Value pick for the week: BPL
OhioGuy
My value pick for the week: BPL
or Buckeye Partners, LP
Why? Take a look at the chart above. They are at the lowest they've been
in years. The stock is about $6 less than the AVERAGE price over the past 6
years. It is significantly down from its average of the past year
(currently about $38.60 vs $46)
It is consistently profitable: 14% profit margin, 19% operating margin
It regularly increases the dividend: currently paying about 9%
Also, it is a relatively safe investment. The company owns thousands of
miles of pipelines and storage facilities, and gets money by allowing the
oil companies to send their product through. Rather like charging a "toll"
if you will. BPL also operates and maintains pipelines owned by third
parties.
http://www.ockhamresearch.com/Basic-Materials/Energy/Oil,Gas-Pipelines/BPL
It is highly likely that, including the dividend, this stock will give a
30% return or higher on your initial investment over the next two years.
Al Bundy
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:28:42 -0400, "OhioGuy" <n...@none.net> wrote:
> >http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=BPL#chart2:symbol=bpl;range=5y;ind...
>
> >My value pick for the week: BPL
> > or Buckeye Partners, LP
>
> newsgroups. not to be mean spirited but I don't think anyone really
> cares about your stock picks
> __________________________________________
> Never argue with an idiot.
> They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Right.
OG (paulmaubs,alpiya,trivet,none,harryb and Letoll) has one purpose in
life. That is to use news groups to do his thinking.
OhioGuy
> life. That is to use news groups to do his thinking.
I don't know what those other names are supposed to be, but I've used the
same moniker on here for the past 3 years. Before that, I foolishly had my
actual email listed, and had to eventually abandon it due to all the spam.
Anyway, I've been active in this group since 1992, with occasional lapses
when I had my access cut off. I feel that frugal living involves not just
dumpster diving for trinkets(yes, I've gotten questioned by the cops for
dumpster diving several times) but also dumpster diving for stocks when the
market no longer recognizes their true value and "throws them out".
Frugality deals with getting your money to go farther. One way to do this
is to spend as little as possible. Another is to invest wisely, and end up
with more money to spend. They are really two sides to the same coin.
Cheapo Groovo
alternative income streams that diversify your regular job!
George Grapman
touts.
Rod Speed
If it was that simple, it wouldnt be at an all time low.
Al Bundy
OhioGuy wrote:
> > OG (paulmaubs,alpiya,trivet,none,harryb and Letoll) has one purpose in
> > life. That is to use news groups to do his thinking.
>
> I don't know what those other names are supposed to be, but I've used the
> same moniker on here for the past 3 years. Before that, I foolishly had my
> actual email listed, and had to eventually abandon it due to all the spam.
>
Bull Shit
Not that it matters, but you don't have to lie about it. Those are all
names you post under.
OhioGuy
Note that it isn't an "all time low", but just the second lowest in the
past 6 years. Part of the decline seems to be due to oil "shipments"
through the pipeline declining about 3% since last year. However, they made
up for that by increasing their fees, though they did decrease full year
guidance a little bit.
The rest of it is evidently people spooked by the volatility and decline
in oil prices, which simply will not affect this company's profits all that
much. (maybe 5%, max) BPL doesn't make their money from the price of oil,
they make their money from volume of oil shipped through their pipelines.
As such, a drop of about 24% in the past 3 months is really an
overreaction of the market. It is not unreasonable for it to correct once
people notice how low it has gone - now that it has roughly a 9% dividend.
That's almost 3X what you get at a bank, for a stable cash cow company, and
for a stock that has an excellent opportunity to appreciate.
Anyway, sorry if I ruffled anyone's feathers with this. I probably made a
mistake by calling it the "value pick of the week", which implies that I
meant to post something like this here weekly. Fact is, I should have
called it the value pick of the year, or something like that. (but thought
maybe that would be a bit presumptious on my part)
OhioGuy
> touts.
You forgot the people who argue about which comic book character would win
a fight, or people who argue over whether the Millennium Falcon or
Enterprise would win a space battle!
Rod Speed
>> If it was that simple, it wouldn't be at an all time low.
> Note that it isn't an "all time low", but just the second lowest in the past 6 years.
If it was that simple, it wouldn't be at a 6 year low.
> Part of the decline seems to be due to oil "shipments" through the pipeline declining about 3% since last year.
Unlikely that that is at a 6 year low.
> However, they made up for that by increasing their fees,
So that doesnt explain why its at a 6 year low.
> though they did decrease full year guidance a little bit.
So that doesnt explain why its at a 6 year low.
> The rest of it is evidently people spooked by the volatility and decline in oil prices,
Doesnt explain why it was at a 6 year low when the oil prices were peaking.
