dealraker

Once you get to the top 5-8...whatever...market cap it is quite the accomplishment to hang around there through secular change/cycles. Few companies do that.

I tried to word such a post but failed, nice go at it. SJ it may be one of those "who gets the benefit of better economics...the business/customer or the government/taxpayer/etc."?

So given I'd inherited a tad of NSC back in 1975 I have spent some time whining like a stuck pig about NSC and the others buying more stock back at ever higher multiples. So now we are down 100 points at NSC and the same pecentage at the rest and you'll see buybacks stop. Analysts of some brokerages will end their ever higher price targets and drop coverage. The cycles continue and buyback models, or lack thereof, work out as usual. But railroads, that is the stock prices, will likely once again go from obviously too high to being likely too low. The future vs trucking? I'm in the boat of saying we are all just doing wild guesses. I'm basically of the opinion that our obsession with tax avoidance and huge budget deficits - minimal road infrastructure upgrades - means those rail corridors are going to get used.

I live on a nice point of land on a pretty lake with a southeast facing and I've been planted here almost 40 years. I had $75k in the house originally (I am/was also a licensed contractor in NC), added about $50k since then. Last year I could have sold the house for well over $1 million. Today? Probably far less. And there are times I'm pretty much sure I couldn't give the damn place away. Same thing happens with the businesses you own. I guess that means we should anticipate economic conditions and sell them based on those guesses? House too I guess. I've missed all those opportunities now for nearly 50 years. I plan on missing all of them until I die too. Kinda based on things like inheriting enough Berkshire in 1975 to pay 1/2 the cost of a CJ-5 Jeep. Briefly considered selling that stock back then, but didn't. At some point somebody should make a list of all the times it would have been better to sell...wait...and buy back the stock. I'm sure it would be a several page long list.

To some degree this is also a discussion with myself on the topic, one that I go through not becasuse I'm going to do anything about it because I simply won't. I've been around long enough to shove down the worries enough that the things dreaded earlier in life - things that do come and go - but you realize they pass fast if you live a while. For years I did follow Grantham, he was an early counter point to Wall Street and it's media addiction to the pundits of that time and the later rise of the endless parade of Harry Dent's (euphoric up and down forecasts) and Nouriel Roubini's (total distruction) of the world. In any event I do know countless people who are well-off, some in their 80's with net worth's of $50 million, most all got there being both diversified and always invested. Of course I do know those who had one business who have done well. But most of all I know a bunch of people who endlessly try to time in's and out's, hard assets vs this or that, and those that are certain as to inflation or interest rates, and as of yet don't know one who is well-off unless it was originally inherited wealth. Some of you may find interest in that we do have records of my investment club's performance since 1954. Thanks to a retired CPA in our club who entertains himself messing around with this sort of thing we have it from day one. We have had a steadfast value investing approach and we've had short periods where some of our stocks got 20-30 times or more over-valued and we didn't sell at the times when we should. But we have done well and we've done over time a tad better than Mr. Market. But given it is a taxable thing for most, but not all of us, we've of course underperformed Mr. Market. I initially put in $4,300 in the late 1970's and we've never had dues, there are 25 of us. We've distributed many times, I've gotten a check for $25,000 3 times. Our portfolio today is $1.1 million, so I have 1/25th of that and we'll probably distribute another $25,000 soon as we have tended to do that when the portfolio reached $1 mil. But as to our club...the one thing, given we are value investors, that has always been the case is that we're less up and down than Mr. Market. And my guess that's what a lot of those here will experience over time. Few will beat the market, even those stating "you can't get rich being diversified".....but ups and downs will be significantly less if you stick to being a value investor. Rambling some, but in recent years my value investing slant has led me to buy nothing but energy stocks and a few mentioned here on this board. Like Gregmal, while I do own stocks like Google, I fully expected them to fall to the PE's of today at some point. I added a tad to Google a couple weeks ago.

Interesting comment. It enlightens me.

