Agreed that this article is excellent. However, I feel obliged to comment on some of what hackenzac has said here. I am an American, not ethnic Chinese, who has been living and working in Taiwan since 1993.
Later on you say your comments are not directed at the Chinese people, and I am glad to hear that, because they are quite kind. They deserve their place in the world if they work for it. They have a long history of innovation, strong economics, and a rich culture. It bugs me that there is so much China bashing going on back home and it really stems from lack of understanding, and ignorance breeds fear. We have nothing to fear from the Chinese people - there is NO WAY they will ever replace the USA because their culture will not allow it. They may, alongside of us, take a leadership role, but let's not take a "there ain't enough room in this town for the both of us" attitude. Having Chinese customers is a win-win situation for U.S. businesses.
Basically, I can't argue too much with your feelings - I would just say please take a couple of more trips to greater China (including Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan) and China itself, and make those trips longer than just a week or two. It's going to take them a long time to bring their country up to par with North American and Western European standards in terms of economy and quality of life, and then who knows how long to gain freedoms we take for granted.
The thing that got me to start writing was your last sentence, hackenzac - "we were hugely complicit in creating that beast" - don't you think engagement is the best way to go here? Had we chosen isolation, others would have stepped in to give them what they needed anyway. Besides, all the resentment that would have caused would not have been worth it. At this point we can legitimately claim that we have helped build them up and when that "eventual popular uprising" comes - in whatever form, we will be remembered as the country that helped them out of their embarrassing mess, not the one who tried to keep them under its thumb.
If you study culture, you will find that Chinese and American cultures are just about on opposite ends of the spectrum on most scales. Yet the one thing I have learned after being here all these years is this - we can sit around talking about differences all day if we want - and to some it may even be beneficial to point out those differences - but the fact is we have much more in common as fellow human travelers on this blue orb called earth than most could predict. For example, they may work collectively where Americans are more individualistic and they tend to communicate more indirectly, but think instead about Maslow's hierarchy - the needs to be loved and self-fulfilled, are far more important IMHO than the particular ways we happen to go about attaining them.
Fortune Favors The Bold: The Time Is Now To Buy Silver And Gold [View article]
Hmm...whether this is a time of pessimism or optimism about gold is up for debate. But I agree with the author that the price of gold will rise this year. I also agree that miners of precious metals, to include silver and copper, will benefit more than holders of the physical metal, though not necessarily for the same reasons. We could go on about palladium, uranium, rare earths, and other commodities as well.
However, I believe Jim Rogers put it in a simple way. Either demand goes up because of a good economy, and then we make money if we hold precious metals (and the stocks of companies that mine them), or the economy goes sour and governments print money ad infinitum and then inflation kicks in and we still make money.
If you think about just one sovereign debt default in Europe this coming year and the effect of that - how out of control things will get - I would say any sane investor should have some portion of his or her portfolio in precious metals.
What interests me is the other uses of these metals - say, silver in making solar panels, copper for making new apartments (lots of applications), palladium for electronics, catalytic converters in cars and even dentistry - and I see real demand besides just traditional used in jewellry. Population growth is astounding, more people are entering the middle class or will be over the next 20 years than ever before - so, I think buying now and then holding through the termoil will produce great results if you can stomach the coming volatility.
That is what we got to really ask ourselves - what is our investing time horizon and tolerance for volatility? What I have learned this past year is to NOT buy stocks on margin, and when I do buy I want ones that themselves have a good balance sheet, growth prospects, and high insider ownership.
On this list I like GG the best, with NEM second. However, for high insider ownership I have found ANV, PZG, and AUMN as candidates. I am leaning heavily towards ANV, which has both gold and silver. I think the biggest gains will be here in these small players with little debt (PZG has zero debt). Another one I like is AUQ, AuRico, which used to be called Gammon and bought up Northgate minerals. This one looks good, and also has substantial copper resources. Any comments on these would be appreciated.
3 Dividend Tech Stocks For Long-Term Gains [View article]
I really like GLW as a pick, personally, but do not currently hold it.
Any thoughts on the following companies?
CSCO MSFT AAPL
They all have massive cash hordes - MSFT is one of only four companies with a triple-A credit rating, and they all have arguably more upside than, say, INTC.
