|
AT&T
Jan 6, 2021 3:10:33 GMT
Post by chang on Jan 6, 2021 3:10:33 GMT
I happened to see a post about AT&T on M* (I drop in there once in a while, but infrequently these days.) So I took a few moments to check its stats and pull up a chart. Copying here my comment on M*. The last thing I really need is to buy another individual stock, but on the other hand, I am looking to build some income generation in my taxable account. Any thoughts from experienced T-owners? Post follows: I don't much follow individual companies, but I looked at T. The chart is kind of interesting: looks like the NAV just crossed the 50dma from below, and both the NAV and 50 dma will cross the 200dma from below if they get a couple of up days. I'm not a T/A-ist, but those would generally be bullish signals. Dividend history looks pretty good, so I assume that 7% is safe.
I don't know if your post is a warning or a recommendation (I am hardly ever here anymore). Is AT&T worth a flutter? Maybe a starting bucket to test the waters, and then use R48's PyrUp scheme to limit downside? TIA for any opinions.
|
|
stats
Lieutenant
Posts: 53
|
AT&T
Jan 6, 2021 16:47:07 GMT
chang likes this
Post by stats on Jan 6, 2021 16:47:07 GMT
We own T (AT&T) but it is not a stock I would suggest buying at this time. It seems to me that the dividend is at risk. The market might even cheer a dividend cut if the proceeds are appropriately spent. I have no idea if T will cut its dividend. Right now the dividend yield is 7.11%. AT&T can afford paying 52 cents a quarter but it is a struggle. I think many look at the dividend as an extravagance with such a huge debt load. I would rather T figure out a way to cut their debt. It’s too bad they could not find a buyer for Direct TV at a price they wanted. It would have been a painless way to reduce debt.
Stats
|
|
|
AT&T
Jan 7, 2021 0:37:05 GMT
Post by steadyeddy on Jan 7, 2021 0:37:05 GMT
I happened to see a post about AT&T on M* (I drop in there once in a while, but infrequently these days.) So I took a few moments to check its stats and pull up a chart. Copying here my comment on M*. The last thing I really need is to buy another individual stock, but on the other hand, I am looking to build some income generation in my taxable account. Any thoughts from experienced T-owners? Post follows: I don't much follow individual companies, but I looked at T. The chart is kind of interesting: looks like the NAV just crossed the 50dma from below, and both the NAV and 50 dma will cross the 200dma from below if they get a couple of up days. I'm not a T/A-ist, but those would generally be bullish signals. Dividend history looks pretty good, so I assume that 7% is safe.
I don't know if your post is a warning or a recommendation (I am hardly ever here anymore). Is AT&T worth a flutter? Maybe a starting bucket to test the waters, and then use R48's PyrUp scheme to limit downside? TIA for any opinions.I would stay away from it. Elliot management (an activist company) tried to reform AT&T but could not move the needle primarily due to COVID and left in 4Q2020. The dividend is not sustainable.
|
|
|
AT&T
Jan 7, 2021 0:40:43 GMT
Post by chang on Jan 7, 2021 0:40:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bb2 on Jan 20, 2021 20:06:50 GMT
Looking to me like the media/analysts think the div is safe as is but don't look for growth in the div or total return. My take differs. Management sinks. Buybacks, $4B, stopped in March 2020, right after announcing it, to protect div. Chaos there IMHO. They blamed the pandemic. Stephenson, CEO from 2007-2020, stank, presided over the Boy Scouts, now bankrupt from sexual abuse. Stankey will likely stink too, previous COO and coming from Direct TV. Revenue dropping, operating expenses rising, non-operating expenses rising, debt rising. Not so sanguine about the div. I own it and have for many years and will hold for now. I ignored it for so long but have sometimes considered selling some, which I did once, taking the tax hit. Market doesn't seem sanguine either as the div is 2% or a third above historical levels.
|
|
|
AT&T
Jan 21, 2021 0:45:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by chang on Jan 21, 2021 0:45:29 GMT
Hi bb2, glad to see you here! Good feedback, thanks. Fortunately I sat down until the feeling passed, and am no longer thinking about AT&T. Spent the last couple of weeks thinking about gold and Canadian stocks, and started buying those.
|
|
|
AT&T
Jan 26, 2022 15:51:56 GMT
Post by Fearchar on Jan 26, 2022 15:51:56 GMT
AT&T is on my watch list and nearing a BUY.
They reported $3.40 and are guiding to $3.21 and $3.37 That works out to 12% earnings yield, but with little and possibly negative growth.
Morningstar is calculating $21.6 as entry point with fair value of $36.
Current price is $25.81, which to me is close enough for serious consideration.
|
|
|
AT&T
Jan 27, 2022 11:28:35 GMT
Post by Fearchar on Jan 27, 2022 11:28:35 GMT
The Market may have over-reacted yesterday: Closing price $24.25. M* nudged down their valuation calculation by about 2%; they also have a lengthily writeup.
Will be interesting to see if price continues to fall. My BUY limit, which is arbitrarily set about 10% higher than M* was crossed.
