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 : Buffettology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Senior who wrote (4565)	12/11/2016 12:45:29 PM
From: CitizenKane	Respond to of 4691

Re: IBM There was the dot-com bubble in early 2000. As I said in the previous post, EPS was 4.44 in 2000 and now it is 12.24. The dividends declared per share was 0.51 in 2000 and now it is 5.40. But the most interesting in my opinion is the FCF/Share which has increased a lot in recent years and is now 15.02. IBM is holding the record for most patents generated by a business for 23 consecutive years and if you look at the Interbrand's Best Global Brands 2016, you will see that IBM is ranked 6th. You are right, IBM has not been a good investment in recent years. But Apple also before the launch of the iPhone. I believe that data analysis, cognitive technologies and cloud computing will revolutionize the way businesses work. That's why I think IBM is now a good investment. Sometimes it takes more time than expected but if we are patient I think it brings back nice gains.

To: Paul Senior who wrote (4565)	11/11/2017 7:35:59 AM
From: iLucky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4691

re: In early 2000 the stock was about $100/sh. Now it's about $166. About 66% gain in 16 years. Many would call that pathetic performance. The bottom line for an investor, and why I as long-term shareholder, can only presume the "extraordinary" about the management is how they can rise to the top, stay there, and make financial manipulations instead of revenue increases. How funny this is: I own the stock, but am not happy with it or the company. You like the comany and apparently the stock-- do you even own shares though? Correction: the (BRK.B) stock was at, or I should say got as low as about $1,400 in early March 2000. Divide that price by its 50:1 split. The stock was $28-$30 early 2000. Since then, a one-time purchase, that's over 10% compared with SPY (S&P500 with dividends) of about 4%. However, if one were to have bought BRK.Bs along the way at relatively low prices (say at 1.3 or less price to book value), beginning in 2000, more in 2003 and 2005, and loaded up again in late 2008 through March 2009, one could have easily returned well over 11%, if not 13% or more. Compared with SPY of something less than 8% (various but same date purchases). Sure, it depends on the date bought and now much. As Buffett and Munger say: Price is what you pay, value is what you get. $100ish is a fall cry from $30ish. The key for me is Berkshire is sleep at night money. It reminds me of a Michael Burry's blast from the past gift-to-a-niece or 17-year holding period posts (e.g., NIKE). I've been very happy with the company having bought and continually owning its stock for over 18 years. To me, it's become a powerhouse Monopoly-board-like transformation from Buffett's stock-picking to buying whole-companies (like the utilities and the railroad, the other half of Geico, Marmon, Iscar, Precision Cast Parts, MiTek, etc.). Not to mention insurance subsidiaries carrying over $100 billion in low-to-no-cost float (or "OPM", other people's money). Since cashing in some of its high-priced stock for GenRE in 1998, and then fixing it, the transformation has been eye-awakening. iLucky