Posts: 730
Threads: 27
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
8
Just a suggestion to e mods, whether it is move all the wonderful posts on ROE to a new thread? Cos this is somewhat out of topic. It will facilitate easy searching and further development on e discussion of ROE concepts. Thanks!
Posts: 336
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
7
Thank you for giving few names with none having a 20years record. I leave coca cola and cse global out but i think coca cola has a record of 20 years.
Thinknotleft has a point
the number of company we know that has record of Average(changed from consistently since it is changed)roe of >20% is so few, then the amount of hope is really high. Why? How many company with >20% roe for 10 years can continue for another 10 years? One one hand Think about the number of company we know with a record for 20 years. On another think about how we use the past roe to project into the future.
Posts: 1,733
Threads: 21
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
31
If you just look at SGX companies alone, I don't think there are lots of companies that were listed for more than 20 years. In 1988, there are only 327 companies listed.
Out of these 327, many of them have been delisted, merged or capsized since.
Posts: 730
Threads: 27
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
8
29-10-2010, 05:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 29-10-2010, 05:47 PM by mrEngineer.)
Since we are at the topic of PB, I have a question on how excessive levels of P/B can we say the company is overvalued? Would we considered P/B of more than 5 quite overvalued? of course one can say it will be industry dependent or so but is there a general value that we can say its too excessive?
The examples that d.o.g gave was in the range of P/B of 1 -2 times.
And what kind of industries that we might expect excessive values of P/B? What is the average value of P/B in such industries?
Posts: 730
Threads: 27
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
8
29-10-2010, 09:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 29-10-2010, 09:10 PM by mrEngineer.)
From iphone:
I guess there might be a plausible explanation for the change for strategy. In e past, markets are not so efficient and financial knowledge was not as available widely. Thus it was possible that undervalued companies continue to hide and almost kinda like arbitrage to multi-bag. These days, one might have to look deep beyond e quantitative aspects and take risk in it's qualitative evaluation (fisher style).
I concur that d.o.g post was great. It set me thinking for weeks on how to relate compounding effect of ROE, 70 rule of thumb and BV.
Posts: 79
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
4
P/B, by itself, is quite meaningless. You have to use P/B with other information like ROE etc. Even in the situation where P/B is more applicable, P/RNAV (or P/Expected book value) is more useful.
Buffet has to be more Fisher-like because of his huge portfolio. Graham-like stocks tend to be of smaller cap, and hence less relevant to Buffet's huge portfolio.
Finally, I wish to reiterate one of my earlier points. It is very seductive to conclude from d.o.g's analogy that one should always buy good business (or high ROE business) at reasonable prices. If you take a step back, the assumption behind d.o.g's analogy is that good business now implies good business in the future. And, this assumption is very tenuous, given the mean-reverting tendency of business performance.