# Phillip Morris (hikes dividend)



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Just hiked up its quaterly dividend by 13c,20 % increase
up 13% share price yr to date.whats not to like,any thoughts or comments?(mo) vs (pm) who do give the nod too in the sector?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

donald said:


> Just hiked up its quaterly dividend by 13c,20 % increase
> up 13% share price yr to date.whats not to like,any thoughts or comments?(mo) vs (pm) who do give the nod too in the sector?


I like PM (and Malboro Light  ). YTD this is the best performer in my portfolio. I believe it will perform good for middle-long term. Ppl smokes regardless economical situation and in emerging markets more and more ppl would like to smoke good brand names...

I also hold MO (smaller than PM position), they are always pretty good...


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Wish I got into this when the price was a little better. I guess wait until the next market crash. Knowing our economy, could be less than a year from now again!


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Strong sector(ciggerettes)we all know smokers,once hook in the school yard 9/10 buyer for life.From my point of view-mo,pm ect are awesome income stocks,recession or not smokers smoke period.i cant understand in the money game how some investors shun these stocks for moral reasons,big tobbacco kills i get it,but from a capitalistic stand point i dont,there so rock steady yr after yr regardless of economic enviroment.Im waiting to step into (pm)


----------



## PMREdmonton (Apr 6, 2009)

I took a small position of 30 share at $69.

I might buy some more if it dips further.

For the consistency of its earnings and its potential growth I think it is a bargain and a core holding for any diversified portfolio.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

You could also look at BTI as well, they have brands like lucky strike, Dunhill, Kent, etc. Their market is overseas.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

This was my best holding % gain wise in the calender for 2011(everybody knows it had a soild yr)Its trending down quite abit(my understanding is the strong us $ is hurting it)anyways what do you pm holders think going foward?I like it for a core holding/international/dividend longterm but boy has it come down...anybody buying on this pullback or are the headwinds unfavorable now?


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Its been downgraded by several firms. Might look at this again. The recent run up last year 30%? was amazing. The dividend hikes are smokin.' 

Do they own any Canadian brands? I was reading somewhere the provinces/country were suing tobacco companies for the health care costs caused by smoking.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

I've been looking to add some American stocks, what's a good entry point?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

donald said:


> This was my best holding % gain wise in the calender for 2011(everybody knows it had a soild yr)Its trending down quite abit(my understanding is the strong us $ is hurting it)anyways what do you pm holders think going foward?I like it for a core holding/international/dividend longterm but boy has it come down...anybody buying on this pullback or are the headwinds unfavorable now?


It's my best stock of 2011 too  I don't know how Canada can sue PM (just wondering why they don't sue Izhevsk factory that produce AK47 - took much nore lifes than Malboro  ), if Malboro is not allowed for sales here 
But note during last decade a lot of goverments sued PM/MO and despite it they every year for many years increase dividends ... this is one of my biggest holding and I regret that didn't have US$ available when it was down 4% on UBS downgrade


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

The downgrade/profit taking/changing of environment short term has def took a large wind out of its sale short term but this company looks prime for div growth and I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be a core holding(@ least it is for me)I've got mcd and I'm slightly on edge to see it peel back also..both being defensive more or less...I don't want to fall in love with it but I just like the stock/company...not rebalancing with it and I'm abit heavy but pm I'm thinking will be a perfect retirement income stock 15 yrs out


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

I think PM is being hit a bit because it was being treated like a flight to safety the last quarter, now there is a lot of rotation to proper risk assets the scared money is leaving names like this and IPL.UN.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

gibor said:


> this is one of my biggest holding and I regret that didn't have US$ available when it was down 4% on UBS downgrade


If you have a questrade margin account, you don't need USD, you just fund your account with Canadian $ and they let you buy US stocks on margin.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Totally agree delay..Ive been watching risk (on) stocks ie:Goldman and that's snapping up wards fast not a stock that acts that way in a bearish environment mindset...looks like us large cap growth is on?


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Sorry..ddkay.damn these iPhone keyboards!


