Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View gjg49's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Vodafone Is A Buy Considering Its 5.30% Yield [View article]
    Also, no mention of Vodacom and the potential money transfer business. Most transactions in Kenya today go thru Vodacom's money transfer biz. The stock currently comes with a free "call option" on the possibility that Vodaphone can start to move this to India and other locations, and take over the function of Visa and/or Paypal etc.
    Jun 5 06:05 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • McDonald's annual meeting: Arrests outside, cool confidence inside [View news story]
    At the annual meeting some woman gave an impassioned plea to Don Thompson to stop marketing to her kids. She finished by saying that MCD needs to eliminate My wife just checked out that site. One look will tell you that MCD has nothing to do with that site.
    MCD is a lightening rod for "interesting" people with all kinds of agendas--some of which are highly questionable.
    May 22 05:53 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividend Investing During The Financial Crisis [View article]
    You might find Robert Shiller's long term data to be instructive.

    Shiller's data indicates that dividends on the S&P 500 declined 55% from the peak (at the end of 1930) to the trough (in early 1933). Interestingly, dividends increased slightly during 1930 and did not begin to decline until 1931.

    Since deflation occurred during the depression and Shiller tabulated the data, dividends adjusted for price changes only declined 47% from peak (still end of 1930) to trough (in mid-1935).

    While this sounds pretty gruesome, keep in mind that the S&P "price" declined 69% from the end of 1930 to its trough in June of 1932 and 85% from its peak in September of 1929. (This is based on Shiller's data. By the way, the S&P data for the 1930s and earlier was probably constructed by Shiller. I, for one, do not doubt the general validity of his data). Additionally, while it may not be "fun" to reduce one's standard of living by 50%, at least the dividends provided some reasonable income.
    May 13 02:25 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Consider This Utility For Its 4.6% Yield [View article]
    IMO means "in my opinion"
    Sometimes people use IMHO--"in my humble opinion"
    May 12 02:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Diversifying The Perfect Retirement Portfolio - Here's How: Part 3 [View article]
    My comment should have been specifically addressed to Robert.from.Ct
    May 6 11:19 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Diversifying The Perfect Retirement Portfolio - Here's How: Part 3 [View article]

    Don't discount your intelligence because of a mnemonic (SWAN). Instead, remember that the best way to learn is to ask the question (which us exactly what you did).

    Instead, consider the irony of this: "your father died this morning, LOL".
    Seems bizarre, but old-time mom (maybe grandma) who sent the message thought that LOL meant "lots of love", not what most people think. How inappropriate was her intent?

    By the way (BTW), from an investing standpoint, you will only be a "dope" if you do something that YOU know you shouldn't do--such as violating one of YOUR own central investing "rules", buying a "tip", or making emotionally-driven decisions, etc. Everyone makes mistakes in investing, the "dopes" are the ones who do the same thing over and over but expect different results.
    May 6 09:41 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Berkshire Hathaway Looks Overextended [View article]

    You seem to be arguing that in a financial crisis, BRK would drop below book value. That is perfectly reasonable.

    On the other hand, the author is arguing that book value is "fair" value. To the extent that the market will correctly weigh the "fair" value over a period of time rather than "vote" the low value in a moment of crisis, "fair" value should be considerably greater than book value. The author himself, implies that book value should exceed $100 per share by the end of this year, so how can "fair" value be $94?

