Residential Mortgage Exposure And Risk/Reward For The Canadian Banks [View article]
@ Alex,
Re. BMO, you stated "...if they cut the dividend the stock will get killed." -- BMO has not *cut* their dividends in more than 20 years (at a minimum, and perhaps even never) and was established in 1817 (not a typo).
BMO did have a constant (i.e. no increase) dividend for several years and through the financial meltdown, but never cut its dividend throughout the whole ordeal.
Using logic, unless conditions worse than the Great Recession 2007-2009 arise, it's not reasonable to expect a dividend cut.
Sorry, Your Dividends Are Not Coming Home Any Time Soon [View article]
@ msftx,
You can't just talk about the current year's tax rate without looking at it in context and examining the details.
For example, if you have massive losses carried forward from prior years, you can use those losses to decrease your current taxes payable. Taxable income (for tax purposes) doesn't necessarily equal accounting Net Income.
Further, international companies can earn a significant portion of their income in foreign jurisdictions that have lower tax rates.
Lastly, I'd point out that when you refer to companies such as Exxon, GE, etc., people seem to think that they are just one company -- the reality is that the label "Exxon" refers to a conglomerate of hundreds (if not thousands) of separate corporations that operate under the "Exxon"-labeled umbrella.
Half-truths are great for sensationalistic headlines, but are not to be taken at face value by informed and knowledgeable people.
4 Special Dividend Stocks For Income Investors [View article]
The general decline of literacy in society saddens me. Put down the distractions and pick up a good book. Everyone will be better off as a result.
Misinterpreting something, and then railing against a non-existent issue, doesn't reflect well on the general state of reading comprehension and critical analysis.
The story title is not "misleading", it is AMBIGUOUS.
The Secret Ingredient Of Dividend Growth Stocks [View article]
@ ScottHB,
You make a good point (i.e. that purchasing power is the truly important factor, and not nominal gains).
Since the comparison was between dividend growth stocks and CD's or other fixed-income investments, and since inflation was ignored for both types of investment, we were provided with an apples-to-apples comparison.
This comparison showed that dividend stocks are the better of the two alternatives, due to the increasing dividends over time vs. the fixed interest payments.
The Unbridled Truth About Dividend Contribution To Shareholder Profitability [View article]
@ Chuck,
I think your articles are too consistently reasonable and well thought-out, along with too much quantitative and qualitative support for your contentions.
How dare you be rational and logical? You must be a dinosaur ;)
You state: "BRK is really just a massive Ponzi scheme".
Either you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, or you're talking out of something other than your mouth. If you think BRK is a fraud, I'd love to see the evidence that leads to that conclusion.
Further, to all those people who try to slam Buffett's investing acumen (ex. "He's lost his touch", etc., etc.), keep repeating the following, until it sinks in:
"Warren Buffett, through his company Berkshire Hathaway, is the world's richest pure investor, who made his fortune investing in companies other than his own".
There are more than $40 billion reasons why Buffett's always going to be relevant and a master investor, unlike the folks who think they're "cool" by talking nonsense about Buffett.
Analyzing Potash Corporation's Debt And Risk [View article]
@ tavern,
Your comment reads like a Haiku, and is just a statement of your opinion, as you stated nothing to support your contention that "Caution is in order".
Ratio analysis is not a "look at the past" at all -- if you calculate ratios using today's numbers, the numbers are current and relevant for decision-making. Saying anything contrary to this is just plain wrong.
Sales outlook for the future is just one (albeit important) aspect of financial decision-making.
Microsoft Has Been A Better Business Than It Has A Stock, But That Is About To Change [View article]
In the past 4 years, the total number of outstanding shares has gone down by about 7%, even with Bill Gates selling shares.
Also, note that the average daily volume of MSFT shares traded in ONE day is about 50 million shares. So, even if Gates wanted to sell all his annual quota on one day alone, it wouldn't have a very big impact.
In fact, MSFT traded 131 million shares last Tuesday (November 13).
Much ado about nothing -- Chuck's article tells the story much more accurately.
Intel: The No-Nonsense Reason It's Down [View article]
@ stephenelkins,
1) George W. Bush was President of the USA for the 8 (not 12) years that had multi-trillion dollar wars and deregulation of the financial system, leading to massive deficits and debt increases, and the financial meltdown, respectively. Mentioning Obama is misplaced and odd, seeing as he wasn't even in power during these events. If someone causes a problem, it's logically odd to mention a second party that has nothing to do with the root of the issues.
2) The "Obama Correction" is a misguided and meaningless label, and that's the point I've reiterated several times. If the stock market was up in anticipation of a Romney/Ryan win, it was misguided.
3) My continuing opinion is that Obama is trying to compromise in order to deal with the pressing problems, whereas the Republicans are "gaming" and cynically stifling an earnest attempt to deal with the real (and snowballing) problems that the US is facing. They didn't win the confidence of the American voters, so they seem to be content to play the role of spoiler. This is all to the detriment of average Americans, who should be served by their elected officials, rather than played for fools.