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Sherlock said:


> If you have a questrade margin account, you don't need USD, you just fund your account with Canadian $ and they let you buy US stocks on margin.


I have only registered accounts and exactly the same day I was doing for a first time interlisted gambit in TDW (with TD), I just wasn't sure if I can trade from US MM when trade still wasn't published...


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Gibor-You and i.....nice little raise today on the div-Touch over 10%.......stock has been coming down from highs lately(i should take some off the table but they are so very shareholder friendly)PM-long&strong.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Still on the watch list, just can't get in at these prices. I drool on the side.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

donald said:


> Gibor-You and i.....nice little raise today on the div-Touch over 10%.......stock has been coming down from highs lately(i should take some off the table but they are so very shareholder friendly)PM-long&strong.


I expected raise between 10 to 15%, so it's in range 
When i came 2 weeks ago from Europe and saw PM hit $93, I also "should take some off the table " and was for a minute thinking about it, but simply cannot press the button.... .
I hope that when yield hit 4% many investors will start buying PM, and if it hits 4.5% yield , i may buy more (even though it's already my biggest holding).
Now it's also not a good time to sell as CAD$ too high....


----------



## Dopplegangerr (Sep 3, 2011)

I owned some a little while ago but sold for a nice profit. I would buy back again if it goes back in the high 80s range. I think I remember reading PM is one of the best performing stocks to own in history, with some thing like a 19% annualized return


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

They just increased dividend 10.6 % http://www.financialpost.com/market...dend+Annualized+Rate+Share/8895970/story.html

Long pm now, but not in as good as a price as some above.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Jungle said:


> They just increased dividend 10.6 % http://www.financialpost.com/market...dend+Annualized+Rate+Share/8895970/story.html
> 
> Long pm now, but not in as good as a price as some above.


Didn't get what you wrote  , but it's a nice raise, I expected about 8% raise


----------



## mike06 (Aug 4, 2011)

Just bought some of this a few days ago in the 84 range after years of watching. Bigger than expected divy increase IMO, perhaps signalling that the fears about a slowdown in the tobacco industry are overblown. Great company, big buybacks and dividend increases.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I just can't get into this sin stock.

Then again, I do own KO.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

My Own Advisor said:


> I just can't get into this sin stock.
> 
> Then again, I do own KO.


I have completely opposite situation  PM is one of my biggest holdings, alsa bought a little bit more about week ago, but can't get into KO, had a buy limit order, wanted 3% yield, but missed it again..
Maybe we should trade, I give you smokes and you give me Coke


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Walking around Barcelona and observing all the smokers has reinforced our decision to increase our holdings as soon as we accumulate the necessary capital.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Hola Nemo. 

Yes, they like to not only smoke over there, but drink also [according to this article].
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-13/europeans-are-world-s-biggest-smokers-and-drinkers-who.html


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

I'm torn... Hard to support a manufacturer of "cancer sticks", but the underlying fundamentals of this company are hard to resist.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I hear ya Jon. I've resisted so far though.


----------



## PatInTheHat (May 7, 2012)

I sold about half my position at $87 but certainly would re-up on any future decline. Rock of dividend portfolios.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I also like the position PM would be in if they did decide to legalize pot(i personally believe they will)You just know PM would whack all the small distributors in this "new'' product/sector......I think we are on the cusp of legalization and the governments will back pm as there partner just like tobacco and or buy-out all competition.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Jon_Snow said:


> I'm torn... Hard to support a manufacturer of "cancer sticks"


I lost a mother and a wife, (both in their early 50s at the time of passing......both approx 6 months from diagnosis to death), to lung cancer.....my mother died 50 years ago, and even back then people were well aware of the dangers of smoking......nowadays it's never been so highly publicized.......I figure the onus is upon those who smoke to make correct decisions.......me, I buy the stock.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> Hola Nemo.
> 
> Yes, they like to not only smoke over there, but drink also [according to this article].
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-13/europeans-are-world-s-biggest-smokers-and-drinkers-who.html


Hola! Yes, the bars/restaurants, (it's still warm enough, (except for today when a cool wet spell hit), to eat/drink outside, so we notice this on our extended walks), are doing great business, (not all of it from tourists).......the link refers to a 27% unemployment rate, but you'd never know it from being here.....you'd think the place was booming.

