Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J Mako who wrote (45499)	11/16/2011 9:22:56 AM
From: Jurgis Bekepuris	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78673

You are right on both counts. If the company does not grow and pays out everything, it does not matter whether you bought 16%ROE@1PB or 8%ROE@.5B. You are also right that the ROE-based reinvestment/growth metric is very inexact for a lot of companies. However, I still prefer the high ROE companies for couple reasons: - High ROE may indicate moat (not always) - High ROE gives management more flexibility where to put the CF. As you said, this might be positive - in case of Buffett - or negative in case of Intel/HP/etc. overpriced acquisitions. - Pretty much no companies pay out everything, so as above it's better to have high ROE. - High ROE gives me more confidence to hold on the stock even if business declines/etc. I am not good at holding marginal companies as they fluctuate. - Like Paul Senior says, I look to discard companies, not to include more of them. Even with high ROE requirement, I hold ~60 positions. I don't want to have 300 positions by buying every company in the universe. Sorry, Paul. ;) On the other side, I can miss turnarounds/snapbacks where a marginal company goes to (cyclical) trough and then runs up 2x as its fortune turns. I hold one or two NCAV positions, some E&Ps and some (re)insurance companies where the high ROE requirement is violated. So far, not much success with NCAVs, big success with E&Ps coming from 2009 bottom and mixed success with (re)insurance.