That's the conundrum with tech. Accept a lower dividend, but relish the idea of greater upside in the stock price. Any reason why 2.64% dividend was chosen as the minimum here?
Out of all the ones mentioned here, I would go for AAPL and GLW, and one not mentioned - QCOM. I'd consider INTC very much too - but they have to show their true colors in the mobile computing world before I pull the trigger. Notice all four are innovators. I feel we need a somewhat separate set of rules when looking at tech stocks, yet I agree overall that dividend stocks should be included.
For a non-dividend stock cut from the same cloth as those above, I'd go for GOOG. With its bright future and growing pile of cash, I could not imagine them not offering a dividend later on.
7 Bullish, 2 Neutral and 5 Bearish Calls by Jim Cramer [View article]
Dr. Osman:
Care to comment on RIG vs SDRL vs. ATW vs. ESV?
How can I figure out (or can you provide) the O-Metrix score for SDRL and ATW?
SLB is a different kind of company altogether, isn't it? Shouldn't we be comparing that with HAL and BHI and perhaps WFT, or even NOV?
And how do you think one interested in commodities and energy investing should decide what part of his or her stock portfolio should be oil - and then subdivided into the drillers, oil services, and oil majors? I want to keep my picks to a minimum, as there are metals (including precious) and agriculture companies to consider as well.
What If Long-Term Dividend Investors Buy Before A Crash? [View article]
Tim - your articles are thought-provoking indeed, and you seem to be wise beyond your years. Can it be that you are still in college or law school? Perhaps you had a relative or two who was into stocks and heard about it from a young age, as I did, but in my case it turned out to be less of an education and more of a spark to the interest.
I find myself in quite an unusual situation with about 12 years of investing experience and now in my late 40's. I am restarting my portfolio for the 3rd time - twice before having built it up enough to help a family member or myself when in dire need. I am convinced of the power of equities in building one's wealth and that learning on one's own, mostly, is the way to go, so I appreciate direction more than answers or tips (but enjoyed seeing that master list, though). Will read Private Empire. Suggest you read Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller by Ron Chernow, which will get you to the roots of Exxon and the oil industry J.D. started.
I have chosen to focus mostly on defensive sectors, and am also drawn to the safety of large, high-quality companies that provide an income. Yet honestly, that is mostly head knowledge, and once my heart and the emotions of the market get more involved, I tend to trade more frequently and go for much smaller companies – between 1 to 3 billion in market cap, with zero or low debt, and excellent prospects. In the past I have had some good investing successes, like Pixar when Disney took it over, or Genentech when Roche took it over. In the past year or so there have been a number of times when I got a company right just before it popped, or scooped it up after an unreasonable drop. But then after my 15 to 20% gain, I often sell and move on. I feel like I am trying to make up for lost time, and there’s no way to do it well. Suggestions? Now I feel like I understand Woody Allen when he says “Eternity is a long time, especially towards the end.”
Don’t you think most American investors have both a taxed brokerage account and at least one tax-advantaged account, and that different stocks must go in each? I have a Roth IRA, for example, as of this year, and want dividend stocks for that, but in the taxed account I can see putting some good non-dividend stocks such as Berkshire Hathaway or Google. How can one reasonably exclude such quality companies simply because they do not currently offer a dividend?
I am also wondering about how much of the portfolio to hold back in cash. Do you take your dividends, for example, and reinvest right back into shares of those companies, or do you have the dividends turned into cash so you can allocate into those companies on sale? Actually, both dollar cost averaging (perhaps using DRIPS) and asset allocation from micro – to mega-caps in my chosen sectors is another question; what are your thoughts there? And finally, do you rebalance? I always thought letting your winners ride would be the best strategy, and most percentage-based definitions of risk are arbitrary anyway. However, there may be tax reasons for doing so that I am not totally clear about, or other reasons – please shed some light on this.
Interviewing Dr. Losordo: The Promising Development Of CD34 Cells [View article]
Neither Google nor a broker would be in a position to come close to answering a reasonable question that Robert puts forward, namely, why would a top-notch professional leave such a large and apparently successful company such as BAX for what looks like a riskier venture, NBS? The author may have a better idea than any of us, but I doubt it - the possibilities are myriad.
I would disbelieve incompetence from the start, as the medical profession has precautions against this, and the author gave his best answer saying he thought Dr. Losordo was attempting to bring NeoStem's cell therapies into clinic.
