Santa should deliver gifts to all the good boys and girls come tomorrow night too. Be real. Who get what treatment is dependent on how much someone is willing or able to pay and how much the owner of the treatment is willing to sell. Always been this way, always will. Now you have large entitites negotiating price with the provider or else the provider is left out in the cold. I imagine the same thing happened 8,000 years ago. If a sick person couldn't afford a chicken for the local witch doctor, he went without.
Totally agree. As soon as you start pooling high risk with low risk people and subsidizing a product, cost will go up. Too many high risk people now able to use a product paid for by someone else.
Of course, in those days, the doctor was getting a kick back in the form of money, trips, or cute sales reps visiting him. He had a vested interest in the drugs he would prescribed, just like the insurance company does today.
It's always been that way. Anyone who buy drugs have the right to negotiate the price with the manufacturer. This is just more of the same. In most of the developed world, GILD will have to negotiate with the country's government for a price but that didn't scare you away. Why did this particular deal make you sell your GILD at a possible low point and proclaim that pharma innovation is dead? You should buy a supermarket or insurance company. Any company with a low beta will suit you better.
You believe one company can kill all pharma innovations? While I do believe this hurts GILD, it's a temporary set back. If I was planning to sell I would have waited a week or so to catch a bounce up. You could have very well sold at the low point.
The problem is that during the last 10 years, the bulk of those years saw increasing revenue and earnings. Now we are in an era of decreasing revenue and earnings. I'm afraid your comparing apples and oranges. I orginally thought that I would buy back in when the stock got to the low thirties. I soon changed my mind when I saw the magnitude of drop in their competitor's sales and earnings. I suggest waiting to buy until this quarter's results are known. The effect of the buyback during a period of dropping sales and earnings is difficult to discern. It could just cause a slight increase or stablize the price decreases for a period of time. Until earnings turn around, it won't stop the downward trend but will help once sales start increasing.
Today is the 3rd Friday of the last month of the year. I believe there are 4 different classifications of options that are expiring today. Whenever this happens, it is not unusual to see large volume and price swings. No manipulation needed.
WIN is not doing the reverse split to reduce the shareholders' commission costs. With WIN (the growth component of the split) retaining 20% of the REIT, that results in 20% less that the REIT company shareholders will own. Also, the $0.60 dividend will make the REIT company less valuable to investors. I believe that the WIN BOD is doing the reverse split because they are concerned that the WIN REIT company component will go below $5.00 a share without the reverse. The reverse itself is meaningless to the investor. It's the reason for the reverse that I'm interested. For current shareholders that retain their positions in both companies, they are counting on some type of reverse synergy to add enought value to the combined companies to offset the dividend reduction. Not sure if that will happen. I believe this is a good time to wait until the dust clears before investing in WIN.
The problem is that every company is like FDX when it comes to missing a quarter. FDX is up YTD 25% vs the S&P 9%. Yet you sold because the stock is down 4.5% because of the missed earnings. This could and will happen for most companies. It doesn't have anything to do with being careful. If your plan includes doing enough research so you'll have enough confidence to hang in there when your stock decreases by 20%, then you might stand a chance. Before you next investment, ask yourself "If this stock drops 20%, would I buy more?" If the answer is "no" or "maybe", don't invest. Unless something fundamental changes the company or its business, you should hang on and buy more. Otherwise, don't buy any in the first place.
It would be weird if WIN weren't inventorying their assets. Companies should do that periodically. Especially, if they expect to divide the company into two compainies.
My advice is to sell all your stocks and never buy another one. If one missed quarter causes you to sell, then you are not suited to invest in the market. Find another investment avenue that best matches your temperament.
Take a look at the chart pre Obama. This stock never got pass $20.00 a share. Obama was the best gun salesman in history. With all of the potential gun control issues in the past, this stock very well could have further to drop. Greater production capacity with weaker demand doesn't paint a pretty picture for the industry. Just wait until revenue and profit margins stop falling before buying. If you're lucky you might might money on a short term trade but the odds are against it.
Why would being a REIT make deal making more probable than the current structure? In other words, why couldn't WIN do the same deals within their current corporate structure? If WIN were generating a lot of taxable income, I could understand the benefit but that has never been WIN's problem. Plus, I'm not aware of any other companies that converted to a REIT and decreased their combined dividend. Normally, companies that convert to a REIT increase the dividend. Something about this doesn't pass the "smell test". Perhaps it's just a difference of views among the BOD members about the direction to take the company. I just don't see the value to the shareholder. I guess that's what brought me back to this message board. I'm searching for a reason for the proposed conversion and trying to value the company to determine when and if I should get back into the stock.
I respect your confidence. I have made money in the past by playing ranges but it's difficult on a stock that is down trending. The trouble I have is the risk vs. reward. In order to make a $1000 gain on a $3.00 spread, I would need to risk $12,000 on a company that is experiencing reducing sales and margins. . I would think a person would be better served to wait until sales and margins start uptrending. Of course, if the price drops low enough, an investor could decide to buy because of the value. I wish you the best of luck working the range but it's not for me.
I agree that people will always be buying guns for a number of reasons. However, I believe the long term demand for guns will be around the same as the population growth of the U.S. Unfortunately, that's probably less than 1%. I don't trade stocks very often but I wouldn't think that RGR wouldn't be a good trading stock at this price. Too much downward pressure at this time because of valid business concerns. You would have to be real lucky to pick the right entry and exit points to make enough money to justify the risk. I'll wait until I see sales and profit margins improve. I've made a good amount of money on RGR but I bought when sales and margins were trending up not down.
There's always a chance. Keep in mind that when RGR was around $60, some people were talking $100 a share. The U.S. growth component of this industry is dubious at best. I just don't see it. I read that there are enough guns for 9 out of 10 Americans to have one. I believe all 50 states now have concealed carry. Everyone who wants a gun probably already has one by now. You might see a rally now and then but I believe the industry is on a downward slide. RGR should be viewed as a value stock not a growth stock. You could very well see RGR slide down to $20 a share. Before the Obama presidency and that administrations gun control bent, RGR was a sub $20 stock. Unfortunately, I believe that price is the future of RGR.
I got out of my last shares of WIN around $9.12 on the way up so I left money on the table. Now I'm starting to pay attention because I'm curious on how this REIT will be structured. Normally, a company will place its high capital/debt in the REIT company and their growth component as a separate company. For WIN, I have a hard time seeing the "value added" to the shareholder because of the split. The combined dividend will be decreased from $1.00 to $0.70. I understand the tax savings of a REIT structure but WIN wasn't a big taxable income producer in the first place. You have to believe that the growth component will be able to prosper more because it is independent of the capital intensive REIT component. If that is not the case, then it appears that the shareholder may end up with a $0.30 dividend cut and a temporary increase in expenses associated with paying for the split. If the market takes this view, you could see the price drop to $7.00. Right now, if the market requires a 10 percent return from the REIT, you're looking at a $6.00 share price for the REIT. Since I can buy fairly good stocks paying a 2.5 percent divident, the market may value the "growth" component at around $4.00 a share. Consequently, I'm thinking of a range from a low of $7.00 to around $10.00 for the combined value of the two companies. Right now there is more downside than upside risk so I'll just continue to sit on the sidelines for now..
Yes they did beat. However, revenue was still down 21% and EPS fell to .09 from .28 when compared to same quarter last year. It wasn't as bad as expected but sales and profits are going the wrong way.