Even With A Fiscal Cliff Deal, Stocks And The U.S. Economy Will Unravel In 2013 [View article]
@ Trade In Mexico,
Yes, the logical thing would have been to vote back in the same people who burned the house down during Dubya's 8 years in power.
Thankfully, the majority of US voters saw that this was a stupid line of logic and also realized that Romney/Ryan were unprepared for the job of leading the US.
I love how you say you're neither Dem or Repub, but then go on to imply that the Democrats are Socialists and that the US will go to hell because of them.
At least having some semblance of logical consistency would give you a bit of credibility.
Blue-Chip Dividend Aristocrats - There Is A Lot Of Value In This Market: Part 4 [View article]
@ billshea,
Your persistent attention-seeking and misguided negativity is tiresome. If I remember you correctly, you were the young guy with the picture of you hanging off a streetcar in San Francisco -- you're now a hedge fund manager (as per your Seeking Alpha bio)?
Here are a couple of points to address your complaints: 1) FAST Graphs provide a visual depiction of valuation relative to earnings, which is useful and valuable (to most rational people) in and of itself. This is a free site. Perhaps today's lesson for you is learning the meaning of "Looking a gift horse in the mouth". You don't like FAST Graphs. Great -- don't use them, and move on.
2) Chuck isn't marketing a FAST Graph Fund that claims to beat an index or ETF. FAST Graphs are shown for individual stocks, not a portfolio. Chuck has never mentioned a FAST Graph portfolio in his articles, so what are you going on about benchmarking, etc.? 3) SHW -- it went from fair to over-valued to very over-valued. Congratulations to you if you made money on SHW. Does that make you a shrewd investor because it worked out for you?
I once put $20 on Red for one spin on a Roulette table, and earned a 100% instant return. The only difference between my Roulette spin and your SHW investment is that I didn't think I was a genius when I doubled my money.
4) Yes, FAST Graphs don't predict the future. You should find a fortune teller, crystal ball or some Tarot cards for that.
5) Since Chuck is not providing investment advice, nor managing your money, nor running a fund, via his articles on Seeking Alpha. Why would he be responsible for "underperformance"?!?
6) Chuck is using "super-liminal" marketing (as a "clever marketer", per your words), by being 100% upfront about his product and clearly stating what FAST Graphs are and what they are and aren't designed for. Chuck is clever, no doubt. You'd do well to follow his example, rather than carrying on like you do.
Residential Mortgage Exposure And Risk/Reward For The Canadian Banks [View article]
Re. BMO, you stated "...if they cut the dividend the stock will get killed." -- BMO has not *cut* their dividends in more than 20 years (at a minimum, and perhaps even never) and was established in 1817 (not a typo).
BMO did have a constant (i.e. no increase) dividend for several years and through the financial meltdown, but never cut its dividend throughout the whole ordeal.
Using logic, unless conditions worse than the Great Recession 2007-2009 arise, it's not reasonable to expect a dividend cut.
Sorry, Your Dividends Are Not Coming Home Any Time Soon [View article]
You can't just talk about the current year's tax rate without looking at it in context and examining the details.
For example, if you have massive losses carried forward from prior years, you can use those losses to decrease your current taxes payable. Taxable income (for tax purposes) doesn't necessarily equal accounting Net Income.
Further, international companies can earn a significant portion of their income in foreign jurisdictions that have lower tax rates.
Lastly, I'd point out that when you refer to companies such as Exxon, GE, etc., people seem to think that they are just one company -- the reality is that the label "Exxon" refers to a conglomerate of hundreds (if not thousands) of separate corporations that operate under the "Exxon"-labeled umbrella.
Half-truths are great for sensationalistic headlines, but are not to be taken at face value by informed and knowledgeable people.
4 Special Dividend Stocks For Income Investors [View article]
Misinterpreting something, and then railing against a non-existent issue, doesn't reflect well on the general state of reading comprehension and critical analysis.
The story title is not "misleading", it is AMBIGUOUS.
The Secret Ingredient Of Dividend Growth Stocks [View article]
The Secret Ingredient Of Dividend Growth Stocks [View article]
You make a good point (i.e. that purchasing power is the truly important factor, and not nominal gains).
Since the comparison was between dividend growth stocks and CD's or other fixed-income investments, and since inflation was ignored for both types of investment, we were provided with an apples-to-apples comparison.
This comparison showed that dividend stocks are the better of the two alternatives, due to the increasing dividends over time vs. the fixed interest payments.
The Unbridled Truth About Dividend Contribution To Shareholder Profitability [View article]
I think your articles are too consistently reasonable and well thought-out, along with too much quantitative and qualitative support for your contentions.
How dare you be rational and logical? You must be a dinosaur ;)
Great stuff, Chuck, as always.
Do Dividends Matter? [View article]
You state: "BRK is really just a massive Ponzi scheme".
Either you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, or you're talking out of something other than your mouth. If you think BRK is a fraud, I'd love to see the evidence that leads to that conclusion.