What frustrates me most about Seeking Alpha is that readers are often rude to each other. I also don't appreciate it when authors answer some comments, and ignore others - obviously not one of my questions were answered; but that is the author's choice, as this is not a paid service. It disappoints nonetheless.
Cramer's Mad Money - Why Analysts Were Wrong About Microsoft (4/25/13) [View article]
While I don't agree with everything he says, he adds a good measure of education to his entertainment! He's worth watching just for the CEO interviews alone. Sometimes I will find out about a company I had not known about before as well. That ain't no random walk!
But if you really think it is, then you best pay attention anyway. So many people watch this show that you may want to bet the other way! How else can we explain your presence here, commenting? Oh, and I assume you watch the show, too?
Possible reasons why more food is needed by fewer people:
1) Richer people want better food, including beef, which are often fed corn - corn is a resource-intensive crop. Many of these people will be coming out of poverty.
2) People are simply eating more than before, even without an increase in income.
3) More waste is happening regarding food - which may be happening in newly wealthy countries in particular. This includes pollution not eating all of the food, but also pollution of arable land and even over-fishing of fisheries.
4) Less arable land is available, so whatever remains must be more productive. This is happening in part because of improper or overuse of the land, but also because of changing weather patterns and global warming.
5) The population growth targets are incorrect and will grow higher than projected (beyond 9 billion). The only things that seem to slow population growth are state repression and economic malaise, both of which may well be endangered species in the future.
Everybody's got to eat. The world population is going up, and the fact that we cannot put exact numbers on it right now is irrelevant compared to the huge general trend, which is apparent. It would seem that these people of the future will not really need to buy iPhones or Coach bags, although that would be great, but corn, eggs, and other commodities will be a must. While I won't rush to sell my AAPL shares just yet, scoping out the right food companies now is just as smart of a move, IMHO.
IBM is also an old company that has gone through more than one "iteration" of itself, something like a cat that has nine lives. Another company that comes to mind like this is Corning - GLW. Other innovative companies, with research at the forefront of what they are doing, would seem to be QCOM and MMM.
I wonder how many IBM investors also see fit to invest in GLW, QCOM, or MMM? I might also wonder about INTC and SLB, which are well-known for their research efforts as well. In truth, all of these seem good investments. What, in your opinion, makes IBM deserve investment dollars right now more than these others?
Rocky Mountain Is A Chocolate Covered Growth Stock [View article]
Hate to ask a silly question - but have any of the posters out there actually been in a RMCF store or tried any of their chocolates?
I have not, but will be waiting for them to open a store in Taiwan, and will post when I visit. I am bullish on the stock, but would not get into it wholeheartedly until I taste their chocolate. If I understand it correctly, I can get to their web site, order their chocolates, and have them delivered just about anywhere internationally. If that is incorrect, I'd like to know about it.
Shipping chocolate overseas should not be as big of a problem as some posters have suspected, as plenty of refrigerated items from the Americas make it out here to Asia, including fresh blueberries and other produce, seafood, and even dairy products. So perhaps they just take space inside someone else's refrigerated flight or container.
My main concern that the founder-CEO, Franklin Crail, is 71 and that means someone else may be steering the rudder on this ship sooner rather than later. If that translates into any kind of lesser-quality offering in their product lineup or miscalculation in growth strategy, this stock suddenly becomes more speculative.
PepsiCo: A Better Value Than Coca-Cola [View article]
Hey DGI great article, thank you. PEP is going ex dividend on 29 Feb 2012 so I am thinking about including a position in my portfolio.
PEP has a great business with both a good beverage line-up and snacks. Their increasing efforts in health and wellness will undoubtedly bear good fruit. I'm also impressed with their female CEO, who seems to understand how to balance the interests of most stakeholders while carrying out sustainable growth in global markets.
One thing that worries me is that currently their debt is substantial: the debt is over five times as large as the cash. This may explain why the current ratio is so low, just under 1.
Another thing I am wondering about is the extent to which their insiders have a chunk of their own wealth in shares of the company. I'd hope to have talented management, yes, but better to have a management with its interested aligned with shareholders. For a company this huge I have trouble finding out about insider ownership, so I sometimes end up just discounting this metric.