    The barrage of criticisms leveled at the author seem very "fair" to me as he has wasted the time of a lot of people, including me. I typically read most articles written on stocks I own or am considering buying. Most do contain no significant new information; and that does not bother me. Someone once told me that investment research is like mining for gold: you spend eons of time sifting through mountains of useless rubble, but very infrequently you hit really significant pay dirt that makes it all worthwhile. For the author to base his whole valuation on BRK being "fair" value at book value and, hence, overpriced deserves some vitriolic reaction.
    May 4 05:28 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Top 7 Dividend Aristocrats From 1989 To 2014 [View article]
    Looking at the year by year listing, GPC and NUE (and perhaps others as well) were intermittently on and off the Dividend Aristocrat List apparently either due to liquidity, size, or arbitrary S&P inclusion in the 500. From an investment perspective, this is just one more reason that David Fish's lists are superior to those of S&P.
    Apr 23 07:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 2 Undervalued Low-Beta, Large-Cap Stocks Paying Dividends [View article]
    Thanks for a cogent reply.
    One final question: the same graph implies that the estimates for the "sector" are lower for 2014 than the actual earnings in 2013. What insights or potential explanations might you have on that? I am taking a wild guess that analysts might expect more catastrophic events (such as hurricanes--I don't think any hit the US last year) will lead to lower earnings for the industry. If that is the case, that would support your comment on analysts estimates typically being low; perhaps analysts expect the worst (or at least a bad case) at the beginning of the year.
    Thanks for pointing out ACE.
    Apr 14 08:22 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 2 Undervalued Low-Beta, Large-Cap Stocks Paying Dividends [View article]
    I was trying to be half way polite to suggest that you check the P/E ratios for the TTM vs those for the FTM. In my humble opinion, they are probably incorrect and my best guess is that you have mislabeled them (the TTM should have been the FTM and the FTM should have been the TTM). I am not referring to whether the earnings estimates will prove to be incorrect, we KNOW that the earnings estimates will be off by something, we don't know what. What I am referring to is that your P/E ratio for the forward twelve months for the S&P 500 (not just ACE, but the S&P 500 as well) is going up; since the prices are fixed, the only POSSIBLE MATHEMATICAL way that that the P/E ratio can increase for the earnings (estimates) to decrease over the next 12 months. From what I can see, consensus earnings estimates for the S&P 500 are rising compared to the actual 2013 earnings. If you can cite that some reasonable source shows that S&P earnings are to decline in 2014, I apologize. Until then, I again challenge you to CHECK your numbers as they are WRONG.

    By the way, ACE appears intriguing and I own Apple. Your likely incorrect graph, however, made me hesitate to do anything as it very clearly indicates that ACE's earnings will go DOWN over the next year. How confident should anyone be in buying a stock when earnings should go down over the next year?
    Apr 14 12:52 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 2 Undervalued Low-Beta, Large-Cap Stocks Paying Dividends [View article]
    You may want to double check your "ACE-Valuation Ratios" graph.
    If FTM indicates forward twelve months and LTM indicates latest twelve months, then since the FTM P/E ratios are higher than the LTM P/E, earnings for ACE, the industry, and the S&P are all forecasted to go down. I have not checked, but I have not heard anything about S&P earnings forecasts declining year over year.
    Apr 12 10:54 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Hot News Comes And Goes, But Dividends Are Forever... [View article]
    Rising Dividends,
    I am trying to reconcile your faster growth in dividends this year versus what I am seeing from the companies I hold. The companies I hold almost universally increased dividends less this year on an absolute basis than they did last year. As an example, Kimberly Clark increased their dividend 3 cents per quarter this year compared with 7 cents per quarter last year. Mathematically, since the same increase on a larger base results in a lower percent increase, then a smaller absolute increase will by definition be a lower percent increase as well. If KMB were a unique situation, I would not mention this. However, so far this year, GPC, CL, GIS, QCOM, CSCO, WMT, TUP, and ADI (as well as KMB) all increased their dividend less on an absolute basis than they raised it last year (and, by definition, lower on a percent basis as well). Further, LLTC, T, WM, and BMS all increased their dividend by the same magnitude this year as last year--but that means that their percentage increases all decelerated as well. Among my holdings, Only PEP and GD increased their dividends more on an absolute basis this year than last year. I admit that this portfolio may not reflect the broad swath of the market, but less absolute growth in nine cases and the same absolute growth in four cases seems to overshadow the scarce two absolute increases. What am I missing? Where have the big dividend boosts occurred that result in an acceleration? Thanks
    Mar 27 11:58 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Much Does Coca-Cola's Compensation Dilute Shareholders? [View article]
    I agree with Rudester. Moreover, I almost invariably vote AGAINST management for any and all proxies. The current system is heavily biased toward management--whether it is Board retention or options programs. If something is rotten enough that some institutional investors (whether they be hedge funds or otherwise) vote against management, then we should probably all vote against it. If no one else votes against it, my vote does not matter anyway.
    Mar 25 07:54 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Finding Alpha With Dividend Growth: The Stocks [View article]
    No offense Dale, but Just so no one makes a mistake, IBM's dividend is 3.8, but it's yield is around 2.1%.
    You show the yield as 3.8.
    Mar 20 09:48 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What's Your (Dividend Growth) Number?: Part 3 [View article]

    I hold VOD in both an IRA and in a taxable account at Schwab.
    There is no withholding on VOD dividends in either IRA or taxable accounts.

    Just so you know, both the IRA and taxable accounts do assess an "ADR mgmnt fee" that is around 2% of the dividend. I might be incorrect, but I think that the US bank that manages the ADR (American Depositary Receipt) assesses that fee and Schwab just passes it to the ADR holder (that is me). You may or may not get that same assessment at your broker.
    Mar 18 09:18 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment