I'm not sure what exactly a REIT is. I don't think Archstone is because I beleive they both own and manage the apartments.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/dollardiva/20000301e.asp "REIT is an acronym for real estate investment trust. It's an organization that pools investors' money to invest in commercial real estate. Most REITs invest in the equity in real property, some in mortgages and some in both. <snip> Shares in a real estate investment trust are called units. The REIT's claim to fame is that it pays no income tax on its earnings. Instead, it has to distribute 95 percent of its net income, and the distributions are taxed to the unit holders as dividends. When a company such as Coca Cola, Philip Morris or The Home Depot pays dividends, the dividends are taxed twice. First, the corporation pays income tax on its earnings. Then, when it distributes after-tax dollars as dividends, these dollars are taxed again to the shareholders. ".... Read the linked article for further analysis of the general upside (and downside) of REITs.
REITS are usually good for a small portion of your portfolio. Usually from what I have read about 10% of your overall investments. They are a niche product that has the attractive apsect of both having the underlying properties increase in value over time, while at the same time increasing returns through reoccuring lease payments. So you have 2 sources of upside with REIT's.
Thanks. I had just put them in my "To Watch" portfolio. Seems like a downtown in new housing starts and sales of exsiting homes would benefit them since the apartment market as a whole has been cutting back in the slack in vacancy they had for many years.
They have good beer and food and are growing fast. I'm going to keep my eye on them for fun. I wouldn't recomend their stock though. I did also learn from this that NASDAQ's changed the name for their small cap stock listings.
One to watch if you're looking to short a stock. They did pretty crappy during a housing boom. God knows what will happen to them as things slow down.
IMHO it'd take big balls to short HD at this point. Take a look at your chart, earnings are up big time over that span yet the stock price is flat. The current PE is like 12, the PEG ratio under 1. Even a housing slowdown isn’t bad news, as people tend to upgrade their current home rather than buy up. The only negative is Nardelli is a prick.
Microsoft has come back from their mini-crash a few months ago. I bought a few years ago at 27.05 and my cost basis on those shares is now about $23.50, thanks to that special $3 dividend. I bought a few more shares after their mini-crash at about $23, so the rebound has been nice. Sachin
I was looking at Microsoft when it was in the $22's. I figured if it hit $21 I'd buy some. Oh well, such is life.
Are you picking it or just making an observation? I think they overpaid for Youtube. There will probably be some major copyright problems in the future.
Just an observation. Speaking of Google.... wasn't everyone talking about the best and brightest getting hired by Microsoft when they opened up their Silicon Valley campus 5- 10 years ago? Where has MS' stock gone since then?
I like Tata Motors as a mid-term investment. Missed "the street's" expectations, but still growing at a decent clip. If it comes down a little more, I'm a buyer.
Ended up buying some a couple weeks back @ 17.97 a share. Very good news today, and it's up about 5%. Still like it. http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/artic...12-01_15-36-02_BOM15958&type=comktNews&rpc=44
Just for giggles, follow these 3 stocks for the month of December: OMX, NVDA, STI. I was watching Cramer last night (more for entertainment value than anything educational) and at the end of his show he proposed a theory. He began by saying, "although I hate relying on history to make investment decisions" he was going to make an exception to this recomendation. He stated that in teh month of December, stocks that showed the largest growth during that year, had enough momentum in December to perform very well, while many others didnt do so hot. He belted out some statistic that supported this and said, "its so statistically signifigant, its almost become a truism.." I am not buying into it, but will be anxious to see how he does.
The advantage of being Cramer is that if you're wrong, you never mention it again, but if you're right, you trumpet it all the time. No one has time to track everything he says. I don't buy it either, although i think there is something to be said for stocks that had good a 2006 going down the first couple weeks of 2007 due to people selling after the new year for tax purposes. (Particularly smaller companies.)
I had him on while doing weights a couple weeks ago. He was gushing over Sears again. I disagree with his reasoning. I don't doubt that there is unrecognized value. But if Wallstreet and the market as a whole really isn't valuing it well now because they should treat it more like Berkshire Hathaway than a retail stock, what are the chances they ever will? And how long will you have to sit on the before such a deep rooted change in a approach changes? For example, if you had bought back in the spring of 05 you would've sat around for a year and half just waiting for your investment get back to what you put into it, let alone actual gains. And obviously over that time the street's treating of the stock hasn't changed. How many more years would you have to wait for this change to take place? And when / if that does finally happen will the company still be doing as well as an investment vehicle as it has been? I don't mind the risks. Just as far as I know Cramer hasn't been willing to quantify what kind of gains would likely be had by that paradigm change. Are we talking a likely 30% gain in value? That would be a nice return even if it took a couple years of waiting. Seems like a person could wait on buying it until there's some more talk on the street of valuing Sears Holding like Berkshire Hathaway.
(This didn't format correctly): Company Dec 1 Dec 29 Gain OMX 47.34 49.99 5.6% NVDA 36.58 37.24 1.8% STI 81.96 84.45 2.9% For comparison: Dow's up 2.3%, S&P's up 1.8%, and the Nasdaq's unchanged for December. 2007 Thread Here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=456277
My ESLR investment is back to what I paid for it, after being more than $10 up per share. Heh, such fun in speculation. Luckily, I bought MSFT in several batches for an average cost basis around $24. It closed at $29.86, so it's up about 25% for me. Sachin
Had a good year with MSFT as well. Bought it around $24 like yourself, now debating whether to sell at $30-ish. Definitely going to dump some company stock in 2007 and diversify a bit more.
My big winner for the year was AAPL. Bought in mid-August for 65-ish and sold it for 85 in Decmber (I set a stop-loss at 93% of highs). Unfortunately, I didn't have all that much of it!!
The way I do it is to let it ride as long as it is going up, but I set a stop-loss at a 7% drop off of the high so I protect the downside. What methods do others use? BTW, I got this from the guy that publishes IBD (I hate it when I can't remember a name Old age is a bitch!!)
I bought AMX at 33.50 last year and dont believe in stops (currently 44ish). For me the key isnt the percentage drop, rather what the stock does in relation to the market as a whole that tells me to sell, if the fundamentals changes. Ive lost a lot on stops that kicked me out and then took off right after early in my stock trading days.
That's a good point. The mechanics of exactly where to set the stop is very important. The way I do it is not original, but I am not a highly experienced investor that can follow the market every day like some can, so it's very possible that I err on the side of safety too much. On the other hand, capital preservation is very important to me and I never lose more than 7% by doing it this way. It depends a lot on your circumstances. It sounds like you have a lot more investment experience than I. Do you have any general rules you use?