Richard Shaw's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/377194/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410381/comments?source=feed#comment-18685241 18685241 Fri, 10 May 2013 14:44:59 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1421711/comments?source=feed#comment-18669421 18669421 Fri, 10 May 2013 09:32:39 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410381/comments?source=feed#comment-18657701 18657701 Thu, 09 May 2013 22:31:42 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410381/comments?source=feed#comment-18640651 18640651 Thu, 09 May 2013 15:27:04 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410381/comments?source=feed#comment-18640501 18640501 Thu, 09 May 2013 15:24:12 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410381/comments?source=feed#comment-18640481 18640481
Perhaps I should have said that the commenter was thinking in terms of out of date information. As of today, the pickings in the 4% realm are quite thin.

Thanks for that very good observation.]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 15:23:40 -0400
Perhaps I should have said that the commenter was thinking in terms of out of date information. As of today, the pickings in the 4% realm are quite thin.

Thanks for that very good observation.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410381/comments?source=feed#comment-18620871 18620871
I am concerned that too many people based decision on yield alone, chasing big numbers. Big trailing yields just increase the danger for those scrambling for yield.

But to your point the article does state that the yields are trailing and the charts clearly show the special distributions in 2912.]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 10:00:55 -0400
I am concerned that too many people based decision on yield alone, chasing big numbers. Big trailing yields just increase the danger for those scrambling for yield.

But to your point the article does state that the yields are trailing and the charts clearly show the special distributions in 2912.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410381/comments?source=feed#comment-18589241 18589241
The statement is quite simple -- don't expect to find many good opportunities in the 4% to 8% yield category, when quality and volatility are also important to the investor.

The "data dump" error in the COST yield has already been discussed and acknowledged here, so let's not beat a dead horse. The fact is that by tossing out the two bad data dump yield, there is even less in the 4% - 8% yield are available.

If you would take the time to read the article before writing your comment, you would know the purpose was to respond to a specific comment on a prior article, which comment represents similar ones I have read and heard at other time -- there are NOT ample high yield equity opportunities that also are high quality and low volatility -- and the fact is that low volatility stock generally outperform high volatility stocks over time, and have been doing so recently in the short term as well.]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 14:35:01 -0400
The statement is quite simple -- don't expect to find many good opportunities in the 4% to 8% yield category, when quality and volatility are also important to the investor.

The "data dump" error in the COST yield has already been discussed and acknowledged here, so let's not beat a dead horse. The fact is that by tossing out the two bad data dump yield, there is even less in the 4% - 8% yield are available.

If you would take the time to read the article before writing your comment, you would know the purpose was to respond to a specific comment on a prior article, which comment represents similar ones I have read and heard at other time -- there are NOT ample high yield equity opportunities that also are high quality and low volatility -- and the fact is that low volatility stock generally outperform high volatility stocks over time, and have been doing so recently in the short term as well.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410381/comments?source=feed#comment-18562361 18562361 Tue, 07 May 2013 22:29:05 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410381/comments?source=feed#comment-18554701 18554701
My main point is that the prior article had a more appropriate focus and tended to suggest stocks with yields that are not in the 4% to 8% yield range right now -- and that contrary to the comment that 4% to 8% should be the target range for selection, there just isn't that much to chose from in the very high yield area, if quality ratings and low volatility are guideposts to be taken into consideration.

There are certainly some high yield stocks that will turn out to be winners, but as a group they are a riskier bunch.

Some REITs and infrastructure MLPs may be important exceptions, but they tend to lack quality ratings from the sources used.

There were oodles of high yield, high quality stocks to chose from in 2009, but few would have prospectively believed in the low volatility angle at that time.

We may look back in the future and see some good high yield, high quality, low volatility stocks in Europe that could be bought now (particularly among global exporters).]]> Tue, 07 May 2013 17:32:33 -0400
My main point is that the prior article had a more appropriate focus and tended to suggest stocks with yields that are not in the 4% to 8% yield range right now -- and that contrary to the comment that 4% to 8% should be the target range for selection, there just isn't that much to chose from in the very high yield area, if quality ratings and low volatility are guideposts to be taken into consideration.

There are certainly some high yield stocks that will turn out to be winners, but as a group they are a riskier bunch.

Some REITs and infrastructure MLPs may be important exceptions, but they tend to lack quality ratings from the sources used.

There were oodles of high yield, high quality stocks to chose from in 2009, but few would have prospectively believed in the low volatility angle at that time.

We may look back in the future and see some good high yield, high quality, low volatility stocks in Europe that could be bought now (particularly among global exporters).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410381/comments?source=feed#comment-18554401 18554401
My primary purpose was to strongly rebut the comment that (1) there are plenty of 4+% yield stocks with high quality ratings, and low volatility -- there are not , (2) that focusing on 4% to 8% yield stocks in a portfolio is a good idea for conservative investors -- it is not.