Hijack apology:

We're staying in a place on a small alley, (pictured), off a small alley, off another small alley off a narrow street........and are sharing the apartment with a pleasant young, heavily tattooed, German couple......he's the bass guitarist in a Punk Rock band........told him that, when he's famous, we'll be bragging that we lived with him!


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

Jon_Snow said:


> I'm torn... Hard to support a manufacturer of "cancer sticks", but the underlying fundamentals of this company are hard to resist.


My husband is a soldier in the canadian military and he is very anti-smoking, so much that it got him kicked off a Canadian military base and escorted home (long story). Yet he has no qualms about purchasing 'vice' stocks because, as he puts it, every time a smoker lights up, he is paying a small portion of my dividend.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

I would never own this stock directly, even if they gave it away for free. I own a tiny amount via broad index (_sigh_).

When I think of tobacco stocks, the first thought that comes to mind is little kids growing in the smoke-filled houses & apartments because their parents are too lazy or too ignorant to step outside. These kids don't have a choice. More often than not, they grow up to become smokers themselves. They get addicted before they are old enough to make a conscious decision.

For the record, I don't mean to criticize anyone for owning this stock. If you are an owner, I don't think lesser of you because of it.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ +1 to GoldStone. I like to sleep better at night. :02.47-tranquillity:


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> I would never own this stock directly, even if they gave it away for free. I own a tiny amount via broad index (_sigh_).
> 
> When I think of tobacco stocks, the first thought that comes to mind is little kids growing in the smoke-filled houses & apartments because their parents are too lazy or too ignorant to step outside. These kids don't have a choice. More often than not, they grow up to become smokers themselves. They get addicted before they are old enough to make a conscious decision.
> 
> For the record, I don't mean to criticize anyone for owning this stock. If you are an owner, I don't think lesser of you because of it.


I don't buy individual stocks so this isn't a consideration for me personally, but if I did buy individual stocks I wouldn't have any qualms about owning Philip Morris, despite the fact that both my parents (who were smokers) died of cancer, as did my stepmother and several of my closest friends. In fact nearly everyone I know who's been a lifelong smoker is either dead or very unhealthy. But here's why that doesn't matter when it comes to buying stocks:

When you buy shares on the stock exchange, who are you buying them from? Not Philip Morris. You're buying them from another shareholder who's selling their shares. Where does the money go when you buy shares? Not to Philip Morris. The money goes into the pocket of the person who sold the shares. Philip Morris benefits only in a very indirect way: by buying those shares you're playing a tiny role in helping to maintain PM's share price. If everyone said "I'm not buying that stock" then the price would fall due to lack of demand. But the reality is that somebody's going to buy those shares even if you don't. 

There's an argument to be made that if you disagree with a company's policies you should become a shareholder, because that way you can vote in shareholder resolutions and have some (small) influence over the company's policies. For a company like PM you can't (even as a shareholder) convince them to stop selling cigarettes, but you might be able to help influence how they market them to minors, for example.

If you're troubled by the ethics of making money off PM's evil work, you could donate your dividends to an anti-smoking charity that raises awareness of the perils of smoking. It's also worth noting that if you don't want to buy PM because its products kill people, you should also avoid investing in oil, gas, and non-hydro electric utility companies because in the long run they're going to kill many millions more people (via climate change) than cigarettes have in the last couple of centuries.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

> I don't buy individual stocks so this isn't a consideration for me *personally*, but if I did buy individual stocks I wouldn't have any qualms about owning Philip Morris, despite the fact that both my parents (who were smokers) died of cancer, as did my stepmother and several of my closest friends. In fact nearly everyone I know who's been a lifelong smoker is either dead or very unhealthy.


 ... all the more power to you then but you would need to put a gun to my head before I would buy even 1 share of any tobacco/cigarettes making company.



