Abbvie is pretty close to being a dividend aristocrat. If you paid $11,500 for 100 shares you could expect to get $520 over the next year. Very good compared to a CD but hardly extravagant. If you lent your brother-in-law $11,500 and he promised to pay it back at the rate of $520 a year would you think you had found El Dorado, especially if there was a fairish chance that he'd stop paying after a few years?
Porter started at 2013. 100 shares then would have cost you $4,000 and the price appreciated slowly but steadily till about 2019 when it had doubled. I haven't calculated the total dividend but it would have been much less than $4,000.
Not bad but you won't be buying any yachts on that.
And you had some risk. Stock buybacks, at $2 billion a year, don't look extravagant for a $200 billion company ($150 billion or so as a long average).
As I said, I think companies should pay dividends. How much? Abbvie is on the high side, not unreasonably considering how uncertain drug development is.
If Abbvie paid close to its sector average its dividend payout would be about half what is has been. That would have allowed it to double its R&D and come out a wash.
News publishing companies get paid zilch for 'scoops' by other publishers. This is a blog and I cannot explain news finance here but you have a completely imaginary idea of it. The short of it is that revenue comes from advertisements and (a long way back) subscriptions.
A day in he hospital will run you several thousand (a friend was charged $16,000 but that was in a very expensive cancer hospital). Say $5,000 for an ordinary day. You would have to mske occasional payments of $25 (and pick a good stock) for 50 years to afford to be sick for one day.
Well, for what it's worth, I live in an area where we get all our "local" TV stations from another congressional district, so ALL those kind of ads refer to people in another district, but they are all Repubs, so all the ads attack Biden and the Dems instead.
While he did mess up, one network's coverage did show a boat called the "Miss Manhattan" go by - in this coverage you can see the "Miss New York" go by at 0:23. Neither one of the clips showed his entire speech.
Not that I would ever pay for one, But I think it would be great to have her sign it with one of Trump's makers, send him a pic of that, and then a pic of it being thrown in the garbage.
When you knock down the "no one will research new stuff if they're not getting $$$!" by pointing out bullshit about paying top execs obscene amounts of money, the next argument I've frequently heard shifts to, "But you won't be able to hire good people if you don't pay them a good salary!" Again: WHO NEEDS THAT MUCH MONEY?
Representative Porter definitely got my attention.
I have a big problem with her graphical depiction of the dollars, however. She is comparing dollars with area representations i.e., circles. How do we read the circles? By area or diameter? Areas are two-dimensional, yet the dollars here are one-dimensional. Of course, if the diameters of the circles reflect dollars here, the increases will seem larger than they should be. This becomes performative art at best and misrepresentation at worst. At a minimum, she needed to disclose the basis for the size of the circles. If she had stated that they were based on area, at least they would not misrepresent the data [as much]. By the way, area grows exponentially with increasing diameter, since the formula for area is πr².
[The areas (not diameters) are proportional to dollars, so the graphic is honest. I confess that I have seen too many bad graphics.]
The defense “we’re just trying to show a trend” is weak. Data graphics should tell the truth—not stretch it.
Information visualization expert Edward Tufte has been screaming about visual chicanery like this since 1983 when he published The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. As the cliché goes: “Plus ça change,plus c’est la même chose.”
Abbvie is pretty close to being a dividend aristocrat. If you paid $11,500 for 100 shares you could expect to get $520 over the next year. Very good compared to a CD but hardly extravagant. If you lent your brother-in-law $11,500 and he promised to pay it back at the rate of $520 a year would you think you had found El Dorado, especially if there was a fairish chance that he'd stop paying after a few years?
Porter started at 2013. 100 shares then would have cost you $4,000 and the price appreciated slowly but steadily till about 2019 when it had doubled. I haven't calculated the total dividend but it would have been much less than $4,000.
Not bad but you won't be buying any yachts on that.
And you had some risk. Stock buybacks, at $2 billion a year, don't look extravagant for a $200 billion company ($150 billion or so as a long average).
As I said, I think companies should pay dividends. How much? Abbvie is on the high side, not unreasonably considering how uncertain drug development is.
If Abbvie paid close to its sector average its dividend payout would be about half what is has been. That would have allowed it to double its R&D and come out a wash.
I think Porter was pulling a fast one.
News publishing companies get paid zilch for 'scoops' by other publishers. This is a blog and I cannot explain news finance here but you have a completely imaginary idea of it. The short of it is that revenue comes from advertisements and (a long way back) subscriptions.
I believe he got lockjaw from doing that already.
But has nothing to do with news. Old news stories don't generate revenue the way (a few) old movies do.
A day in he hospital will run you several thousand (a friend was charged $16,000 but that was in a very expensive cancer hospital). Say $5,000 for an ordinary day. You would have to mske occasional payments of $25 (and pick a good stock) for 50 years to afford to be sick for one day.
Well, for what it's worth, I live in an area where we get all our "local" TV stations from another congressional district, so ALL those kind of ads refer to people in another district, but they are all Repubs, so all the ads attack Biden and the Dems instead.
Oh, it's not for their Jaguars?
While he did mess up, one network's coverage did show a boat called the "Miss Manhattan" go by - in this coverage you can see the "Miss New York" go by at 0:23. Neither one of the clips showed his entire speech.
No, I don't want to…
Not if it's a Chief Excreting Orifice
Not that I would ever pay for one, But I think it would be great to have her sign it with one of Trump's makers, send him a pic of that, and then a pic of it being thrown in the garbage.
Psst! I've got a Brandenburg Gate I can sell you!
You could always get the audio version read by Obama himself.It's only 357¾ hours long!
All right, suit yourself. I’m easy.
When you knock down the "no one will research new stuff if they're not getting $$$!" by pointing out bullshit about paying top execs obscene amounts of money, the next argument I've frequently heard shifts to, "But you won't be able to hire good people if you don't pay them a good salary!" Again: WHO NEEDS THAT MUCH MONEY?
Representative Porter definitely got my attention.
I have a big problem with her graphical depiction of the dollars, however. She is comparing dollars with area representations i.e., circles. How do we read the circles? By area or diameter? Areas are two-dimensional, yet the dollars here are one-dimensional. Of course, if the diameters of the circles reflect dollars here, the increases will seem larger than they should be. This becomes performative art at best and misrepresentation at worst. At a minimum, she needed to disclose the basis for the size of the circles. If she had stated that they were based on area, at least they would not misrepresent the data [as much]. By the way, area grows exponentially with increasing diameter, since the formula for area is πr².
[The areas (not diameters) are proportional to dollars, so the graphic is honest. I confess that I have seen too many bad graphics.]
The defense “we’re just trying to show a trend” is weak. Data graphics should tell the truth—not stretch it.
Information visualization expert Edward Tufte has been screaming about visual chicanery like this since 1983 when he published The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. As the cliché goes: “Plus ça change,plus c’est la même chose.”