The article that stimulated the commenter who objected that 2% to 3% stocks are not a good choice was specifically addressed to conservative income oriented investors, who I think this data shows (including its apparent overstatement of yields) cannot obtain 4% to 8% yields in quality low volatility stocks sufficient to build a portfolio.

Take away LANC, WSO and COST and you can't even get to 5% in the high quality, low volatility R3000 universe. There are only 8 stocks in the 4% to 4.99% range that also pass the quality and low volatility tests.

I do recognize that there are certain REIT and MLP securities that may not be covered by the analysts with respect to quality or the indexes with respect to volatility. I have not tested for them, and they are often excluded from analyst stock quality ratings.]]> Tue, 07 May 2013 17:23:10 -0400
My primary purpose was to strongly rebut the comment that (1) there are plenty of 4+% yield stocks with high quality ratings, and low volatility -- there are not , (2) that focusing on 4% to 8% yield stocks in a portfolio is a good idea for conservative investors -- it is not.

The article that stimulated the commenter who objected that 2% to 3% stocks are not a good choice was specifically addressed to conservative income oriented investors, who I think this data shows (including its apparent overstatement of yields) cannot obtain 4% to 8% yields in quality low volatility stocks sufficient to build a portfolio.

Take away LANC, WSO and COST and you can't even get to 5% in the high quality, low volatility R3000 universe. There are only 8 stocks in the 4% to 4.99% range that also pass the quality and low volatility tests.

I do recognize that there are certain REIT and MLP securities that may not be covered by the analysts with respect to quality or the indexes with respect to volatility. I have not tested for them, and they are often excluded from analyst stock quality ratings.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410381/comments?source=feed#comment-18553191 18553191
You make the false assumption that anything about this article is a recommendation of any stock in the article.

The charts you said say little, actually say a lot if you know how to read them.]]> Tue, 07 May 2013 16:49:45 -0400
You make the false assumption that anything about this article is a recommendation of any stock in the article.

The charts you said say little, actually say a lot if you know how to read them.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1391101/comments?source=feed#comment-18346561 18346561 Thu, 02 May 2013 07:33:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1391101/comments?source=feed#comment-18335201 18335201 Wed, 01 May 2013 18:21:06 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1379061/comments?source=feed#comment-18199231 18199231
Case 1: A given yield with a higher dividend growth rate is more desirable than a given yield with a lower dividend growth rate.

Case 2: A given dividend growth rate with a higher yield may be more attractive, if sustainability is good -- and presumably, high quality ratings from S&P or Wright would tend to suggest sustainability may be good.

There are other factors that one must consider, which may suggest the YARP for a stock is not helpful, but it seems a reasonable place from which to conduct further study. Combining it other more accepted concepts (GARP, low volatility, and quality ratings) along with independent analyst ratings seems a reasonable. The fact that 60% % of the list is designated by independent analysts as Very Bullish or Bullish and less than 10% Bearish, seems to support the overall argument.]]> Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:14:47 -0400
Case 1: A given yield with a higher dividend growth rate is more desirable than a given yield with a lower dividend growth rate.

Case 2: A given dividend growth rate with a higher yield may be more attractive, if sustainability is good -- and presumably, high quality ratings from S&P or Wright would tend to suggest sustainability may be good.

There are other factors that one must consider, which may suggest the YARP for a stock is not helpful, but it seems a reasonable place from which to conduct further study. Combining it other more accepted concepts (GARP, low volatility, and quality ratings) along with independent analyst ratings seems a reasonable. The fact that 60% % of the list is designated by independent analysts as Very Bullish or Bullish and less than 10% Bearish, seems to support the overall argument.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1346221/comments?source=feed#comment-18177821 18177821 Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:24:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1346221/comments?source=feed#comment-17786621 17786621 Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:59:41 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1346221/comments?source=feed#comment-17779831 17779831
I did not chose to publish the S&P and StarMine opinion on the entire list for several practical reasons, which I won't discuss here. The full list is not part of this article. It is just something extra you might like to have available, if you are thinking in terms of volatility and yield (objective attributes).

I repeat that if you are not interested in the full list, don't download it. If it is not of use to you that is OK, but if you would like to have a list of 169 out of 5,000+ companies that have been filtered that far, then I would have saved you a lot of work.

The only reason I said there are probably some clunkers is that I did not want anyone to assume that I am endorsing any of the other stocks in any way -- just filtering the stock universe to a manageable number for DIY investors to conduct their own research based on their own goals and criteria beyond volatility and yield.

Why would you assume that I would be expected to do a complete data dump of my full research in a free publication. You have received some value in the info on the five stocks, and the potential to save time looking for similar stocks in the remainder of the list. That's what is offered. The article is intended to be helpful, but not to be exhaustive. It's free, and you got more than you paid for.