> There's an argument to be made that if you disagree with a company's policies you should become a shareholder, because that way you can vote in shareholder resolutions and have some (small) influence over the company's policies. For a company like PM you can't (even as a shareholder) convince them to stop selling cigarettes, but you might be able to help influence how they market them to minors, for example.


 ... seriously, as a tiny tiny minority shareholder, is one going to make a difference? There is also an argument that one should buy Rogers if one wants to voice their opinion(s) as a "voting" shareholder - is this going to make a difference given Rogers is like a monopoly-like - they still sucks and disrespect their customers so why would I want to even give them more business or prop up their shareprices?

And no I do not "invest" in oil, gas and non-hydro (coal fired) electric utility companies either.... there are plenty of other industries/companies than these to invest my hard-earned dollars on. So each to their own. each:


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Sure it's fine to boycott shares from "evil" companies, but I would ask what is the benefit of boycotting them? You aren't hurting them by boycotting their shares, just as you aren't really helping them by buying them either. To really hurt them you'd have to get millions of people to boycott their products, if not their shares. 

I've yet to see any compelling evidence that refusing to buy shares of PM or other "bad" companies has any impact on them; it's mostly about making the investor feel better or more pure, but it doesn't have any impact in terms of helping to change the world for the better. I actually think a strategy of buying PM and then donating all the dividends and any capital gains to NGOs that work to reduce cigarette smoking would be a great way to use PM's own business gains to help put the company out of business.

As for being a voting shareholder, you could ask the same question about voting in federal or provincial elections. "As a tiny tiny voter, is one going to make a difference?" If you don't participate in the system, you don't have a voice.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

stephen jarislowsky agrees with you brad, so you're in good company investment-wise.

the thing is, though, where would you draw the line? 

mob-owned businesses
slave prostitution rings in 3rd world countries
sex tourism involving minors
fires in locked garment factories
thousands killed in collapsing factories owned by slumlords
international human-organs-&-parts-replacement-brokers
arms dealers
enriched uranium brokers
manufacturers of sarin gas

it's an extremely difficult spectrum to perch oneself on

all the so-called ethical funds own lots of canadian banks, because there's nothing bad that can be said about em per se, eh. Banks treat their employees well, eh. Support social & environmental justice causes, try to make most of their fees transparent, eh.

but the questions remain. Who-all are they lending to? what kind of crooks are among their clients?

td bank in antigua had robert stanford as a client for many years.

earl jones of montreal scammed seniors out of royal bank's accounts - right at his neighbourhood branch - for more than 20 years.

not a scandal unfolds but there's a bank involved.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

What about all the environmental issues with big oil companies or some of the corruption in the pharmaceutical industry. How about caffeine addiction - most people can't go a day without a cup of java, or obesity and fast food, and financial planners / sales reps looking after their bottom lines, dancing around hidden fees, etc. We could go on and on but I guess as humble mentioned one must draw a line at some point. However, I'm not sure it's fair to compare a publicly traded company such as PM to things that are illegal.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

You can find reason to boycott majority of the compnanies 
If you watch on Friday in CBC documentary about Bangladesh, you should boycott WMT...
I've read some thread on SA....and it's just funny how some people boycotting PM, and like RTN, GD, LMT etc
P.S. I smoke Marlboro and I like PM


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

brad said:


> it's mostly about making the investor feel better


Yes.

I want to feel good or neutral about my investments. In PM's case, the feelings would be decidedly negative. Therefore I avoid the stock.

I know full well that I'm not hurting the company.
I know full well that I'm not making any difference in the anti-tobacco fight.

What I do is passive avoidance, not boycotting.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I thinks the feds are worse than the companies,i was in the states a few weeks ago,a friend bought a pack of camels for under 5 bucks(if i remember correctly)
Here in canada the feds sell cigs for nearly 16 bucks!The canadian gov is addicted to the taxes it can make!They make billions on smokers(they have a bigger interest than the companies themselfs)....I have no problem owing the stock.
IMO mcd is worse than cig companies.Mcd hooks the kids young worse(rotten ronnie and the gang)
liquor stocks are also no different.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

donald said:


> Here in canada the feds sell cigs for nearly 16 bucks!The canadian gov is addicted to the taxes it can make!They make billions on smokers(they have a bigger interest than the companies themselfs).


