07-18-2013, 04:14 PM
By my math, $.92 would be an 8.2 percent raise quarter over quarter from today's $.85. It looks even better year over year (I use calendar years): in 2012 PM paid $3.24 in dividends per share; in 2013, assuming a raise to $.92 for Q3 and Q4, it would be a total of $3.54 -- a raise of 9.26 percent over 2012.
You are right that it would be lower, percentage-wise, than PM raises in recent years, and I too would love to see a bigger raise of course. But I could live with it. As you say, most people would kill for a 9 percent raise each year.
I would be surprised if it was much more than $.92, and $.90 or $.91 wouldn't surprise me, either, in light of the lowered earnings estimates. $.92 would keep the payout ratio right around 65 percent.
Regarding the number of shares available today versus 10 years ago, half seems hard to believe. But in any case, PM has been a huge contributor -- their buyback program is incredible.
Tom
You are right that it would be lower, percentage-wise, than PM raises in recent years, and I too would love to see a bigger raise of course. But I could live with it. As you say, most people would kill for a 9 percent raise each year.
I would be surprised if it was much more than $.92, and $.90 or $.91 wouldn't surprise me, either, in light of the lowered earnings estimates. $.92 would keep the payout ratio right around 65 percent.
Regarding the number of shares available today versus 10 years ago, half seems hard to believe. But in any case, PM has been a huge contributor -- their buyback program is incredible.
Tom