PNX too risky for me also.
I'd rather have MET or something with a p/e of 5-7 vs. PNX with it's "historic p/e of 8.5". I show that PNX had a big decline in stated bv by '08, negative p/e in '08-'10. The company's net income was .07 in '11, and depending on which of three Yahoo analysts one might believe, forecasted earnings this year might be between .25 and .56. At .56 and a p/e of 5 or 6, the stock could or will or might make a good move from here. OTOH, at .25, the stock seems to me at least fully-valued. The p/stated bv is very low. Otoh, the p/stated bv has been low (under .5) for several years. The p/bv is very very low now, so maybe there's a good possibility of improvement as the company gets re-evaluated by investors. Or maybe the stock just languishes at it current low p/bv.
The company may have been in business since 1851, I only see though about a decade of stock performance, and it doesn't look so good to me. And so I take no comfort that the company's been in business a long time.
finance.yahoo.com
Agree with Clownbuck: your record of success with your picks apparently is very, very good. I don't dispute that you might again have great success with this pick too. Just pointing out that I try to look at every stock mentioned here, and sometimes I feel that since I spent some time looking at such, I ought to at least document what I find or believe. This stock is not for me. For you/others with a different view, it may be a very good buy. |