> which simply will not affect this company's
> profits all that much. (maybe 5%, max)
So that doesnt explain why its at a 6 year low.
> BPL doesn't make their money from the price of oil, they make their money from volume of oil shipped through their
> pipelines.
So that doesnt explain why its at a 6 year low.
> As such, a drop of about 24% in the past 3 months is really an overreaction of the market.
We'll see...
> It is not unreasonable for it to correct once people notice how low it has gone
Its also not unreasonable for it to be at a 6 year low when
people know more about its prospects than you do too.
> - now that it has roughly a 9% dividend.
And it remains to be seen how long that continues for.
> That's almost 3X what you get at a bank,
Stocks always pay more than banks do.
> for a stable cash cow company,
And we'll see if it continues to be that.
> and for a stock that has an excellent opportunity to appreciate.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> Anyway, sorry if I ruffled anyone's feathers with this. I probably
> made a mistake by calling it the "value pick of the week", which
> implies that I meant to post something like this here weekly.
Your main mistake was to post it to an entirely inappropriate newsgroup.
A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself.
Dont make a mess of the carpet.
> Fact is, I should have called it the value pick of the year, or something like that.
It isnt that either.
> (but thought maybe that would be a bit presumptious on my part)
Its just plain wrong too.
Al Bundy
Or people who try to barter for 5-9 seeds by mail, but it's a free
country, trivet.
George Grapman
Speaking of sports/financial touts they tend to get shy when asked
why they are sharing their knowledge instead of buying stocks or betting
on games.
clams_casino
ATVI
OhioGuy
>> why they are sharing their >>knowledge instead of buying stocks or
>> betting on >>games.
Hmm. I think the big problem is that most folks who tout things on here
are looking for a quick buck. Most of the stocks I see touted are penny
stocks in little known companies. Many of these companies don't have much
of a physical presence, either, or if they do, it is a small footprint.
Often they are mostly an idea, which, if everything else falls into place
just right, might succeed. In other words, a house of cards, and easily
manipulated by rumormongering.
I'll admit that with BPL, I bought shares myself, to the tune of $30,000.
However, I did a lot of research on it first, and only bought it when the
market overreacted to the dropping price of oil.
George Grapman
Two people walk into a crowded bar near the stock exchange. One
acts drunk and very loudly tell the companion is"Put me down for another
thousand shared of ________. They have a new product that will make the
stock sky rocket". The companion admonishes him to stop drinking and
shut up because he does not want people to know.
The new version involves getting on newsgroups or sending email that
makes it appear that it was misdirected insider information.
They are all the same pump and dump schemes.
Sports touts have their own scams. The advertise "free picks" and
claim a 70 percent winning record (begging the question of why they are
not living off of their picks. If you bite they try to sell you a
package but also do this:
500 callers-250 get one side,250 the other.
The next time 125 get each side.
The third time 62 get one side,63 the other.
Then 32 or 33 people are told "hey, three in row proves we are great.
Which credit card t=do you want to use?
Rod Speed
>>> Speaking of sports/financial touts they tend to get >> shy when
>>> asked why they are sharing their >>knowledge instead of buying
>>> stocks or betting on >>games.
>
> Hmm. I think the big problem is that most folks who tout things on
> here are looking for a quick buck. Most of the stocks I see touted
> are penny stocks in little known companies. Many of these companies
> don't have much of a physical presence, either, or if they do, it is
> a small footprint. Often they are mostly an idea, which, if
> everything else falls into place just right, might succeed. In other
> words, a house of cards, and easily manipulated by rumormongering.
> I'll admit that with BPL, I bought shares myself, to the tune of $30,000.
Its mad to be that undiverse. In spades in the current market.
OhioGuy
> And it remains to be seen how long that continues for.
The company has a LONG, detailed history of regulary raising the dividend
by sustainable amounts. The record goes years back - check it out if you'd
like. Past performance is no guarantee of the future, of course, but it can
be a good indicator. They just announced yet another in a long line of
dividend increases, as I expected them to. Of course, you have to realize
that the dividend percentage decreases as the stock price appreciates - but
it will remain the same in relation to your original investment.
>> That's almost 3X what you get at a bank,
> Stocks always pay more than banks do.
Actually, they don't. There are an awful lot of stocks that pay no
dividends at all. If you were trying to say that stocks always appreciate
more than the interest you'd get at a bank, you'd be wrong there, too. A
dividend usually just means that a company is somewhat mature, and has
decided to share a portion of their profits with stockholders in the form of
immediate distributions.
> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Hey, I can tell you won't be buying any, and that's ok. It looks like
there are plenty of others out there who recognize this stock's potential -
it is up roughly 2.5% since I decided to buy, despite the indexes shedding
value during the same period. Once the indexes reverse course, it could
easily go up another few percent in just a week. If I was looking for a
quick, short term gain, I'd make $700 right now, and probably over $1,200 by
next week. However, I'm in for the bigger and longer haul.
