becomes a subsidiary of Boots. I want them to fix the law. I want the U.S. to compete with the rest of the globe. We have a powerful economy and the U.S. need not have the lowest corporate rates in the world, just reasonable rates. The corporate rate here is double the Swiss rate. If the difference were 20-30% Walgreen would not even be discussing the possibility.