The Most Important Question: 'What If My Investment Fails?' [View article]
This was a very well-written article. After sleeping on it, I thought I would add some things for your consideration.
While I agree that risk of failure in investing is important to think about, and certainly not done enough, I believe there is the flip-side that we also need to consider: not being able to take advantage of successful investments.
I do not mean this in the usual sense of outliving your investments or not selling high when you should. What I mean is that we spend so much time and energy on our investments; something unforeseen (and often upsetting) comes along and shakes things up. We then are prevented from enjoying our investment that we worked so hard on obtaining. For example, one may choose a high pressure profession that provides a good income, but does it allow time for exercise and family, or does it produce so much pressure that you feel the need to smoke or drink? Or you may be disciplined enough to save a nest egg, but then when retirement arrives want to enjoy yourself and spend too quickly, if not on yourself, then on your grandchildren. Or maybe you will be conservative in your spending, but will your spouse be? What if a family member is in desperate need of financial assistance – are you ready to help, or would you instead protect your investments? People rarely think about these things.
I suppose insurance is supposed to be there for natural disasters, but even that won’t protect you against war, if that were to interrupt your well-laid plans. Looking back, it seems I may have been at war with myself – because there are some mistakes we make in youth that no amount of money can fix. All I can do it develop the best habits and plan possible from here on out, keep a good attitude, and do my best not to directly hurt anyone with my investments or otherwise.
7 Dividend Stocks To Build Your Future Security [View article]
Hello Dividends4Life,
Good article, thanks. I have also enjoyed what you have written in the past.
You have a good investment philosophy and it is good for this environment and the long term. I am currently embracing it. I currently hold ABT and agree it is great.
My comment here is that with the volatility we are experiencing, low-beta stocks are best, particularly those with 0.5 or less. From your holdings, I like ABT, ED, KMB, and MCD the best. From the list in this article, besides ABT and MCD, WMT has an ultra-low beta. I saw an article elsewhere that showed returns for these kinds of stocks were superior in the past year compared with those of higher-beta stocks. Plus, I know I tend to freak out and panic sell when the stock price jumps around too much. I also like XOM instead of CVX because the beta is lower and they have a couple of strategic advantages, although yes, the dividend is currently lower.
Apple: Why I Am Strongly Bearish - Take Two [View article]
Dear author,
While I think technical analysis is a load of bunk, you are entitled to your opinions.
I feel some of the things you wrote early in the article have merit. It took courage to take a negative stance on such a popular company. Hope your short works out - if it does, you will be a very wealthy and have big "told you so" rights coming to you.
But - to attach a particular price to a particular stock within such a short time frame is VERY dangerous stuff. You may well be right (despite the charts) in the long run, but by December...well, it's a long shot to say the least.
What I would like to see here is some civility towards an author with a different opinion. Regardless of his views, he did his research and wrote an article. Some people here have been over the top on their criticism. Confirmation bias is alive and well here, it seems.
With all due respect to the author - if you believe a company to have bad management, you should not touch it with a ten foot pole, period. Actually, I saw a recent article on Fool.com getting me interested in DSX so I looked at this article and the comments for more information. I am grateful for the comments, especially. If the stock I am purchasing is not one I am willing to hold forever, then I don't want to hold it for even five minutes.
Why We Don't Own China [View article]
Later on you say your comments are not directed at the Chinese people, and I am glad to hear that, because they are quite kind. They deserve their place in the world if they work for it. They have a long history of innovation, strong economics, and a rich culture. It bugs me that there is so much China bashing going on back home and it really stems from lack of understanding, and ignorance breeds fear. We have nothing to fear from the Chinese people - there is NO WAY they will ever replace the USA because their culture will not allow it. They may, alongside of us, take a leadership role, but let's not take a "there ain't enough room in this town for the both of us" attitude. Having Chinese customers is a win-win situation for U.S. businesses.
Basically, I can't argue too much with your feelings - I would just say please take a couple of more trips to greater China (including Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan) and China itself, and make those trips longer than just a week or two. It's going to take them a long time to bring their country up to par with North American and Western European standards in terms of economy and quality of life, and then who knows how long to gain freedoms we take for granted.
