My Top Five

[meditate89]

[ QUOTE ]
That's actually the one I like the least. Mainly because Unilever (UN) does the same thing but has a lower PE and higher dividend. Plus UN has more of a European base, so an American slowdown won't affect them much, and you can benefit from the weaker dollar.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... are you serious? I'd rather own what looks to be a MUCH better company... even if it's P/E is a bit on the high side right now. PG is growing its earnings and revenues @ about 12% per year... while UN is relatively flat / disappointing in both regards.

UN's payout rate is almost twice as large as PG... 72% vs 43%. I would much rather the company retained more of the earnings in order to compound them before double taxation in the form of dividends occurs. PG obviously thinks they can reinvest their retained earnings at a good rate of return, and they have a proven record of doing so successfully... UN may not have many growth opportunities left due to competition, other factors, etc.

Hell, I'll let the PEG ratios from yahoo do the talking... 1.69 vs 2.61??? The decision is NOT EVEN CLOSE between the two. You can't simply look at dividends and P/E ratios and be done with it. There are many other factors to consider, and probably one of the biggest ones is future earnings growth.

[Hank Scorpio]

P/E ratio is pointless IMO for a growing company. PEG is MUCH more important. Either way, though, 1.69 is still pretty high.

[meditate89]

I don't think P/E is pointless... you just have to look at the rest of the story behind the company as well.

I wouldn't necessarily buy PG right now... if I could go back in time abt 6 months ago to when the price was 53$ or so.. ( about what buffet bought it for, coincidentally ) then it would look a lot more attractive. And of course 1.69 looks high, but its a much better than 2.61!! It's hard to find companies with over 200 B in market cap that still have decent rates of growth.. they're so big alrdy in many cases, there's just not many ways to expand besides acquisitions.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dislike. Individuals stocks unnecessarily concentrate risk.

[/ QUOTE ]that makes about as much sense as saying index funds unnecessarily lower returns.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it makes more sense. My statement is true. Yours is false.

[/ QUOTE ] index funds have fees. there are strategies that incur fewer fees over time but involve the exact same base equities. so no, i am correct.

its all about your personal preferences regarding risk versus reward. but you say index funds give you something without giving anything up is absolutely stupid. this is similarly true with stock picking as well of course.

[pologuy64]

thank you all for the thread.

Alot of good information that i will use.