Thanks, but I'm confused why you wrote:
"The debt is quoted 98-99"
Earlier today I read RapidRatings' analysis on FWM and it's not very pretty. FHR: 31 (Scale: 1 - 100)
Well I sure hope the increase is not just for share rewards. If the proposal is passed, there will be 92.7M authorized shares for whatever they want to use them for and only 57.3M shares outstanding or already "reserved" for rewards.
I can take or leave a stock split, but unless the shares take a hit, I'd say
"the Company is considering undertaking a stock split.”
will equal a split.
Time will tell...if a split is announced, it will be entertaining to read the gleeful posts.
I perused the proxy statement yesterday and Proposal No. 3 piqued my interest.
Shareholders are being asked to vote on a proposal to increase the authorized number of shares of common stock from 100M to 150M. Currently 57.3M are outstanding or are related to outstanding options etc. leaving 42.7M.
“While the Company has no present agreement, arrangement, or understanding with respect to the issuance of any such additional shares of common stock, the Company is considering undertaking a stock split.”
2:1 or 3:2?
I’m neutral on stock splits, since I see them more as an end than a means type of event; splits occur after shares have appreciated. Splits do not affect a company’s fundamentals, but they may be a positive signal from the company. Other than that, except for emotional “reasons”, I have yet to appreciate why some get so excited about stock splits.
Of course, past performance is not indicative of future results.
The landscape is very different today compared to "During the 18 years of the '80's - '90's bull market."
The biggest change and challenge is the huge popularity of ETFs. Additionally, more and more investors are eschewing actively managed funds and investing in index funds. This makes me less sanguine about the asset manager sector.
I've been long TROW for over 19 years and BEN for a bit more than 11 years, but I have sold shares in both positions (not recently).
$400K base with maximum possible annual bonus of $250,000.
I'm not a compensation analyst, but that seems "reasonable".
What I don't get is why Ms. Carlow will receive a car allowance of $384.61 per week and a housing allowance of $5,800 per month. I get the 25K relocation reimbursement, but why can't she pay for her own housing and her own vehicle (or be "given" a company car)?
$384.61 per week for a car allowance? Nice ride.
$5800/month for housing; even in NYC, (and who knows where she will be living) seems a bit much.
The above is not a knock on FWM, but on executive compensation in general.
Or.....it could simply be many agree with the substance of that particular post.
I imagine most Americans would like to see those who are responsible for various "errors of judgement" to be culpable, and not just the company itself.
9/30/03 - 9/30/14 (sno, just in case: that would be eleven years)
S&P Consumer Staples Index: 198.97%
S&P 500: 148.12%
And for FUN! CL: 199.17%
I am long both PG & CL; makes sense to own more than one horse in the sector.
File under: Keeping it REAL
snow, on behalf of the US educational system, please accept my apology that the system has FAILED you.
It's "you're" not "your" for goodness sake!
"...slow moving stock 11 years is almost DEAD..." Perhaps you should check into PG's TOTAL RETURN for the past eleven years--but why would you, since by doing so, your (in this case it is "your" and not the conjunction "you're) "argument" would lose a lot of its steam!
Thanks for the laughs!
It can be fairly costly to be a vendor.
Perhaps "management" felt it was a better use of the company's funds to "buy back a few shares".
Sure is FUN to follow this "company".
"I previously explained why TRC should not be in any index."
Very poorly and not successfully.
"You excused Vanguard for its gross negligence in this matter."
No, I didn't excuse Vanguard. Vanguard DOES NOT select the components of the total market index; it simply does an admirable job of matching said index.
YIKES!!! Why do I have to review this over and over with you? It is black and white.
"They probably exited profitable cattle-ranching..." ("probably" being the operative word)
Does "they" mean individual board members who were once ranchers, OR does "they" refer to TRC?
TRC does LEASE quite a few acres to ranchers, but the company is not in the business of ranching.
I'm cool with that. Just like I'm cool with having almonds grown on company land, but no almond butter is manufactured by TRC.
Some time ago, the board make up was changed from being mostly populated by farmers/ranchers to those with real estate backgrounds (and large stake holders). This makes sense to me, since the company has made it clear that, although there will be agricultural businesses on its land, it was becoming more of a real estate company. (Rome wasn't built in a day).
Have a delightful day.
Oh yeah, keep asking the pressing questions!
"I first posted about the overvaluation of TRC stock on
March 31, 2013: "Why is TRC priced so high?" I presume
the defensive Reply was yours under another alias."
Wrong, since I only use one ID; how about you???
"defensive"? Really, you think eotp01's reply (only other poster for this thread besides you) was defensive?:
"Its priced that high on the anticipation that the land is worth much more than it is carried at book value. Probably a correct assumption, but it could be a long time before that value is realized. I own some shares, but they have not done anything in years."
I came across a rather curious post of yours (why haven't you deleted these dated posts? LOL):
On April 4, 2013, you posted:
"With the possible exception of the index funds,
EVERY manager of the below-named institutions can be presumed to be a major financial-criminal."
I was very surprised to read "With the possible exception of the index funds..." A year and a half ago, it appears that you grasped HOW indexes and index fund investing worked, but your recent posts showed you didn't have a clue (or you were simply being antagonistic?). Or, your old age is affecting how you "think"???
I imagine only a handful of shareholders ever attend a TRC annual meeting, hence I doubt there would be a need for a place "to host a major conference".
Who goes to annual meetings??? Last one I attended was G's when they were in the midst of a takeover attempt by Coniston Partners.
WARNING: Troll alert!!! (LOL)
"very disturbed with all the talk of the VEGAS party etc and not a word out of his mouth since..."
No feedback from the "new and prospective distributors". Hmmm.....
This does seem rather strange, but I imagine the vpor possy had a nice time at the Four Seasons.
On another note, I'm intrigued that some of the posters here are not relying on vpor's super dooper prospects/fundamentals as catalysts for the share price to rise. Instead they are holding out hope for some pump and dumpers to promote the stock.
Very interesting "investing" strategy.
"Well Seeking Alpha was right."
To be clear: Seeking Alpha is an online venue for MANY people to publish posts.
RE the post you cited, the AUTHOR was "right", not Seeking Alpha.
(You may already know what I posted, but I often see posters write about S.A. as if only the Great Oz is behind the curtain.)