The thing that got me to start writing was your last sentence, hackenzac - "we were hugely complicit in creating that beast" - don't you think engagement is the best way to go here? Had we chosen isolation, others would have stepped in to give them what they needed anyway. Besides, all the resentment that would have caused would not have been worth it. At this point we can legitimately claim that we have helped build them up and when that "eventual popular uprising" comes - in whatever form, we will be remembered as the country that helped them out of their embarrassing mess, not the one who tried to keep them under its thumb.
If you study culture, you will find that Chinese and American cultures are just about on opposite ends of the spectrum on most scales. Yet the one thing I have learned after being here all these years is this - we can sit around talking about differences all day if we want - and to some it may even be beneficial to point out those differences - but the fact is we have much more in common as fellow human travelers on this blue orb called earth than most could predict. For example, they may work collectively where Americans are more individualistic and they tend to communicate more indirectly, but think instead about Maslow's hierarchy - the needs to be loved and self-fulfilled, are far more important IMHO than the particular ways we happen to go about attaining them.
Fortune Favors The Bold: The Time Is Now To Buy Silver And Gold [View article]
However, I believe Jim Rogers put it in a simple way. Either demand goes up because of a good economy, and then we make money if we hold precious metals (and the stocks of companies that mine them), or the economy goes sour and governments print money ad infinitum and then inflation kicks in and we still make money.
If you think about just one sovereign debt default in Europe this coming year and the effect of that - how out of control things will get - I would say any sane investor should have some portion of his or her portfolio in precious metals.
What interests me is the other uses of these metals - say, silver in making solar panels, copper for making new apartments (lots of applications), palladium for electronics, catalytic converters in cars and even dentistry - and I see real demand besides just traditional used in jewellry. Population growth is astounding, more people are entering the middle class or will be over the next 20 years than ever before - so, I think buying now and then holding through the termoil will produce great results if you can stomach the coming volatility.
That is what we got to really ask ourselves - what is our investing time horizon and tolerance for volatility? What I have learned this past year is to NOT buy stocks on margin, and when I do buy I want ones that themselves have a good balance sheet, growth prospects, and high insider ownership.
On this list I like GG the best, with NEM second. However, for high insider ownership I have found ANV, PZG, and AUMN as candidates. I am leaning heavily towards ANV, which has both gold and silver. I think the biggest gains will be here in these small players with little debt (PZG has zero debt). Another one I like is AUQ, AuRico, which used to be called Gammon and bought up Northgate minerals. This one looks good, and also has substantial copper resources. Any comments on these would be appreciated.
3 Dividend Tech Stocks For Long-Term Gains [View article]
Any thoughts on the following companies?
CSCO
MSFT
AAPL
They all have massive cash hordes - MSFT is one of only four companies with a triple-A credit rating, and they all have arguably more upside than, say, INTC.
That's the conundrum with tech. Accept a lower dividend, but relish the idea of greater upside in the stock price. Any reason why 2.64% dividend was chosen as the minimum here?
Out of all the ones mentioned here, I would go for AAPL and GLW, and one not mentioned - QCOM. I'd consider INTC very much too - but they have to show their true colors in the mobile computing world before I pull the trigger. Notice all four are innovators. I feel we need a somewhat separate set of rules when looking at tech stocks, yet I agree overall that dividend stocks should be included.
For a non-dividend stock cut from the same cloth as those above, I'd go for GOOG. With its bright future and growing pile of cash, I could not imagine them not offering a dividend later on.
7 Bullish, 2 Neutral and 5 Bearish Calls by Jim Cramer [View article]
Care to comment on RIG vs SDRL vs. ATW vs. ESV?
How can I figure out (or can you provide) the O-Metrix score for SDRL and ATW?
SLB is a different kind of company altogether, isn't it? Shouldn't we be comparing that with HAL and BHI and perhaps WFT, or even NOV?
And how do you think one interested in commodities and energy investing should decide what part of his or her stock portfolio should be oil - and then subdivided into the drillers, oil services, and oil majors? I want to keep my picks to a minimum, as there are metals (including precious) and agriculture companies to consider as well.
What If Long-Term Dividend Investors Buy Before A Crash? [View article]
I find myself in quite an unusual situation with about 12 years of investing experience and now in my late 40's. I am restarting my portfolio for the 3rd time - twice before having built it up enough to help a family member or myself when in dire need. I am convinced of the power of equities in building one's wealth and that learning on one's own, mostly, is the way to go, so I appreciate direction more than answers or tips (but enjoyed seeing that master list, though). Will read Private Empire. Suggest you read Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller by Ron Chernow, which will get you to the roots of Exxon and the oil industry J.D. started.
