AT&T’s Short Interest And Why I Decided To Add To My Position

AT&T’s Short Interest And Why I Decided To Add To My Position http://seekingalpha.com/article/3100496?source=ansh-en $T

Another successful week is in the books. Although some things have not been bright spots in my life, my investing and research has been very productive. That, along with my children’s recent athletic success, has been very conducive to my well being. It really feels good to be able to spread out and find other ways to enjoy my time and contribute to the betterment of myself and others.

  I have been invested in AT&T for quite some time. My father worked for the company and never lost money investing in the stock. AT&T certainly treated him and my family well. I once asked him before he passed away if I should worry about buying so much AT&T. He told me that he just kept buying over the years and reinvested the dividends. I know how many shares and what kind of income that investment ultimately brought. When I see the numbers and how little investments over many years turned into a money machine, it became a no brainer when deciding to purchase the original shares as well as adding to them through dividend reinvestment and new purchases.

That being said, I still do a lot of trading when the timing is right. I happen to use AT&T as the vehicle. Why? Because I believe that if I get upside down, the dividend will allow me to accumulate shares and garner me profits while I am waiting for the capital gains to come my way.

Anyhow, I am off to the Governor’s Games. I will let everyone know how my little athlete fares.  Take care.

Keep cranking,

Robert the DividendDreamer 

Advertisements

About dividenddreamer

Doing what I can to make the best of today and the most of tomorrow.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to AT&T’s Short Interest And Why I Decided To Add To My Position

  1. Vivianne says:

    Stock price for AT&T hasn’t moved for years, yet the company rewarded their share holder handsomely. I’ve bough some AT&T stock myself. For me AT&T has been in business forever, like GE, the growth can be staggnant. The product can change, technology can change, but AT&T have enough depth to to evolve with time to remain profitable. Say google can put out internet speed of 1gb in Kansas City, but when google do the something in Atlanta, AT&T also did the same thing to remain competitive. Anyhow we won’t see them growth more than the inflation rate anytime, but they will be here and continue paying dividend, that’s we can count on. Your dad was a very wise man. Sometimes I’m amazed that given the lack of information that our parents have, yet, they are so wise in making decisions.

    • Nice comment. I truly believe that the Government has hamstrung T many times over the years. It is so hard to spend tons of cash only to be prevented from making money by lawmakers and the government. AT&T is very innovstive, but they cannot spend endlessly without certain concern for repercussions from the government. I cannot believe what happened in the 80s and the monopoly breakup. If that happened before, what gives T any incentive to build out technology only to be broken up because of non competition. The government should have stayed out of the stock market and allowed T to grow, but that was not to be. Thanks for stopping by. Good luck.

      Keep cranking,

      Robert the DividendDreamer

    • Nice comment. I truly believe that the Government has hamstrung T many times over the years. It is so hard for T to spend tons of cash only to be prevented from making money by lawmakers and the government buerocracy . AT&T is very innovative, but they cannot spend endlessly without knowing that they could possibly benefit from the investment. Based on what happened in the 80’s with the monopoly breakup, AT&T is taking a more cautious approach to build out because of possible prior issues with the government.. If that happened before, what gives T any incentive to build out technology if the possibility exists for the government to squash their efforts.

      In my opininon, publicly traded companies are responsible to make money for its shareholders. If the government has the ability to determine whether a company can make money or not through forced regulations , that puts a stranglehold on companies. The government should have stayed out of the stock market.

      Keep cranking,

      Robert the DividendDreamer
      AKA–Seeking Dividends

      • Vivianne says:

        Well I don’t mean to crash the party, but a few month ago ATT tried to block a town from getting higher speed internet as they were monopolized the town. http://www.ibtimes.com/why-att-trying-block-small-kansas-town-building-better-isp-1736630

        I believe the government can be good at oversight, to prevent companies from going backward, improve competition, and benefit the people of America. I love it when companies are competing, that’s what drive America, the creativity and the renovation. When we stop renovating, that’s when the company goes. I hope management at ATT are smarter than that latest episode, eventually build faster service, continue to compete with Comcast, verizon, tmobile, etc. buying out the google fiber piece can be a good one.

      • Competition is one thing. However, AT&T put up the infrastructure almost Keep cranking, 100 years ago now and they are being forced to allow others to use it. If the other companies want to compete, I say let them build their own infrastructure of poles and wires and go with it. I have a little more insight into how things worked because I had a few family members and friends who worked for AT&T. My dad worked there for almost 4 decades and all his friends were people who worked there. I heard all the stories about the monopoly and the breakup and how they were forced to allow others to hang wires on AT&T poles, and they took it very much to heart. I know I would take it the same way.

