Posts: 583
Threads: 62
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
17
Info is contradictory, but either 70M additional customers affected or the number affected has been increased to 70M. Either way, not good news for TGT short term. Bloomberg piece said that several law suits have already been initiated.
If shares take a big hit, such that the yield were to move past 3%, I'll definitely grab a few shares in my buy and hold account. I'm not looking for that kind of dramatic action, but have my alerts set just in case.
Alex
Posts: 2,398
Threads: 54
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
35
(01-10-2014, 01:10 PM)hendi_alex Wrote: Info is contradictory, but either 70M additional customers affected or the number affected has been increased to 70M. Either way, not good news for TGT short term. Bloomberg piece said that several law suits have already been initiated.
If shares take a big hit, such that the yield were to move past 3%, I'll definitely grab a few shares in my buy and hold account. I'm not looking for that kind of dramatic action, but have my alerts set just in case.
I said the same when the news first hit. I think the earnings could be ugly for Q4 of 2103 and Q1 of 2014. So far the stock has held up pretty well. Its looking attractive, but I think I'll give it another month or two before I add to my position.
The idea of getting into TGT during this period, post security breach, is attractive, but it seems to have weathered the storm pretty well. I'd probably be in if the dividend yield was higher.
Posts: 1,530
Threads: 172
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
27
Hey aagha!
I agree with Eric that next earnings could provide a nice opportunity to get into TGT, at a slightly higher yield. I agree the initial yield is not super exciting, but it isn't too bad, especially in light of the very solid dividend growth rate. Since I started buying TGT above $70, I can't really complain about prices in the low $60s!
While you wait, if you are looking for a good value with better yield, check out PM. If I wasn't already so overloaded with tobacco, I'd be backing up the truck on PM right now. If it keeps going down, I'll likely buy some more anyway.
Posts: 583
Threads: 62
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
17
The one investment that totally disgusts me, gets mentioned oh so much. No one IMO can successfully defend a decision to invest in such a company, unless financial gain is the only criteria that counts. I know that most of you are ethical, caring individuals. Probably many are religious as well. Why isn't an investment in a business whose end product has zero social benefit, an industry that preys on human weakness, and exploits addiction and sentences users to early, very nasty death sentences, why isn't such totally outside the bounds of supporting? I for one simply cannot fathom this inconsistent behavior in what are otherwise very ethical, caring individuals. Are there no bounds, no restrictions, where making money is concerned? Everything is fair game? You know there is about a 20%-30% chance that your child will be part of the smoking crowd in high school. Do you really want to be supporting that activity?
Alex
Posts: 433
Threads: 37
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation:
10
(01-11-2014, 09:51 AM)hendi_alex Wrote: The one investment that totally disgusts me, gets mentioned oh so much. No one IMO can successfully defend a decision to invest in such a company, unless financial gain is the only criteria that counts. I know that most of you are ethical, caring individuals. Probably many are religious as well. Why isn't an investment in a business whose end product has zero social benefit, an industry that preys on human weakness, and exploits addiction and sentences users to early, very nasty death sentences, why isn't such totally outside the bounds of supporting? I for one simply cannot fathom this inconsistent behavior in what are otherwise very ethical, caring individuals. Are there no bounds, no restrictions, where making money is concerned? Everything is fair game? You know there is about a 20%-30% chance that your child will be part of the smoking crowd in high school. Do you really want to be supporting that activity?
I do not invest in tobacco stocks as a matter of personal choice.
I do not get upset at people who make a different choice.
Posts: 152
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
3
01-11-2014, 02:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2014, 02:49 PM by fiveoh.)
(01-11-2014, 09:51 AM)hendi_alex Wrote: The one investment that totally disgusts me, gets mentioned oh so much. No one IMO can successfully defend a decision to invest in such a company, unless financial gain is the only criteria that counts. I know that most of you are ethical, caring individuals. Probably many are religious as well. Why isn't an investment in a business whose end product has zero social benefit, an industry that preys on human weakness, and exploits addiction and sentences users to early, very nasty death sentences, why isn't such totally outside the bounds of supporting? I for one simply cannot fathom this inconsistent behavior in what are otherwise very ethical, caring individuals. Are there no bounds, no restrictions, where making money is concerned? Everything is fair game? You know there is about a 20%-30% chance that your child will be part of the smoking crowd in high school. Do you really want to be supporting that activity?
PM is not forcing anyone to smoke. If they didn't offer cigs someone else would. Alcohol isn't good for you either but it doesn't seem to have the stigma that smoking does these days. I'm not sure why. It used to be the other way around(prohibition). Where do you draw the line? There is evidence that fatty/salty/sugary foods are addictive and they kill you too. Should I not invest in MCD? WMT sells a lot of these foods and cigs and alcohol as well. Should I avoid it? I don't see the tobacco companies as these big unethical companies. They are just providing a product that people want.
On the topic of TGT... I've been really disappointed/surprised it hasn't gone down more on this security breach. I wanted to open a position but wanted a higher yield.
Posts: 583
Threads: 62
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
17
01-11-2014, 04:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2014, 04:52 PM by hendi_alex.)
rnsmth: "I do not get upset at people who make a different choice."
I'm not upset, I just find the choice to be totally unacceptable. Just like I find the 'choice' of my friends and family to continue smoking as unacceptable. Of course, given the nature of cigarette addiction, the choice for many has been taken away from them, at least for practical purposes it has. I do find the constant promotion of cigarette companies to be offensive. For the most part I ignore such, but lately it has become such a recurring theme. After this thread I'll just go back to ignore, as much as is possible. But to me it is sad, that some individuals seem to think that a profit is a profit. They give ethical considerations to all kinds of things, but where money is concerned, ethics don't apply. I'm not saying that such applies to anyone on this board, but just casual observation gives plenty of examples of the trait.
*****************
reply to fiveoh:
Those just sound like rationalizations to me. Cigarettes, though not as poisonous as alcohol are far more addictive. Further, there is almost no such thing as a casual user or moderate user of cigarettes. In fact there may be no such thing as moderate use wrt cigarettes. Most individuals that drink alcohol do so moderately and in moderation, alcohol particularly in the form of red wine, is beneficial. McDonald's may mostly cater junk food, but it is certainly not physically addictive, and definitely does have some amount of benefit. My standard, which I'll stand by, [a business whose end product has zero social benefit] applies only to the cigarette business, at least as far as I can determine. If someone points out a business that is similarly flawed, I'll add it to my list to avoid. At this point, the list is very short, including only cigarette companies.
Sure most any business has some negative aspect. Miners and oil companies are very destructive to the environment, but they also contribute great benefit. We have all seen how corrupt and destructive banks can be, but modern society can run without them. WalMart exploits their workers and sells many items which themselves or their companies don't represent socially friendly or environmentally friendly alternatives, yet WalMart contributes greatly to fill social needs.
Investing in cigarette companies is a totally different animal. I don't think that you can find a comparable example.
"PM is not forcing anyone to smoke. If they didn't offer cigs someone else would." Only cigarette manufacturers would, and its it my position that no one who believes strongly in the matter should support the industry in any way, including the investing arena. The cigarette company motto is to addict them when they are young, and to addict them for life. When I was teaching, probably 20%-50% of the students were smoking. Ten to twenty per cent of those will be unable to quit and will become lifetime smokers. I don't know how any person can see the first hand effects that smoking has to immediate family, friends, and neighbors, yet remain casual about the issue. No the cigarette companies don't force any to smoke. They just make an appealing, highly addictive product, introduce it to the young, and then sit back and let the addiction do their marketing for them.
Alex
|