I have chosen to focus mostly on defensive sectors, and am also drawn to the safety of large, high-quality companies that provide an income. Yet honestly, that is mostly head knowledge, and once my heart and the emotions of the market get more involved, I tend to trade more frequently and go for much smaller companies – between 1 to 3 billion in market cap, with zero or low debt, and excellent prospects. In the past I have had some good investing successes, like Pixar when Disney took it over, or Genentech when Roche took it over. In the past year or so there have been a number of times when I got a company right just before it popped, or scooped it up after an unreasonable drop. But then after my 15 to 20% gain, I often sell and move on. I feel like I am trying to make up for lost time, and there’s no way to do it well. Suggestions? Now I feel like I understand Woody Allen when he says “Eternity is a long time, especially towards the end.”
Don’t you think most American investors have both a taxed brokerage account and at least one tax-advantaged account, and that different stocks must go in each? I have a Roth IRA, for example, as of this year, and want dividend stocks for that, but in the taxed account I can see putting some good non-dividend stocks such as Berkshire Hathaway or Google. How can one reasonably exclude such quality companies simply because they do not currently offer a dividend?
I am also wondering about how much of the portfolio to hold back in cash. Do you take your dividends, for example, and reinvest right back into shares of those companies, or do you have the dividends turned into cash so you can allocate into those companies on sale? Actually, both dollar cost averaging (perhaps using DRIPS) and asset allocation from micro – to mega-caps in my chosen sectors is another question; what are your thoughts there? And finally, do you rebalance? I always thought letting your winners ride would be the best strategy, and most percentage-based definitions of risk are arbitrary anyway. However, there may be tax reasons for doing so that I am not totally clear about, or other reasons – please shed some light on this.
Interviewing Dr. Losordo: The Promising Development Of CD34 Cells [View article]
I would disbelieve incompetence from the start, as the medical profession has precautions against this, and the author gave his best answer saying he thought Dr. Losordo was attempting to bring NeoStem's cell therapies into clinic.
What frustrates me most about Seeking Alpha is that readers are often rude to each other. I also don't appreciate it when authors answer some comments, and ignore others - obviously not one of my questions were answered; but that is the author's choice, as this is not a paid service. It disappoints nonetheless.
Cramer's Mad Money - Why Analysts Were Wrong About Microsoft (4/25/13) [View article]
But if you really think it is, then you best pay attention anyway. So many people watch this show that you may want to bet the other way! How else can we explain your presence here, commenting? Oh, and I assume you watch the show, too?
Food Stocks Set For Strong Growth [View article]
1) Richer people want better food, including beef, which are often fed corn - corn is a resource-intensive crop. Many of these people will be coming out of poverty.
2) People are simply eating more than before, even without an increase in income.
3) More waste is happening regarding food - which may be happening in newly wealthy countries in particular. This includes pollution not eating all of the food, but also pollution of arable land and even over-fishing of fisheries.
4) Less arable land is available, so whatever remains must be more productive. This is happening in part because of improper or overuse of the land, but also because of changing weather patterns and global warming.
5) The population growth targets are incorrect and will grow higher than projected (beyond 9 billion). The only things that seem to slow population growth are state repression and economic malaise, both of which may well be endangered species in the future.
Everybody's got to eat. The world population is going up, and the fact that we cannot put exact numbers on it right now is irrelevant compared to the huge general trend, which is apparent. It would seem that these people of the future will not really need to buy iPhones or Coach bags, although that would be great, but corn, eggs, and other commodities will be a must. While I won't rush to sell my AAPL shares just yet, scoping out the right food companies now is just as smart of a move, IMHO.
Why IBM Is A Standout Buy [View article]
I wonder how many IBM investors also see fit to invest in GLW, QCOM, or MMM? I might also wonder about INTC and SLB, which are well-known for their research efforts as well. In truth, all of these seem good investments. What, in your opinion, makes IBM deserve investment dollars right now more than these others?