It makes sense for Canada to impose higher taxes on cigarettes, though, because we have publicly funded healthcare up here. Treating cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other smoking-related illnesses costs Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars annually, so the government should do what it can to make cigarettes more expensive so fewer people (especially kids) can afford to get into the habit.

In the US, cigarette taxes are probably lower because smokers themselves and their private health insurance providers pick up the tab for their illnesses.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Should the feds start taxes big macs than?obesity and diabetes has over taken smoking now as the largest killer.
My point is we really don't have free health care(esp smokers)collectively they are paying multiple times in advanced for smoking related illnesses they may find they have later in life.(a pack a day smoker is likely paying 70.00 a week for health care/35.00 a week to the companies,if someone smokes for 35 yrs that adds up to hundreds of thousands-the breakdown in taxes is something like 2/3)
Smokers as a whole are treated like second class citizens by nearly all in society(i would argue smokers have so many limitations.they are really not able to have ''free'' will.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Nemo2 said:


> Hijack apology:
> 
> We're staying in a place on a small alley, (pictured), off a small alley, off another small alley off a narrow street ...



gorgeous photograph!

i could recognize missus Nemo's camera immediately. This picture has that same silvered aura which is her trademark. It's unusual, i haven't seen it before, it suits photographs of old cities & old quarters in cities down to a T.

Nemo carrying the camera bags is also a noble endeavour each:


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

donald said:


> Should the feds start taxes big macs than?obesity and diabetes has over taken smoking now as the largest killer.


There has been talk in some places (e.g., New York City) of taxing soda and other sugar-filled drinks, which are probably contributing more to obesity than Big Macs do. 



donald said:


> My point is we really don't have free health care(esp smokers)


But nobody said we have free health care. We have publicly funded health care. That's a big difference. The argument is that the government should try to discourage smoking because it imposes costs on all of us as taxpayers, including nonsmokers as well as smokers. The more people who smoke, the more all of us have to pay in taxes to cover the costs of treating them. It's like motorcycle helmet laws. The government doesn't require motorcyclists to wear helmets because it cares deeply about motorcyclists and wants them to be safe: it requires helmets because statistics on head injuries to motorcyclists presented a compelling case that motorcyclists frequently suffer head injuries that require expensive long-term care, and those costs are covered by all taxpayers. By reducing the number of head injuries, the government is helping to keep our taxes lower than they otherwise would be. If the government didn't tax cigarettes, more people would smoke and more young people would get into the habit, and we'd all be paying higher taxes to cover the higher costs of treating so many more sick smokers.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I think the gov has helped(awareness of how deadly and addictive cancer sticks are)
But.....smokers pay multiple prices(health/money/social rejection ect ect)
The typical smoker starts at probably age 14 or 15,prob within a month the wiring of the brain has changed and the addiction is cemented,just what philly morris wants.
I have sympathy(i know first hand how hard this addiction is to beat)
It takes a few bad decisions in youth(peer-pressure ect)and a 14 yr old ''self'' has created a life long problem.Most smoker don't want to smoke but because it is more powerful than cocaine they have no choice,the physical addiction has set in.
I don't know where i am going with this but i really do feel for smokers(or anyone fighting a addiction-people are not smoking for pleasure after a certain point,no different than a alcoholic or heroin addict.I'm sure your dad and mom would have given anything to break the chains of that addiction brad?


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

donald said:


> I
> I don't know where i am going with this but i really do feel for smokers(or anyone fighting a addiction-people are not smoking for pleasure after a certain point,no different than a alcoholic or heroin addict.I'm sure your dad and mom would have given anything to break the chains of that addiction brad?