Rod Speed
>>> - now that it has roughly a 9% dividend.
>> And it remains to be seen how long that continues for.
> The company has a LONG, detailed history of regulary raising the dividend by sustainable amounts. The record goes
> years back - check it out if you'd like.
And plenty of operations go bad over time, particulary in such mundane fields.
> Past performance is no guarantee of the future, of course, but it can be a good indicator.
But often isnt, particularly when the PE is getting too good to believe.
> They just announced yet another in a long line of dividend increases, as I expected them to. Of course, you have to
> realize that the dividend percentage decreases as the stock price appreciates - but it will remain the same in
> relation to your original investment.
>>> That's almost 3X what you get at a bank,
>> Stocks always pay more than banks do.
> Actually, they don't.
Actually, they do when you allow for the capital gain.
> There are an awful lot of stocks that pay no dividends at all.
Because they are for capital gain.
> If you were trying to say that stocks always appreciate more than the interest you'd get at a bank, you'd be wrong
> there, too.
On average they do.
> A dividend usually just means that a company is somewhat
> mature, and has decided to share a portion of their profits with stockholders in the form of immediate distributions.
Its MUCH more complicated than that.
>>> and for a stock that has an excellent opportunity to appreciate.
>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> Hey, I can tell you won't be buying any, and that's ok. It looks
> like there are plenty of others out there who recognize this stock's potential - it is up roughly 2.5% since I decided
> to buy, despite the indexes shedding value during the same period.
Presumably they bought the same spruik you did.
You've seen the pump, wait for the dump.
> Once the indexes reverse course, it could easily go up another few percent in just a week. If I was looking for a
> quick, short term gain, I'd make $700 right now, and probably over $1,200 by next week. However, I'm in for the
> bigger and longer haul.
And are stupidly concentrated.
OhioGuy
period.
The best part? It is still only up to barely over $40, and will likely go
up to at least $45 sometime in the next 12 to 16 months, if history is any
help as a guide.
Rod Speed
> BPL is now up over $2.20 a share during the past 9 days - or 5.7% during the period.
Its completely stupid for someone in your financial situation to have all your money in just one stock.
> The best part? It is still only up to barely over $40, and will likely go up to at least $45 sometime in the next 12
> to 16 months, if history is any help as a guide.
Its completely stupid for someone in your financial situation to have all your money in just one stock.
OhioGuy
> your money in just one stock.
About half of our money is in real estate, 36% is in this stock, 4% is in
another stock, and the rest is currently cash, with us trying to decide what
to do with it in the short term. I do agree that it would be rather foolish
for anyone to put EVERYTHING into a single stock.
Then again, there are a lot of folks out there who just don't save much of
anyting up, and waste all their $ on the lottery.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"OhioGuy" <no...@none.net> wrote in message news:g8lb5c$c70$1...@aioe.org...
The Real Bev
>> Its completely stupid for someone in your financial situation to have all
>> your money in just one stock.
>
> About half of our money is in real estate, 36% is in this stock, 4% is in
> another stock, and the rest is currently cash, with us trying to decide what
> to do with it in the short term. I do agree that it would be rather foolish
> for anyone to put EVERYTHING into a single stock.
OTOH, if we'd put every cent we had or could beg, borrow or steal into
Xerox the first time we saw a xerox copy in 1961 we'd be able to hire
Gate$ to clean our keyboards.
--
Cheers, Bev
-----------------------------------------
"Not everyone can be above average so why
shouldn't we be the ones to suck?"
--Anonymous School Board Member
Rod Speed
>> Its completely stupid for someone in your financial situation to have all your money in just one stock.
> About half of our money is in real estate, 36% is in this stock, 4% is in another stock, and the rest is currently
> cash, with us trying to decide what to do with it in the short term.
I was talking about the Roth IRA.
> I do agree that it would be rather foolish for anyone to put EVERYTHING into a single stock.
Its foolish for anyone to put the whole Roth IRA into just one too or even most of it.
> Then again, there are a lot of folks out there who just don't save much of anyting up, and waste all their $ on the
> lottery.
Irrelevant to what makes sense to do with what you dont piss against the wall like that.
Cheapo Groovo
> I was talking about the Roth IRA.
>
> > I do agree that it would be rather foolish for anyone to put EVERYTHING into a single stock.
>
> Its foolish for anyone to put the whole Roth IRA into just one too or even most of it.
>
>
Not if the IRA was investing in VTI or IYY
Rod Speed
Its always foolish to have it all in just one.
Cheapo Groovo
says...
Rod Speed
I was agreeing with you, a bit cryptically.