# Why TRI (Thomson Reuters) was beaten so hard this year?



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

TRI Thomson Reuters is one of the few Canadian listed stocks that are US dividend contenders (18 years inreased dividends), and on the first sight numbers are not that bad , PEG = 0.8, P/S =1.3, Payout ratio 75%, yield 4.6%, however stock practically reached 52 weeks low and down ~40% from it's highs.
Just wondering why TRI was beaten so hard?


----------



## Chigu (Aug 6, 2009)

gibor said:


> TRI Thomson Reuters is one of the few Canadian listed stocks that are US dividend contenders (18 years inreased dividends), and on the first sight numbers are not that bad , PEG = 0.8, P/S =1.3, Payout ratio 75%, yield 4.6%, however stock practically reached 52 weeks low and down ~40% from it's highs.
> Just wondering why TRI was beaten so hard?


Taken from the movie 'Limitless'.. at this time stocks aren't really being priced based on their fundamentals, they are priced based on 'mass psychology'. Take a look at Kinross (K.to), even if you discount and sell all the assets of the company, it is still worth more than their current stock price.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

strictly off limits for you gibor.

you are to get down on your knees & pray for forgiveness for breaking the code. You weakened & bought teck in a lush moment days ago, although you are supposed to be reducing your patchwork quilt from 40 out-of-control scraps to some semblance of order.

your penance is to reduce or merge 2 holdings to compensate for the teck impulse.

don't even think about thomson. Really you are as bad as a teenager running amok buying costume jewellery in a shopping mall.


----------



## P_I (Dec 2, 2011)

The perception is that Thomson faces significant market headwinds as it competes with Bloomberg. They are in the process of dumping a CEO and have likely become a show-me stock. Analysts have been forecasting an upside breakout ever since they acquired Reuters, but it never seems to be realized, another argument for the show-me status.

Historically TRI.TO has been range bound in stock price, although recent pricing seems to have broken through the normal floor. The upper bound seems to be near $40. 

I've owned shares since the '90s and believe they've got a good business and the Thomson family still is very significant owner, so their interests should be aligned with shareholders.

My $0.02


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> strictly off limits for you gibor.
> 
> you are to get down on your knees & pray for forgiveness for breaking the code. You weakened & bought teck in a lush moment days ago, although you are supposed to be reducing your patchwork quilt from 40 out-of-control scraps to some semblance of order.
> 
> ...


HP, I wasn't thinking to buy TRI  , I just was reading David Fish's research about dividend contenders and in his smackdown was only one CDN stock (TRI).

btw, i bought TCK before I posted my question on this forum...I was in doubt to do fast trade or hold it for a longer time... and I reduced 1 holding  sold SJR for a small gain and added partially to RCI... 
some small amount left and mow, I don't plan to open new positions, but add to existing... TD or PG


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> don't even think about thomson. Really you are as bad as a teenager running amok buying costume jewellery in a shopping mall.


LMAO. 

Gibor is quite a naughty boy. 

But I am reconsidering it [wanted to buy a couple of years ago].


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

I don't like the media business. It produces nothing of tangible value, and the trend for its product is towards cheap or free access.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> strictly off limits for you gibor.
> 
> you are to get down on your knees & pray for forgiveness for breaking the code. You weakened & bought teck in a lush moment days ago, although you are supposed to be reducing your patchwork quilt from 40 out-of-control scraps to some semblance of order.
> 
> ...


 LMAO is right


----------