Rocky Mountain Is A Chocolate Covered Growth Stock [View article]
I have not, but will be waiting for them to open a store in Taiwan, and will post when I visit. I am bullish on the stock, but would not get into it wholeheartedly until I taste their chocolate. If I understand it correctly, I can get to their web site, order their chocolates, and have them delivered just about anywhere internationally. If that is incorrect, I'd like to know about it.
Shipping chocolate overseas should not be as big of a problem as some posters have suspected, as plenty of refrigerated items from the Americas make it out here to Asia, including fresh blueberries and other produce, seafood, and even dairy products. So perhaps they just take space inside someone else's refrigerated flight or container.
My main concern that the founder-CEO, Franklin Crail, is 71 and that means someone else may be steering the rudder on this ship sooner rather than later. If that translates into any kind of lesser-quality offering in their product lineup or miscalculation in growth strategy, this stock suddenly becomes more speculative.
PepsiCo: A Better Value Than Coca-Cola [View article]
PEP has a great business with both a good beverage line-up and snacks. Their increasing efforts in health and wellness will undoubtedly bear good fruit. I'm also impressed with their female CEO, who seems to understand how to balance the interests of most stakeholders while carrying out sustainable growth in global markets.
One thing that worries me is that currently their debt is substantial: the debt is over five times as large as the cash. This may explain why the current ratio is so low, just under 1.
Another thing I am wondering about is the extent to which their insiders have a chunk of their own wealth in shares of the company. I'd hope to have talented management, yes, but better to have a management with its interested aligned with shareholders. For a company this huge I have trouble finding out about insider ownership, so I sometimes end up just discounting this metric.
The Most Important Question: 'What If My Investment Fails?' [View article]
While I agree that risk of failure in investing is important to think about, and certainly not done enough, I believe there is the flip-side that we also need to consider: not being able to take advantage of successful investments.
I do not mean this in the usual sense of outliving your investments or not selling high when you should. What I mean is that we spend so much time and energy on our investments; something unforeseen (and often upsetting) comes along and shakes things up. We then are prevented from enjoying our investment that we worked so hard on obtaining. For example, one may choose a high pressure profession that provides a good income, but does it allow time for exercise and family, or does it produce so much pressure that you feel the need to smoke or drink? Or you may be disciplined enough to save a nest egg, but then when retirement arrives want to enjoy yourself and spend too quickly, if not on yourself, then on your grandchildren. Or maybe you will be conservative in your spending, but will your spouse be? What if a family member is in desperate need of financial assistance – are you ready to help, or would you instead protect your investments? People rarely think about these things.
I suppose insurance is supposed to be there for natural disasters, but even that won’t protect you against war, if that were to interrupt your well-laid plans. Looking back, it seems I may have been at war with myself – because there are some mistakes we make in youth that no amount of money can fix. All I can do it develop the best habits and plan possible from here on out, keep a good attitude, and do my best not to directly hurt anyone with my investments or otherwise.
7 Dividend Stocks To Build Your Future Security [View article]
Good article, thanks. I have also enjoyed what you have written in the past.
You have a good investment philosophy and it is good for this environment and the long term. I am currently embracing it. I currently hold ABT and agree it is great.
My comment here is that with the volatility we are experiencing, low-beta stocks are best, particularly those with 0.5 or less. From your holdings, I like ABT, ED, KMB, and MCD the best. From the list in this article, besides ABT and MCD, WMT has an ultra-low beta. I saw an article elsewhere that showed returns for these kinds of stocks were superior in the past year compared with those of higher-beta stocks. Plus, I know I tend to freak out and panic sell when the stock price jumps around too much. I also like XOM instead of CVX because the beta is lower and they have a couple of strategic advantages, although yes, the dividend is currently lower.
Apple: Why I Am Strongly Bearish - Take Two [View article]
While I think technical analysis is a load of bunk, you are entitled to your opinions.
I feel some of the things you wrote early in the article have merit. It took courage to take a negative stance on such a popular company. Hope your short works out - if it does, you will be a very wealthy and have big "told you so" rights coming to you.
But - to attach a particular price to a particular stock within such a short time frame is VERY dangerous stuff. You may well be right (despite the charts) in the long run, but by December...well, it's a long shot to say the least.
What I would like to see here is some civility towards an author with a different opinion. Regardless of his views, he did his research and wrote an article. Some people here have been over the top on their criticism. Confirmation bias is alive and well here, it seems.
Value Play in DryShips [View article]