T is basically a utility and the biggest risk I can see if the Gov't demanding they give their services away for free.
|
|
|
AT&T
Feb 8, 2022 16:48:21 GMT
Post by FD1000 on Feb 8, 2022 16:48:21 GMT
One word: SCHD, cheap, has worked well, easy to hold, just under 3% yield = KISS Why would you own T unless you think that higher Div is more important than total performance and risk attributes(SD, Max Draw, Sharpe, Sortino) if you care. AAT is just a bad company, assembled of several companies but still not functioning well. It has a reputation for bad customer service, Consumer Reports verified it for years. For those who don't believe in total returns, let's do an easy exercise. Let's compare 2 investors, one put 1 million in SPY and the other put 1 million in T(ATT). Each needed 6% annually for expenses. The SPY had to sell shares. The ATT felt great about his stock, after all he can live on the Div and doesn't need to sell shares, in his mind it's a great option. After 10 years, the reality is much difference. See ( link). 1) SPY made 15.3% annually...ATT only 4.4% 2) SPY Sharpe(a good risk-adjusted performance indicator) was 1.3...ATT=0.3 3) After 10 years and taking all the withdrawals the SPY guy had 2.24 million...the ATT had just $828K 4) This is the best way to debunk high Div stocks. The SPY guy was able to increase his withdrawals over the years and live nicely, while the ATT guy had to take less money over the years and cut his standard of living.Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
AT&T
Feb 8, 2022 19:31:24 GMT
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2022 19:31:24 GMT
This argument has been going on for years and never changes. You can't compare an index against only one of its components. At least cherry pick away and compare a diversified index against a diversified portfolio. Only comment from me on this one topic.
I will be interested to hear why investors are buying T.
|
|
|
AT&T
Feb 8, 2022 20:45:36 GMT
Post by FD1000 on Feb 8, 2022 20:45:36 GMT
This argument has been going on for years and never changes. You can't compare an index against only one of its components. At least cherry pick away and compare a diversified index against a diversified portfolio. Only comment from me on this one topic. I will be interested to hear why investors are buying T. Of course, I can and will always do that since the SPY/VOO+VTI are the most common wide indexes investors use. It is based on a LT KISS investing introduced by Bogle and why Vanguard became so big. It goes like this, if most investors and pro fund managers can't beat this "stupid" index over LT period, why anyone tries to create a new wheel and work so hard just to lag this index? Another reasonable option is to buy another fund, preferably with cheap ER. Buying single stocks is way at the end, you can't accept it because you use it. ATT is a poster child of high Div stocks, I read so many posts why most investors who believe in this style owned it for 5-10 years. Last post from me on ATT on this thread.
|
|
|
AT&T
Feb 9, 2022 3:15:35 GMT
Post by chang on Feb 9, 2022 3:15:35 GMT
I'd forgotten that I was the OP. Actually, I lost interest in the idea almost immediately. I don't plan to buy any individual stocks anymore; I am keeping some legacy holdings with very low cost bases.
Actually, I agree with FD's suggestion of SCHD. I have been adding to SCHD for quite a few years. I bought it 5-10 years ago (?) on an M* recommendation, and it turned out to be a good one. My gut feeling is that if SCHD's yield is not enough, then one should shift to a more TR-based approach/withdrawal strategy.
I don't want to open cans of worms, but as I have mentioned several times before, I don't believe that there is such a thing as "income investing". I believe there is only "TR" investing, and no other kind. To illustrate, consider this thought experiment: suppose that any dividends received from any holding are always reinvested in the same security. Suppose furthermore that at the end of every day, the share price of every security is reset to $10 and the number of shares held is adjusted to maintain the same balance. Where is the income? It doesn't exist; there are only shares. Where is the NAV increase? It doesn't exist, there are only shares. All you own is shares, every day, worth $______. When you need money to pay for something, you sell shares. Where that money came from -- dividends or capital appreciation -- doesn't matter and is in any case unknown, because there is no history of it.