Actually I'm not sure -- my mom died in the 1960s when I was only 8, and I think she was happy enough being a smoker. My father married a heavy smoker after she died, and when that stepmother died, he married another heavy smoker. He enjoyed smoking (he smoked a pipe) and I don't think he saw it as an addiction. Classic denial; he had the same attitude toward alcohol. If you watch "Mad Men," that was my father's world and time -- he worked in NY City and we lived just a few towns north of the one where Don Draper's house was set.

Anyway, I agree that smokers pay multiple prices. It's like that old saying about firewood: "the fuel that heats you twice," once when you cut it and once when you burn it. Cigarettes are the habit that you pay for over and over again, in many ways, and ultimately for most people they pay for it with their life.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

donald said:


> Should the feds start taxes big macs than?obesity and diabetes has over taken smoking now as the largest killer.
> My point is we really don't have free health care(esp smokers)collectively they are paying multiple times in advanced for smoking related illnesses they may find they have later in life.(a pack a day smoker is likely paying 70.00 a week for health care/35.00 a week to the companies,if someone smokes for 35 yrs that adds up to hundreds of thousands-the breakdown in taxes is something like 2/3)
> Smokers as a whole are treated like second class citizens by nearly all in society(i would argue smokers have so many limitations.they are really not able to have ''free'' will.


If the government's going to pay for the medical treatment of smokers, the obese, those in motorcycle accidents, rock climbers, skydivers etc., then why shouldn't they tax cigarettes/soda/motorcyles/parachutes etc.?

No different than a smoker having to pay more for health insurance in the States.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

That is my point.If the gov taxes cola like they do cigs a cola would cost prob 10 bucks.
IMO smoker overpay,canadians are paying something like 66% more than us citizens.
At 16 bucks a pack(365 days a year)a smoker is spending 5840.00-half/or over half is taxes(lets call it -2920.00/yr(that is half) x 35 yrs=102,200(no further inflation-1213-2048)
i think they pay a fair share for health care at the end,they are just prepaying.
A obese guy tied up in health care eating big macs and colas everyday for 35 yrs before he arrives has virtually paid zilch except to the corps who sold to him(mcd/ko ect)


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

I'd much prefer that health be a private concern, but we have to live with the system we've got unfortunately.
While I'd love to see the government back out of day to day affairs, the next best thing is for revenues to be matched to costs as often as possible.
Those with a discretionary lifestyle causing disproportionate usage of public resources should be taxed accordingly.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

brad said:


> In the US, cigarette taxes are probably lower because smokers themselves and their private health insurance providers pick up the tab for their illnesses.


I disagree. Millions of Americans live without health insurance. Uninsured Americans are more likely to be smokers than those with insurance (_uninsured folks are poorer and less educated as a group_). Where do they get their healthcare? At the ER. Hospitals are not allowed to turn them away. Who pays for it? The taxpayers!!!

In theory, this perverse system is supposed to change under Obamacare. We have to live and see how well it works in practice.

US cigarette taxes are probably lower because of (a) general anti-tax attitude and (b) strong tobacco lobby.


----------



## GalacticPineapple (Feb 28, 2013)

Dmoney said:


> Those with a discretionary lifestyle causing disproportionate usage of public resources should be taxed accordingly.


Totally agree.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> all the so-called ethical funds own lots of canadian banks, because there's nothing bad that can be said about em per se, eh. Banks treat their employees well, eh. Support social & environmental justice causes, try to make most of their fees transparent, eh.
> 
> but the questions remain. Who-all are they lending to? what kind of crooks are among their clients?


It is not just the question of bank lending - it goes further than that now.
Many supposedly venerable international banks have now been proven to support terrorism and directly funding divisive political groups in many African, Latin American, and other third world countries.
HSBC, Barclays, to name a couple.

There is no way for an individual investor reading annual reports and balance sheets to ever find out this type of information and make their decisions.

Governments slap a nominal "fine" on the banks, they pay up, and move on...to the next illegal activity.
Everyone is fed and happy :rolleyes2:


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Philip Morris sued by South Korea’s state health insurer BAT for Smoking Damages
http://americanlivewire.com/2014-04...eas-state-health-insurer-bat-smoking-damages/

Anyone familiar with PM's litigation history? Prior effect on stock price, etc.
http://www.pmi.com/en_cz/tobacco_regulation/litigation/pages/litigation.aspx


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Good news for (us) PM owners......smoking is alive and well in Budapest.......I silently praise each smoker who gives their life for the benefit of shareholders.