I don't mean to point this out too much but I do so to rationalize what I'm trying to ask...which I am quite interested in discussing. Others will maybe, or maybe not at all interested. I guess we will see. So I'm 68, my parents died very young and I inherited a few stocks, and my small town wealthy brother-in-law put me in an investment club with he and 24 others. These were the business heads of my community and all those except two including my bro-in-law are now dead. I found it intersting that several of the men literally owned every stock we ever mentioned in the club to buy. The club began in 1954 and this is the mid 1970's when I joined and I'm still in business graduate school. So my perspective today is quite long which is sort of typical of older investors- which seems counter intuitive of course- but it is what it is. Here's my question: Buffett has said or written of course that inflation is the thief...and so forth. But I have a wood framed Securities Research 100 plus year chart in my basement, it is about 5 feet wide and has multiple lines on it. The years on it are 1892 to 1998, and I'm guessing I bought it in 1998 or 1999. On the chart it is easy to see Dow earnings and beginning in the 1950's S and P earnings. From looking at this chart I will state and it is generalized that other than the Great Depression that the "earnings line" just steps up each and every year. AND (here's the basis of my question) during the inflationary years of the 70's/80's earnings went up clearly faster. So my question is this: Of course it is logical to pay less for stocks if interest rates/inflation (or whatever the combo is) is higher given you can do CD's/bonds etc.....but do we equity investors worry far too much about inflation in the long run? I am also aware that profit margins averaged 6% or so and have escalated significantly so a second question is: Are inflation, or lack thereof, and profit margins linked and if so to what degree? My premise is that staying invested is the best option and I pretty much got this wild ass view (being a tad facetious or silly) because those in my club 40 years ago always stayed fully invested.

I inherited a few stocks in 1975 and began work as an insurance and banking analyst in 1978. I have basically gradually acquired stocks now for all these years and have not sold any stocks. The reason for not selling is probably deeply psychological given my parents early death and my connection needs. But anyway I have a few 100 baggers. Anyone in my shoes would have the same if you, for whatever reason (and there could be many), accidently acted as I did. I tend to do well avoiding losses but I did own several stocks that went to zero. One was Bank of Granite, the CEO John Forlines, was asked by Warren Buffett to stand and be honored at one of the annual meetings, I was there and watched. But I own some NSC. Plug in that I inherited a small bit of my Grandmother's shares, it has now been in the family 81 years. 11% a year annual return. That looks pretty good in a compound calculator outcome. I don't do well with timing nor absolutes, most things are gray to me. But I love reading Gregmal's strong opinions and Parsad's reasonable responses.

Further on Grantham and stock/business prices...or is it values? Or what are we really focusing on? Business value is often built best or most during downturns. All kinds of price inflations and price collapses are in the future or present --- and past of course. Secular change and cycles are not the same. My family owned newspapers and a.m. radio stations, both secular change disasters that fortunately we didn't fully experience because we sold early enough and diversified. We also owned several builders supplies, sold all but one and basically indexed in the markets (along with buying a lot of Lowe's because we thought they were superior to us) which turned out bizarre fantastic --- that was 40 years ago. I was a partner buying and building an insurance broker that we merged with one of the big shots --- mainly because a new guy showed up in town and was cleaning our clock, yes running circles around us and we could not keep up. But the insurance broker business somehow remains phenomenal --and we have made many multiples of our merger price- which I'm perplexed with to say the least. In the end we did far better than the young man (6 years younger than me) who was kicking our butts in town. But who could have predicted that...or anything else? Not me. In any event I'm a tad annoyed with the Grantham types and their endless writings that obviously seek eyeballs and admiration. There's too many things to do other than sit around trying to expert the next 7 or scream bloody murder that this or that is sure to happen --- of course because it happened in the past. My wife and I own 300 or so stocks (I often begin to count them but lose interest), and most began with outlays of $3000 or so, much like what my Berkshire stock was worth when I inherited it. Over time? Oh my, change for the good. Prices to me aren't value. Value is what you get over time averaging out the ups and downs in extremes. Grantham discusses stock market prices endlessly and he loves words that if you read them too much? Well, you're likely to need drugs and counseling and likely both. Life is great...if you can stand it. A percentage in cash is a fantastic idea and much needed for living consistently and sanity. Over time cash heads towards zero in value with a good amount of speed. If you are the type to hold a large cash position at all times then I'd basically tell you, if you are young, to count that as zero in your net worth calculation. And if you are smart enough to know when to hold lots of cash? Well, you are a person I'm not aware of yet.