        For instance, a friend of mine has a major landscaping business around my city. It would be no different if I knew someone who could prevent him from doing his job because he spent millions on equipment and can do it faster than me, and they allowed me to go in and force him to rent me his equipment so I could do a job more efficiently. In that way, I would not have to build out the massive equipment stockpile, and I would just use his sweat and blood to benefit me because I “want to compete.” If I want to compete, I should go out and spent a million dollars and buy equipment, trucks, advertise and do a better job at a better price and that would be it. It really is that simple. I may be missing something, but that is truly the way I feel about the monopoly and competition aspect of AT&T. Thanks for stopping by. Good luck.

        Keep cranking,

        Robert the DividendDreamer
        AKA–Seeking Dividends

      • Also, the filing is only to make sure that the provider follows regulations that are so readily imposed on T. If T did not do anything, any Tom, Dick, or Harry could set up shop. All the while AT&T would still have to follow the strict regulation are risk intervention from government officials. In the end, AT&T cannot stop progress, they can only try to make sure that all the rules they must follow are followed by the cut throats that come in trying to undermine there business. It would be financially irrisponsible fir AT&T to react in any other way.

        Keep cranking,

        Robert the DividendDreamer
        AKA — Seeking Dividends

      • Vivianne says:

        I actually need your respond a couple more times. So from ATT’s perspective, don’t want to update their infrastructure, prevent people from using their pole.
        From the people’s point, if ATT don’t upgrade then they need to let them upgrade it.

        In a way it’s kind of backward. Even Korea’s internet is faster than us, come on! Anyhow, I hope this whole thing will resolve and ATT can restore its image.

      • I really have a lot to say about this subject, but it is a lot to write in a comment section. I will just hit the basics as I see it.

        First, AT&T can’t stop anyone from building out there own service. What they can do is to make sure that the new company is just as hindered as a
        AT&T I’d by the government. AT&T did not make any of the laws, they just have to play by the rules or be slapped by the government. So, the rules that keep a reign on AT&T have to also apply to other companies as well. That being said, most of those other companies just want to skirt the issues and set up shop without following the letter of the law- laws set up by the government who put a stranglehold on AT&T.

        Next, as for Korea and other countries that are building infrastructure to support communication, you have to realize one thing. Size. Korea is 38691 square miles. The US is 3800000 square miles. So, we have a country that had nothing (Korea) and they now have a few towers (ok, a bunch) that overlap coverage and cover most of the almost 39 thousand square miles. Now compare that to the US that has 3.8 million square miles. AT&T has invested billions and billions of dollars to build out that infrastructure, and they were torn apart in the 80s and had to make due with what was left. They still invested more to connect the US both domestically and internationally and have had tremendous success after the breakup. There is no way that AT&T could possibly scrap a system that took the better part of the 20th century to develop. They must make things work or risk spending themselves into bancruptcy. Now, if another company wanted to try to build a system that complies with all the FCC regulations, I am sure they would find that the $40 they were charging to deliver the service to 320 million people over 3.8 million square miles would be very costly to say the least. If all that was needed was running a few wires or wireless towers, then they ought to do it and pay all the fees and taxes and see how it goes. I am a person that thinks that most people do not have a clue how much AT&T has invested in the infrastructure that is in place. They could never just start over. That would be throwing out the baby and the bathwater. Anyhow, any company that wants to set up shop is more than welcome, but just remember, it would take a whole bunch of towers to cover 3.8 million miles. The size of the US is actually

      • I really have a lot to say about this subject, but it is a lot to write in a comment section. I will just hit the basics as I see it.

        First, AT&T can’t stop anyone from building out there own service. What they can do is to make sure that the new company is just as hindered as a
        AT&T I’d by the government. AT&T did not make any of the laws, they just have to play by the rules or be slapped by the government. So, the rules that keep a reign on AT&T have to also apply to other companies as well. That being said, most of those other companies just want to skirt the issues and set up shop without following the letter of the law- laws set up by the government who put a stranglehold on AT&T.