----------



## PatInTheHat (May 7, 2012)

Moved above 200 day MA and appears to be headed for a golden cross. Unfortunately it's a bit overbought at current levels so it may take a little time yet. Can't complain with the recent moves though!


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Nemo2 said:


> Good news for (us) PM owners......smoking is alive and well in Budapest.......I silently praise each smoker who gives their life for the benefit of shareholders.


me too, as an ex-smoker i salute all the puffers who are growing my investment ... PM has been stagnant but the dividend is ripe

the problem is that their product is ultimately doomed so when to get out is the question ... not for at least a decade i think


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Nemo2 said:


> Good news for (us) PM owners......smoking is alive and well in Budapest.......I silently praise each smoker who gives their life for the benefit of shareholders.


In 2012 did they not ban smoking indoors within public places? Perhaps this had little to no effect on the prevalence of cigarrete smoking within Budapest? Are the actual stats on the rise or was this simply a personal observation?


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Synergy said:


> In 2012 did they not ban smoking indoors within public places? Perhaps this had little to no effect on the prevalence of cigarrete smoking within Budapest? Are the actual stats on the rise or was this simply a personal observation?


Personal observations from just walking around the city and seeing the high number of people walking or standing around with cigarettes stuck in their mouths......seems if they can't smoke inside they'll just go outside and do it.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

I visited Europe many times during last 25 years.... looks like everyone is smoking there and I didn't notice any decrease in number of smokers.... If PM will infiltrate China, it would be great!


----------



## PuckiTwo (Oct 26, 2011)

*PM release 2nd quarter 14*

PM's stk price rose this morning very fast after earnings release. Why? Although the revenue increased 8% and it beat analysts' estimations by length, the news on the tobacco industry isn't good - there will be more and more regulations to cut back in nicotine consumption. PM has rising debts in order to serve its dividend and there are rumours that it may have to cut back its buy backs and/or dividend which would certainly bring the stk price down. Aren't the released figures misleading window dressing? 
PS: I owned a smidgen of PM and sold it two weeks ago.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i sold mine for a modest profit a month ago ... they are selling a product that will be harder and harder to buy

the conventional argument is that they pay a good dividend and the inevitable regulatory process worldwide will take years to implement and grind down their business model

i don't think so


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

fatcat said:


> i sold mine for a modest profit a month ago ... they are selling a product that will be harder and harder to buy


We got rid of ours........many, (perhaps all), of the cruise ship lines, (as but one example), are implementing, (or contemplating implementing, if the scuttlebutt is correct), smoking restrictions.


----------



## PuckiTwo (Oct 26, 2011)

Thks fatcat / Nemo2: so I am not the only one that got rid of it. Fatcat, I agree with you, this process will go much faster to strangle the tobacco industry and the governments are also working to do the same to the e-cigarettes. I read a few weeks ago that these companies are big and smart and before they go under they will come up with another product - even maybe with the marijuana one. Will see. If so, we can buy back.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

I'm still holding both PM and MO... you guys looking to North America, yes here consumption of tobacco as well as Ko and PEP and MCD most likely will go down, but real growth should come from emerging markets...

_Cigarette consumption in Western Europe dropped by 26% between 1990 and 2009 but increased in the Middle East and Africa by 57% during the same period. ... Globally, the increase in cigarette consumption in low- and middle-income countries is significant enough to offset the decrease in high-income countries. .. While global smoking prevalence is flat or decreasing, the total number of smokers worldwide continues to increase simply due to population growth - See more at: See more at: http://www.tobaccoatlas.org/products/cigarette_consumption/text/#sthash.XT67SeMg.dpuf_


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

gibor said:


> I'm still holding both PM and MO... you guys looking to North America, yes here consumption of tobacco as well as Ko and PEP and MCD most likely will go down, but real growth should come from emerging markets...
> 
> _Cigarette consumption in Western Europe dropped by 26% between 1990 and 2009 but increased in the Middle East and Africa by 57% during the same period. ... Globally, the increase in cigarette consumption in low- and middle-income countries is significant enough to offset the decrease in high-income countries. .. While global smoking prevalence is flat or decreasing, the total number of smokers worldwide continues to increase simply due to population growth - See more at: See more at: http://www.tobaccoatlas.org/products/cigarette_consumption/text/#sthash.XT67SeMg.dpuf_


i am aware of this argument ... i don't buy it


----------



## PuckiTwo (Oct 26, 2011)

A number of Asian countries (Cambodia, Indonisa, Lao, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam) have already banned or partially banned tobacco advertising and/or put other regulations in place. This is only the beginning. I think the tobacco companies see the handwriting on the wall and try to create monster companies such as Reynolds buying Lorillard.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

When did Canada institute a partial ban on advertising of tobacco?

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/30/world/canada-passes-law-to-ban-tobacco-ads-and-curb-smoking.html

Disclosure: I do not hold PM or MO but the tobacco lobby has a lot of money and power in this world. 
Declines yes. Defeat not anytime soon


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I remember reading an article about the initial ban on tobacco advertising. It turned out the companies saved a ton by not having to compete against each other so that their profits actually went up after legislation. They had been spending much more trying to compete, so a ban didn't hurt them at all.

Plus, they've already been through it with North America, so I'm sure they have a strategy. Smoking increased initially after the advertising ban for years.

I also think they are obvious candidates to pick up the legalized marijuana cigarettes if it comes to pass.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

brad said:


> If you're troubled by the ethics of making money off PM's evil work, you could donate your dividends to an anti-smoking charity that raises awareness of the perils of smoking. It's also worth noting that if you don't want to buy PM because its products kill people, you should also avoid investing in oil, gas, and non-hydro electric utility companies because in the long run they're going to kill many millions more people (via climate change) than cigarettes have in the last couple of centuries.


I think you have a point. Coal fired utilities could be worse that cigarettes. Not only green house gases from coal, but also tons of radioactive uranium and thorium in coal that people end up breathing in. 

Incidentally, smoke from a barbecue is apparently more toxic than second hand cigarette smoke.

And a after thought, for what it is worth. My recollection is that when Bernanke became fed chairman, he had to disclose stock holdings. He had only one stock, Altria group. He clearly had a lot of faith in tobacco investing.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

_If you're troubled by the ethics of making money off PM's evil work_ imho it's just stupid to think this way.... to smoke or not - personal choice of everyone.. There are also a lot of people who dies from alhocol - so what?! "ban" all alcohol stock?! And what about uranium (CCO) or weapon stocks (RTN, GD, LMT..)?! - are they more "ethical" than tobacco?!


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

> "If you're troubled by the ethics of making money off PM's evil work"


I'm not at all troubled by that, but I do get troubled by the prospect of taking a capital loss. :wink:


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

A true "ethical" investor has nowhere to run, nowhere to hide these days.
Most ethical funds/ETFs these days don't know whether they are coming or going - they are rotating in and out of stocks as the underlying companies do things that violate some or the other ethical tenet.

Banks are directly sponsoring terrorists and dictators (BNP Paribas, Barclays, etc.)
Utilities and energy companies are trashing the environment (supposedly).
Many funds had to dump Starbucks a year or so ago when they came out with alcohol flavored coffee.
Even sovereign bonds are not "ethical".

There is no absolute line that can be drawn...we all have to make our own value judgments what we are willing to live with.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

this article seems to say that profitability will continue based on the companies high profit margin and the fact their customers are addicted
i am trying to buy companies that pass buffets rules which means to say that they can be held for a long time based on their quality product or service
big tobacco doesn't really pass this test but i guess they can be good income producers if you watch them carefully

http://business.financialpost.com/2...-gone-why-is-big-tobacco-still-so-profitable/


----------