Further, to all those people who try to slam Buffett's investing acumen (ex. "He's lost his touch", etc., etc.), keep repeating the following, until it sinks in:
"Warren Buffett, through his company Berkshire Hathaway, is the world's richest pure investor, who made his fortune investing in companies other than his own".
There are more than $40 billion reasons why Buffett's always going to be relevant and a master investor, unlike the folks who think they're "cool" by talking nonsense about Buffett.
Analyzing Potash Corporation's Debt And Risk [View article]
Your comment reads like a Haiku, and is just a statement of your opinion, as you stated nothing to support your contention that "Caution is in order".
Ratio analysis is not a "look at the past" at all -- if you calculate ratios using today's numbers, the numbers are current and relevant for decision-making. Saying anything contrary to this is just plain wrong.
Sales outlook for the future is just one (albeit important) aspect of financial decision-making.
Microsoft Has Been A Better Business Than It Has A Stock, But That Is About To Change [View article]
Also, note that the average daily volume of MSFT shares traded in ONE day is about 50 million shares. So, even if Gates wanted to sell all his annual quota on one day alone, it wouldn't have a very big impact.
In fact, MSFT traded 131 million shares last Tuesday (November 13).
Much ado about nothing -- Chuck's article tells the story much more accurately.
Intel: The No-Nonsense Reason It's Down [View article]
Here's the Yahoo! S&P 500 Index chart, as a reality check:
http://yhoo.it/T4i8Wa;range=5y;compare=;ind...
Intel: The No-Nonsense Reason It's Down [View article]
1) George W. Bush was President of the USA for the 8 (not 12) years that had multi-trillion dollar wars and deregulation of the financial system, leading to massive deficits and debt increases, and the financial meltdown, respectively. Mentioning Obama is misplaced and odd, seeing as he wasn't even in power during these events. If someone causes a problem, it's logically odd to mention a second party that has nothing to do with the root of the issues.
2) The "Obama Correction" is a misguided and meaningless label, and that's the point I've reiterated several times. If the stock market was up in anticipation of a Romney/Ryan win, it was misguided.
3) My continuing opinion is that Obama is trying to compromise in order to deal with the pressing problems, whereas the Republicans are "gaming" and cynically stifling an earnest attempt to deal with the real (and snowballing) problems that the US is facing. They didn't win the confidence of the American voters, so they seem to be content to play the role of spoiler. This is all to the detriment of average Americans, who should be served by their elected officials, rather than played for fools.
Intel: The No-Nonsense Reason It's Down [View article]
What's the point of mentioning Obama re. the stock market decline? Do you think he controls everything that's going on in the world?
Was the Great Recession/financial system near collapse ever labelled the "George W. Bush Recession/Financial Collapse"?
The logic is flawed in the extreme.
Even With A Fiscal Cliff Deal, Stocks And The U.S. Economy Will Unravel In 2013 [View article]
Yes, the logical thing would have been to vote back in the same people who burned the house down during Dubya's 8 years in power.
Thankfully, the majority of US voters saw that this was a stupid line of logic and also realized that Romney/Ryan were unprepared for the job of leading the US.
I love how you say you're neither Dem or Repub, but then go on to imply that the Democrats are Socialists and that the US will go to hell because of them.
At least having some semblance of logical consistency would give you a bit of credibility.
Blue-Chip Dividend Aristocrats - There Is A Lot Of Value In This Market: Part 4 [View article]
Your persistent attention-seeking and misguided negativity is tiresome.
If I remember you correctly, you were the young guy with the picture of you hanging off a streetcar in San Francisco -- you're now a hedge fund manager (as per your Seeking Alpha bio)?
Here are a couple of points to address your complaints:
1) FAST Graphs provide a visual depiction of valuation relative to earnings, which is useful and valuable (to most rational people) in and of itself.
This is a free site. Perhaps today's lesson for you is learning the meaning of "Looking a gift horse in the mouth". You don't like FAST Graphs. Great -- don't use them, and move on.
2) Chuck isn't marketing a FAST Graph Fund that claims to beat an index or ETF. FAST Graphs are shown for individual stocks, not a portfolio. Chuck has never mentioned a FAST Graph portfolio in his articles, so what are you going on about benchmarking, etc.?
3) SHW -- it went from fair to over-valued to very over-valued. Congratulations to you if you made money on SHW. Does that make you a shrewd investor because it worked out for you?
I once put $20 on Red for one spin on a Roulette table, and earned a 100% instant return. The only difference between my Roulette spin and your SHW investment is that I didn't think I was a genius when I doubled my money.
4) Yes, FAST Graphs don't predict the future. You should find a fortune teller, crystal ball or some Tarot cards for that.
5) Since Chuck is not providing investment advice, nor managing your money, nor running a fund, via his articles on Seeking Alpha. Why would he be responsible for "underperformance"?!?
6) Chuck is using "super-liminal" marketing (as a "clever marketer", per your words), by being 100% upfront about his product and clearly stating what FAST Graphs are and what they are and aren't designed for.
Chuck is clever, no doubt. You'd do well to follow his example, rather than carrying on like you do.
Dump Google Now [View article]
This comment is far more reasonable than your actual article.