        Next, as for Korea and other countries that are building infrastructure to support communication, you have to realize one thing. Size. Korea is 38691 square miles. The US is 3800000 square miles. So, we have a country that had nothing (Korea) and they now have a few towers (ok, a bunch) that overlap coverage and cover most of the almost 39 thousand square miles. Now compare that to the US that has 3.8 million square miles. AT&T has invested billions and billions of dollars to build out that infrastructure, and they were torn apart in the 80s and had to make due with what was left. They still invested more to connect the US both domestically and internationally and have had tremendous success after the breakup. There is no way that AT&T could possibly scrap a system that took the better part of the 20th century to develop. They must make things work or risk spending themselves into bancruptcy. Now, if another company wanted to try to build a system that complies with all the FCC regulations, I am sure they would find that the $40 they were charging to deliver the service to 320 million people over 3.8 million square miles would be very costly to say the least. If all that was needed was running a few wires or wireless towers, then they ought to do it and pay all the fees and taxes and see how it goes. I am a person that thinks that most people do not have a clue how much AT&T has invested in the infrastructure that is in place. They could never just start over. That would be throwing out the baby and the bathwater. Anyhow, any company that wants to set up shop is more than welcome, but just remember, it would take a whole bunch of towers to cover 3.8 million miles. The size of the US is actually 100 times larger than, for example Korea. The population density is also at issue. South Korea has a population density of 497 people per square mile, as opposed to the US which has a population density of 84 people per square mile. If the Korean system is profitable, I wonder how that would translate when only 84 people were paying into the system per mile. Sounds like someone is going to have to squeeze a lot to get back to square if all things were equal. It is very easy to look at a country that is the size of Indiana and try to extrapolate the numbers. It is way more complicated and costly than it seems. Plus, with all the regulations and taxes and legal hassles, the prices to build such a system can be astronomical. I am all for competition, however, everyone has to be playing on a level field and use their own equipment. The guy who has no helmet or pads is on his own and that is the way it should be. Thanks for stopping by. Good luck.

        Keep cranking,

        Robert the DividendDreamer
        AKA– Seeking Dividends

      • Vivianne says:

        Wow, you keep impressing me with your knowledge about the company that you invested in. Recently I read an article on financial samurai, and it upset me when he said there is a bubble when people who doesn’t hold a financial degree giving investment advice. And he compare the financial bloggers to shoes shiners back in the day?

        Hah! Seriously, how many people just turn over their finance to their accountant and “qualified financial advisor” and lost all of their life saving?

        I do feel like people should be responsible for their finance.

        Anyhow, for me it’s a tough call. If it’s up to ATT, we’d get stuck with dial-up forever. Because, they don’t want to do any updating. Why update anything if they can just use the existing service and make money off of it? On the other hand, if other companies decide to rent their pole, I get they should pay a fair price for ATT initial investment and continue maintenance.

        What do you think of the recent lawsuit against verizon on their smaller tv package (a la cart on channels).

      • First off, it is not in any way that AT&T does not want to upgrade. How it works is that if T spends billions to upgrade service , and the government regulates what they can and can’t do, the expenses will not be able to be recouped. It is so hard to have to develop technology and spend hard dollars only to be told that you can’t charge what you have to in order to make money for shareholders. So, if the government is going to tell T what they can charge and how they can and can’t allow access to the system, then T has every right to keep the purse strings tight. I would do the same thing-no question about it. Good luck.

        Keep cranking,

        Robert the DividendDreamer
        AKA –Seeking Dividends

      • I do not have any knowledge of the Verizon issues. However, T is another story.

        AT&T is investing quite a large amount of cash into system improvements and build outs. As you can see, here are some figures, and they are staggering. Spending this kind of money would definitely require AT&T to charge a fair price and be able to run the system in a profitable manner. If the government won’t allow that, what is the purpose of spending billions if the revenues and profits do not justify the expense?

        Keep cranking,

        Robert the DividendDreamer
        AKA — Seeking Dividends

        http://www.marketwatch.com/story/att-invests-nearly-900-million-within-two-years-to-enhance-local-networks-in-wisconsin-2015-04-23

        http://www.marketwatch.com/story/att-invests-nearly-14-billion-over-three-year-period-to-enhance-local-network-in-greater-seattle-area-2015-04-24

        http://www.marketwatch.com/story/att-invests-nearly-17-billion-over-three-year-period-to-enhance-local-networks-in-washington-2015-04-24

        http://www.marketwatch.com/story/att-invests-more-than-100-million-over-three-year-period-to-enhance-local-networks-in-new-hampshire-2015-04-23

        AT&T Invests Nearly $300 Million Within Two Years To Enhance Local Network In The Milwaukee Area

      • Vivianne says:

        Now I understand why you only have a few stocks on your portfolio, because you research to the core of each ones you own. Very impressive.

      • I am really trying to diversify some more, but I have not been very successful yet. Hopefully, that will change.

        Keep cranking,

        Robert the DividendDreamer
        AKA — Seeking Dividends

        Follow me on Twitter– Seeking Dividends@DividendDreamer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s