Anyway, just my POV. I'm not looking to resurrect Taylor's famous "seed corn" thread...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
AT&T
Feb 9, 2022 4:25:02 GMT
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2022 4:25:02 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
AT&T
Feb 9, 2022 8:12:22 GMT
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2022 8:12:22 GMT
I'd forgotten that I was the OP. Actually, I lost interest in the idea almost immediately. I don't plan to buy any individual stocks anymore; I am keeping some legacy holdings with very low cost bases. Actually, I agree with FD's suggestion of SCHD. I have been adding to SCHD for quite a few years. I bought it 5-10 years ago (?) on an M* recommendation, and it turned out to be a good one. My gut feeling is that if SCHD's yield is not enough, then one should shift to a more TR-based approach/withdrawal strategy. I don't want to open cans of worms, but as I have mentioned several times before, I don't believe that there is such a thing as "income investing". I believe there is only "TR" investing, and no other kind. To illustrate, consider this thought experiment: suppose that any dividends received from any holding are always reinvested in the same security. Suppose furthermore that at the end of every day, the share price of every security is reset to $10 and the number of shares held is adjusted to maintain the same balance. Where is the income? It doesn't exist; there are only shares. Where is the NAV increase? It doesn't exist, there are only shares. All you own is shares, every day, worth $______. When you need money to pay for something, you sell shares. Where that money came from -- dividends or capital appreciation -- doesn't matter and is in any case unknown, because there is no history of it. Anyway, just my POV. I'm not looking to resurrect Taylor's famous "seed corn" thread... SCHD has been a good fund and good choice. I am not sure if someone holds T they should be labeled an income investor vice total return or any other type of investor. T is a component of many diversified indexes and funds. Many. Holding individual stocks, with many that pay dividends doesn't mean an investor doesn't care about total return. I very much do and have found over the years, my total return pretty much tracks market returns with a better yield. Diversification is very important in my opinion and I think after 30 or so equities, the benefits dissipate. I know when I bought T I bought it because it was a good company that had what was thought to be a solid dividend. The story changed. I sold it years ago and couldn't tell you what the impact was on my portfolio. I do know probably most posters on here own more of it than I do and probably thousands of other companies they know nothing about as well. Why do investors hold market indexes? Diversification and a long run average total return of around 8%. If you aren't consistently making a real return of 8% on average you should take a hard look at how you invest however that's labeled. T can be a part of that or not - individually held, part of an etf, or none.
|
|
|
AT&T
Feb 9, 2022 22:14:57 GMT
Post by bb2 on Feb 9, 2022 22:14:57 GMT
Used to be a thing called income investing, back when rates were something one could live on.
|
|
|
AT&T
Feb 10, 2022 2:01:09 GMT
Post by FD1000 on Feb 10, 2022 2:01:09 GMT
I'd forgotten that I was the OP. Actually, I lost interest in the idea almost immediately. I don't plan to buy any individual stocks anymore; I am keeping some legacy holdings with very low cost bases. Actually, I agree with FD's suggestion of SCHD. I have been adding to SCHD for quite a few years. I bought it 5-10 years ago (?) on an M* recommendation, and it turned out to be a good one. My gut feeling is that if SCHD's yield is not enough, then one should shift to a more TR-based approach/withdrawal strategy. I don't want to open cans of worms, but as I have mentioned several times before, I don't believe that there is such a thing as "income investing". I believe there is only "TR" investing, and no other kind. To illustrate, consider this thought experiment: suppose that any dividends received from any holding are always reinvested in the same security. Suppose furthermore that at the end of every day, the share price of every security is reset to $10 and the number of shares held is adjusted to maintain the same balance. Where is the income? It doesn't exist; there are only shares. Where is the NAV increase? It doesn't exist, there are only shares. All you own is shares, every day, worth $______. When you need money to pay for something, you sell shares. Where that money came from -- dividends or capital appreciation -- doesn't matter and is in any case unknown, because there is no history of it. Anyway, just my POV. I'm not looking to resurrect Taylor's famous "seed corn" thread... SCHD has been a good fund and good choice. I am not sure if someone holds T they should be labeled an income investor vice total return or any other type of investor. T is a component of many diversified indexes and funds. Many. Holding individual stocks, with many that pay dividends doesn't mean an investor doesn't care about total return. I very much do and have found over the years, my total return pretty much tracks market returns with a better yield. Diversification is very important in my opinion and I think after 30 or so equities, the benefits dissipate. I know when I bought T I bought it because it was a good company that had what was thought to be a solid dividend. The story changed. I sold it years ago and couldn't tell you what the impact was on my portfolio. I do know probably most posters on here own more of it than I do and probably thousands of other companies they know nothing about as well. Why do investors hold market indexes? Diversification and a long run average total return of around 8%. If you aren't consistently making a real return of 8% on average you should take a hard look at how you invest however that's labeled. T can be a part of that or not - individually held, part of an etf, or none. The above is unique to you. Many income investors hold mainly INCOME positions in stocks + CEFs + preferred + MLPs believing in its superiority. Many of these investors have been holding ATT for years and still hold it. Just 3 weeks ago I talked to someone who has been holding IBM+MSFT over 10 years, while he knew that MSFT is much better 10 years ago, but he owns IBM for the income. This is not unique, but many times is the norm. It doesn't make any sense. Maybe, it was a good idea in the 50-70s, but it lost its appeal after the tech revolution because these companies pay small to no income. Holding indexes because of diversification is only a small justification. The SP500 is the biggest portions of many portfolios, as much as Target funds. Why is it so good over many decades: 1) It's very cheap at 0.03%. Expensive index isn't a good idea. 2) The way it's build DOES NOT promote diversification. It's a market-capitalization-weighted index, where Apple+MSFT are at a much higher % than ATT. High Tech has the largest %. 3) The index gets adjusted according to how good the PRICE of each company does. The price is the ultimate indicator, no matter of anybody opinion. This is one of the best KISS ideas. 4) The index represent American capitalism, not European or Chinese. 5) The index hardly has SC+MC stocks 6) The index revenues comes from about 40% international. 7) If you own it, there is no thinking and tinkering required, it is based on the market which is the best voting machine. 8) The SP500 beat over LT (20-30 years) most investors + the best "experts". As you can see, diversification isn't the main point.
|
|