I don't know but it's up from .36 GAAP YoY. Non-GAAP is at .91 from .75 YoY. Guidance of $2.75, which is in line with most estimates I've seen.
It's really amazing what a stock like this can do over the long term. This dividend reinvestment table assumes an initial purchase of 100 shares @ $77.29, 0% share price growth, and a conservative 5% dividend growth average with reinvestment over the next 20 years. Of course, we should all be so lucky as to be able to reinvest dividends at this price over 35 years, but I have a feeling the capital appreciation will be more than enough to make up for the lower yield on cost that comes with rising stock prices.
Year Income Yield on Cost Holdings Value
1 $232.05 3.00 $7967.05
2 $250.96 3.24 $8218.01
3 $271.81 3.51 $8489.82
4 $294.84 3.81 $8784.66
5 $320.33 4.14 $9105.00
6 $348.62 4.51 $9453.61
7 $380.06 4.91 $9833.68
8 $415.11 5.37 $10248.79
9 $454.26 5.87 $10703.05
10 $498.12 6.44 $11201.17
15 $816.91 10.56 $14570.05
20 $1432.71 18.52 $20331.74
25 $2733.85 35.34 $30989.82
30 $5797.79 74.96 $52749.53
35 $14025.42 181.32 $103018.97
It sounds like a programming flaw. The meter tops out at 1,024 milliliters per deciliter before shutting itself off. The 1,024 kilobytes = 1 megabyte. Or maybe it's just a coincidence...
So what should the next five years or so hold for J&J’s stock performance? That is very hard to know. What we do know is that the stock currently trades at 13 times earnings, which equates to an after tax earnings yield of 7.7% and compares quite favorably to fixed income alternatives. The ten year treasury currently trades with a pre-tax yield of approximately 2%. While you cannot put J&J’s earnings yield in your pocket each year, it still presents a compelling fundamental advantage over the yield of risk free treasuries, and one that Ben Graham would have likely taken advantage of. The current cash dividend yield today is 3.5%, up from 1.2% in 1999 for an annual dividend growth rate during the period of approximately 12.7%. J&J’s P/E ratio during this almost twelve-year period averaged around 20X, but is at 13 today. If the current P/E ratio is simply maintained going forward, the return for shareholders would be the earnings growth of the company coupled with its dividend yield. Over the next five years, that translates into a 13% to 14% annual total return if the company is able to continue to grow its earnings annually at a 10% rate, and maintain its dividend yield at 3.5%. If we lower our expectations of the company’s future earnings to a more conservative growth rate of 5%, and simply maintain the dividend yield, the investor would still receive an annual return of roughly 8.5% in the stock over the next five years. But let’s assume that the P/E ratio for J&J continues to decline, to say, 10 times earnings over the next five years coupled with more modest 5% earnings growth and a 3.5% dividend yield, the investor would still receive a 3.4% average annual return. Again, your downside is limited by the strength of the company’s earnings power and its dividend. If, as we feel, the more likely scenario is modest P/E expansion coupled with solid growth in its earnings and dividends, we could earn a very attractive double digit return in the stock.
I doubt it. Everyone I know wants into the market but wants to wait for a pullback. That's a signal that a pullback isn't likely in the short term.
Swami is pretty irritating. If USA_citizen isn't on this list I guess that means he moved on to greener pastures. For whatever reason, this board has always attracted more than its fair share of mongoloids.
Do you promise? I'd love for my reinvested dividends and buybacks to go in at a lower price.
"Get yours while you can, jobs are going overseas because of lower labor costs and less government regulations."
And your point? If you want to work at a t-shirt factory 16 hours a day for no pay and live in a polluted slum, move overseas.
Most people seem to be expecting 7-8%, which is in line with the last couple years.
Complete BS. I can't be bothered to dig up the threads at the moment, but you said you were short in the mid 60's and again in the high 50's if I recall correctly. We'll revisit this topic later.
What a joke. You embrace technicals which occasionally work only because people believe they work, yet you reject the idea that valuation metrics work for the same reasons. I'd love to see your returns vs the S&P 500 over time.
Interestingly, Vanguard published a study a few days ago which shows very low correlations between market valuations and market returns. If it's not a predictive metric, it shouldn't be used to place market bets. I know that this counter-intuitive piece of information will be promptly ignored by those that think they can gain an edge by using the same toolkit as every other investor, which is all the better for me. While everybody is fretting about the "market PE" myth, I'll know that it's a useless metric and figure out what is actually likely to drive returns... in this case it's the Fed, an improving economy, and capitulation from bonds into stocks that will drive returns going forward. The tide will turn eventually. But not yet.
This is indeed an excellent buy and hold stock with many years of solid growth ahead of it. The news that PG is investing heavily in Africa is good news, as I think the potential for economic development on the continent is massive over the next 20 years.
"Yes these stocks can go higher..but all the data point to them being closer to overvalued than to being great buys at these levels...You have no argument to counter that..."
Au contraire, I have a counter-argument to every stupid thing you post on here. We've already discussed why your "model" (i.e. checking Yahoo Finance for the P/E and PEG ratios) is flawed.
"The only reason JNJ and PG are selling for the valuations they are right now is because of the Feds activities not the companies intrinsic value based on revenue and earnings growth."
Again, valuation is relative. Are they bargains now? No, but they were bargains when I bought them 30% lower and I have no problem holding them here. If the E/P (not a typo) for PG and JNJ indicate 5-7% growth and 30 year treasuries are at 3%, then Treasuries prices would need to drop 60-100% before they matched the earnings yield on these two names, or the stocks would have to appreciate another 30-50%, or some combination of the two before bonds become attractive relative to these two names. With the Fed holding rates down and earnings likely to come in ahead of consensus in an improving economy, you can either wait out the rally for your arbitrary entry point, or you can benefit from market conditions as they currently exist.
"JNJ is being bought by poeple not caring about valuation becasue the federal reserve has printed so much money and kept interest rates at zero they need a place to go.."
The Fed is not "printing money". That's factually incorrect. There are important distinctions between asset purchases and "printing money", and what nitwits like you always seem to miss is that the Fed has tools to withdraw liquidity and decrease the money supply.
Valuation is ALWAYS relative. As you said yourself, where else is the money going to go for long term return?
"Idiots like you are buying into it these stocks not knowing how to value a company..."
Idiots like you are missing the rally, because of short-term worries and some misguided concept of absolute value, as if it's a quantifiable measure handed to man by the divine. It's funny that you're lecturing people about not knowing how to value a company after the hack job you did on the JNJ board singling out the PEG and P/E to the exclusion of all else, as if the brands and net cash on the books are worth $0. You sound like you read Peter Lynch, understood half, and now you think you're an expert at valuation. What a clown.
"If you overpay for something you get what you deserve....."
Apparently I deserve more money.