What if I added the S&P and StarMine data and five more attributes, and still said there may be some clunkers? I gave you three good names with supporting information for free, and a short researchable list on the side. You have a filtered list based on defined criteria available to you for more research. Take it or leave. That's what's available to you.]]> Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:49:30 -0400
I did not chose to publish the S&P and StarMine opinion on the entire list for several practical reasons, which I won't discuss here. The full list is not part of this article. It is just something extra you might like to have available, if you are thinking in terms of volatility and yield (objective attributes).

I repeat that if you are not interested in the full list, don't download it. If it is not of use to you that is OK, but if you would like to have a list of 169 out of 5,000+ companies that have been filtered that far, then I would have saved you a lot of work.

The only reason I said there are probably some clunkers is that I did not want anyone to assume that I am endorsing any of the other stocks in any way -- just filtering the stock universe to a manageable number for DIY investors to conduct their own research based on their own goals and criteria beyond volatility and yield.

Why would you assume that I would be expected to do a complete data dump of my full research in a free publication. You have received some value in the info on the five stocks, and the potential to save time looking for similar stocks in the remainder of the list. That's what is offered. The article is intended to be helpful, but not to be exhaustive. It's free, and you got more than you paid for.

What if I added the S&P and StarMine data and five more attributes, and still said there may be some clunkers? I gave you three good names with supporting information for free, and a short researchable list on the side. You have a filtered list based on defined criteria available to you for more research. Take it or leave. That's what's available to you.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1346221/comments?source=feed#comment-17744461 17744461 Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:41:04 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1346221/comments?source=feed#comment-17740801 17740801 Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:35:22 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1346221/comments?source=feed#comment-17740721 17740721 Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:33:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1342351/comments?source=feed#comment-17675491 17675491 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:21:11 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1342351/comments?source=feed#comment-17663411 17663411 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:17:54 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1342351/comments?source=feed#comment-17663301 17663301 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:16:50 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1334711/comments?source=feed#comment-17663091 17663091
I am glad you brought up the point of compensation though. Some discontented commenters have said to me and to other contributors that we are trolling for clicks (pennies).

While some amateur contributors may in fact be writing for money, I am not motivated, and I do not believe that other investment advisors are motivated, in any way by the minimal compensation that is paid for articles by SeekingAlpha

In fact, I wish they had not begun paying for articles, because it brings the doubt into peoples' minds you expressed about the motivation of investment advisors who publish here .

I began posting with SA in 2007 and have had the same general posting pace before and after compensation began a year or two ago. There was no compensation in 2007 and for several years

I do it because it is helpful to my business in several indirect ways. The money I get from SA is not even sufficient to regularly pay for my lunch. I make my money other ways. If SA were to discontinue compensation, there would be no change in my publication pace.

If income from clicks was my only benefit, I would not be posting at all, and would make more money and have less bother by working the counter at McDonalds.]]> Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:12:55 -0400
I am glad you brought up the point of compensation though. Some discontented commenters have said to me and to other contributors that we are trolling for clicks (pennies).

While some amateur contributors may in fact be writing for money, I am not motivated, and I do not believe that other investment advisors are motivated, in any way by the minimal compensation that is paid for articles by SeekingAlpha

In fact, I wish they had not begun paying for articles, because it brings the doubt into peoples' minds you expressed about the motivation of investment advisors who publish here .

I began posting with SA in 2007 and have had the same general posting pace before and after compensation began a year or two ago. There was no compensation in 2007 and for several years

I do it because it is helpful to my business in several indirect ways. The money I get from SA is not even sufficient to regularly pay for my lunch. I make my money other ways. If SA were to discontinue compensation, there would be no change in my publication pace.

If income from clicks was my only benefit, I would not be posting at all, and would make more money and have less bother by working the counter at McDonalds.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1342351/comments?source=feed#comment-17658551 17658551 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:29:26 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1342351/comments?source=feed#comment-17655801 17655801 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:41:24 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1338561/comments?source=feed#comment-17588881 17588881
We would like to have given info on all 84 stocks within the article, but that is too much for a post here.]]> Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:24:45 -0400
We would like to have given info on all 84 stocks within the article, but that is too much for a post here.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1338561/comments?source=feed#comment-17588771 17588771
Our filter was for revenue growth only, whereas the Wright rating if for a combination of several growth dimensions as listed in the article ...

"In terms of growth of net and cash earnings, dividends, retained earnings, assets and sales".]]> Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:18:37 -0400
Our filter was for revenue growth only, whereas the Wright rating if for a combination of several growth dimensions as listed in the article ...

"In terms of growth of net and cash earnings, dividends, retained earnings, assets and sales".]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1338561/comments?source=feed#comment-17588621 17588621
The A, B, C, D is the basic school grade concept, and L means limited.

"A": indicating Outstanding, "B": Excellent, "C": Good, "D": Fair, "L": Limited,]]> Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:12:09 -0400
The A, B, C, D is the basic school grade concept, and L means limited.

"A": indicating Outstanding, "B": Excellent, "C": Good, "D": Fair, "L": Limited,]]>