"Eliminating" is not the word we were discussing and there are no Latin words with the suffix "-ence." Neither I nor my 7th and 8th grade Latin teacher would be impressed by your attempted etymology. Get back to me when you've figured out how to use a dictionary (and a calculator).
I'd love to see your math "eluminating" one (all of mine is easily verifiable), but please remember that commas and decimal points are different things and try to do a better job of spelling as "eluminating" is not a word.
In June of 2003, $996.45 would have bought 39 shares of T at $25.55/share. That investment would have returned $581.57 in dividends alone over a ten year period. Had you sold T at yesterday's closing price ($35.81), you would have earned an additional $400.14 on your investment for a total return of $981.70 or 99% over ten years (slightly under 10% return annually for very little risk). If you had reinvested your dividends, of course, those returns would be considerably better. T is not a rockstar stock pick but it has a justifiable place in many portfolios.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for WIN but you may want to consider the "if you" scenario for WIN since its IPO. You will quickly see that the stock has lost close to half of its value and the dividend hasn't increased in over 6 years. Historically speaking, WIN has not been better.
$.45 (dividend)/$38.01(current stock price)=.01184. That's an expected 1.184% drop after ex-dividend assuming no other factors (there are always other factors). That would put the stock at $37.56 ($38.01 x 98.816%). Does my math check out?
The build up to ex-div for T has been better than expected relative to the market as a whole. For longs and div capture kids, this bodes well. I almost expect the post record date sell off price to remain above the mid 37's. Am I delusional or have I over-qualified my statements?
Pretty sure this is debt:
"On April 17, 2008, Jamba, Inc. (the "Company") entered into a Credit Agreement by and among the Company, Jamba Juice Company, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary as borrower ("Jamba Juice"), Wells Fargo Foothill, LLC as Agent and a Lender (the "Lender") providing for a $25 million senior secured credit facility by which Lender will provide Jamba Juice with a five-year revolving credit facility, including a Letter of Credit sub-facility.
Under the terms of the Credit Agreement, Jamba Juice may obtain advances or letter of credit issuances up to a maximum aggregate amount outstanding not to exceed $25 million. The aggregate amount of advances and letter of credit issuances cannot, however, at any time exceed the borrowing base, which is an amount equal to (a) two (2) times the Company's and Jamba Juice's consolidated adjusted EBITDA for the most recently completed trailing twelve consecutive month period for which they have produced consolidated financial statements, minus (b) customary reserves. Under the terms of the Credit Agreement, the Company and Jamba Juice are required to maintain minimum levels of EBITDA, a minimum interest coverage ratio, a maximum leverage ratio, and will be subject to limits on annual capital expenditures.
At Jamba Juice's election, the advances will bear interest at either (i) a Base Rate plus an applicable margin or (ii) a LIBOR Rate plus an applicable margin, both as more thoroughly set forth in the Credit Agreement.
The Company has guaranteed Jamba Juice's obligations under the Credit Agreement, and both the Company and Jamba Juice have granted Lender a first priority security interest in all of their respective personal property.
The description of the Credit Agreement is not complete and is qualified in its entirety by the actual terms of the Credit Agreement, a copy of which is attached to this report as Exhibit 10.1."
I went to the zoo yesterday with my family and thought... dammit, they should have a JJ in every zoo in the country. Its always sunny at the zoo and it'd beat the pants off the current food and beverage options they have there.
It sounded to me like Obama is suggesting that he will try to wrestle profits away from Exxon as part of some grander (but as yet unstated) "energy policy". He said this in the Ohio debate but not in the Texas debate. Ohio=ethanol. Texas=oil. Clearly, Obama is not good for Exxon. Which, of course, means he is not good for the economy of Texas. This should have an impact on his numbers in the primaries in Texas.