68 and retired for a while. The wind down of life in my view isn't simple --- as stopping all risk taking in all various types of things likely quickens demise. I still retain somewhat of a keeping up the properties game because it keeps me functioning efficiently. I still race my mountain bike in the grand masters 60 and over cross country events. I dont win, but I finish.

Grantham's investing isn't anywhere as drama oriented as his writing. His writing disorients me completely and I quit reading it.

Thanks gfp. I was one of the first members of this forum, but decided to get off for a while. But I got back on recently.

While I've owned my shares of Berkshire since inheritance I do remember best the period of 1999 and there abouts. Valueline would do their report on Berkshire and state that there would be little growth of any kind in sales, usually they'd state 6%, and profits then of $1.2 billion were likely not attainable in the next few years. While making these typical-for-Berkshire forecasts or targets Valueline would state that GE $180 bil sales and $30 bil of (fake) profits would grow earnings 17-18% for years to come. Valueline was equally positive on Intel, the growth of sales and profits there was an expected 25%. So Berk had back then sales of about $30 bil and profits of around $1 bil and growth forecasts were simply pathetic. The focus was on the growth sectors of technology and the view that "the Internet is just beginning." Interestingly to me today is that Berk and likely Buffett have increased their energy allocations. I have for decades participated on Berkshire forum boards, the latest for many years has been the Motley Fool board. Recently after the trend on that board were comments of pretty intense criticisms towards Buffett for buying OXY instead of Google I simply made a short statement that I "guessed" that energy may, just may, be the better investment going forward. Not only were my comments removed I was permanantly kicked off the Berkshire board. No bad language, no over-the-top expertise type comments, just energy related. So we are in an era where both Berkshire and energy are off-topic for those "seeking alpha" - we are almost all in agreement that Berkshire lacks growth characteristics. That's where we are and it will be interesting to see what happens from here.

5 of us penned "The 12 Ways GE Misleads Investors" in the year 1999. While few were ever willing to read this, no one ever contested the facts of our presentation. Jack Welch in my view is, and likely will always be relative to GE's size in the market at that time, the biggest financial fraud in history. But he was untouchable, and to some degree still is. Life is great if you can stand it.

A few in my family are beginning to feel the gravitational pull in to the SAAS arena. They are especially aware of the family history where a some (not me) made nearly 100 times their money with EMC stock back in the mid 1990's through early 2000. I politely reminded them that these EMC investors had bought the stock at a PE ratio of 18 and watched earnings grow 35-50% annual for 6 years while the PE ratio went to nearly 200. Today you are buying entities in the SAAS world with either little or no earnings and 40-60 price-to-sales. With inevitable compressing valuations laced with super-duper hyper growth the game gets very addicting. Random intermittent outcomes are the most intense suck-in of all.

Given I both despised Jack Welch and have spent years making comedy over GE's financial statements...the shocking truth is that I did this: 03/07/2022 Buy 1000 GEPopup GENERAL ELEC CO NEW @ $87.7007

Been overweighting available allocations to energy since reading much about the sector being smallest ever in market cap three or so years ago. I think an energy super-cycle is underway but not yet recognized by too many.

(Previous board member who took a long break here.) You guys shouldn't forget Michael Murphy, the high tech newsletter guy who had a fabulous run in the late 1990's and early 2000's. This gives his exciting history but is written before his real demise: https://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2000/10/15/289518/index.htm