Thanks, see what happens. There probably will be some pops and drops over the next several future quarters until DMND (presumably) can demonstrate it has found its way.
Could you be a bit more specific???
My turn to share: From a Bloomberg subscription terminal, here are the targets from all analysts who have updated their calls A/O 12/3- 12/4:
Targets are "fun" to look at, but I don't given them much weight when I make my decisions.
Risk v Reward?
"The investment seeks to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Solactive China Financials Index. The fund invests at least 80% of its total assets in the securities of the underlying index and in ADRs and GDRs based on the securities in the underlying index. The underlying index is designed to measure the equity performance of the investable universe of companies in the financials sector of the Chinese economy. The fund is non-diversified."
I am amused when the average investor simply looks at a company's share price and "determines" whether a company's stock is "cheap" or "expensive".
Why do retail investors approach investing in individual stocks differently than when they invest in mutual funds? I approach investing in a fund or a stock the same way, starting with the AMOUNT I want to invest. Let's say I have $15,000 to invest and I want to buy one mutual fund, say VTSAX, and two stocks.
I buy $5000 of the fund and get X number of shares; I don't care how many shares I receive. All I care about is the value of my investment. I don't think many investors care how many mutual fund shares they own--but for some reason they do when buying individual stocks.
With my hypothetical stock buys, one company's shares are trading at 100.00 and the other is trading at 10.00. I then would buy 50 shares of the first company and 500 shares of the latter. Both investments are for the same AMOUNT. Why do people let the number of shares they receive drive their investment decision? Pretty silly, right?
I've owned shares in many companies that have split their shares and most of the time (not always), the VALUATION of the company has increased. Over the long run, a company's VALUATION is determined by its performance and its potential. Whether a company's shares are trading at 10, 50 or 100 is NOT a factor.
I know I'm beating a dead horse, but perhaps a few people reading this will realize that it is the MARKET CAP of a company that matters and not the share price.
P.S. when a company splits its shares 2 : 1, all of the holders % ownership remains the same.
"If that were the case why not split 4:1, or 8:1? Heck let's go crazy and split it 100:1"
EXACTLY!!! (I forgot to include a similar thought in my post)
Your "thinking" appears to base on emotion.
What is the difference between a company with a market cap of $229B that has 2.7 billion shares outstanding vs a company with a market cap of $229B that has 5.4 billion shares outstanding?
Sharecount does not affect a company's valuation.
My situation is similar having bought shares on 2/17/12 @ 24.73 and 3/9 @ 24.08 giving me a total return of 1.27% and 3.07%. Over the same time frames, my default investment, VTSAX, returned over 37% and the S & P Small Cap Consumer Staples Index returned over around 54%!!!
In other words, my small position in DMND has become much smaller on a relative basis LOL.
The past is the past...
Some companies follow the past re splitting their shares. Look at JNJ's long term chart and click "EVENTS" and then hit "Splits". You will see that JNJ has followed the pattern of splitting its shares 2:1 after its shares have hit a bit abouve 100. Will this continue? Who knows.
Hopefully you are aware that there is no magic associated with stock splits. Purely a cosmetic adjustment.
Apparently some people prefer to own twice as many shares at half the share price. A split, over the long run, does not affect a company's share price--but fundamentals do. Typically share appreciation occurs and then a split occurs not vice a versa.
I'm more focused about the former than the latter.
"Splits are psychological. Stockholders like them and they DO drive prices up."
Yes and yes, but re the latter (drive prices up), how long does that last until FUNDAMENTALS drive the share price? If one is looking to sell, a split may be beneficial, but for those who hold any stock for years, the possible short term price appreciation is not a big deal. Over the long run, fundamentals rule the share price, not a split. People hope/wish for a split. I think they are confused. What I hope/wish for is for any stock I own to APPRECIATE. If a stock appreciates, it may split. Appreciation must occur BEFORE a stock splits. I am neutral re splits; I could care less if I owned 100 or 1000 shares. Price appreciation and dividend increases are what really excite me.
I didn't read the article (not a subscriber).
I did read Barron's November 26, 2012 cover story "Unnaturally Good" which suggested HAIN's share price might have been "too impressive to keep rising". HAIN closed at 62.20 on 11/23/12.
HAIN is not cheap. I like seeing the expansion of the natural/organic "supemarkets". More shelves for HAIN's products.
I do not expect BEN to pay a special div this year, but we will know for sure soon. BEN has a history of periodically paying a special div:
If not for tax law changes, BEN (and alot of other companies) may not have paid a special div last year.
Of course, while we're on the topic of dividends, I'll make my periodic rant: why not simply pay a decent QUARTERLY dividend like TROW et al???
"well one analyst says its worth $30.share, lets hope..."
Yup, there's always "hope".
Average price target (FWTW!!!) is a cool 11.55; 8 buys, 3 holds (sells in disguise) and one outright sell.