I am fairly bullish except for the fact that it is trading well above net tangible book value. Since you stated that this isn't very important to you, it seems like a decent investment. They have lost money the last two years but as you mentioned, they seem to be poised for a turn around in 2003. Zacks has the 5 year EPS growth rate at 10.4% which is good for a company this size. I've got average EPS esitmates of $1.66 and $1.96 for 2003 and 2004 respectively. The debt to equity ratio of .53 is significantly lower than the industry average and I think this figure is one that some investors don't give enough weight. The only question I have is "Can they actually turn it around in 2003? The cost cutting measures they took in 2002 are supposed to save about $400M so if this is on target, the answer should be yes. If they can reach the $1.66 estimate in 2003, then we could expect the stock to move up moderately and a decent dividend yield to go along with that makes it attractive. For the long term investor, the 2004 $1.96 estimate makes it very attractive but such long term estimates must be taken with a grain of salt. I guess the bottom line here is that over the next two years, expectations are for an improving bottom line and I see no reason why they would cut or eliminate the dividend. If you aren't bothered by the $6B+ in goodwill and intangible assets they carry on the balance sheet, then it looks like a good play.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
