KJP

No, I sold quite awhile ago. I grew concerned about the long-term viability of the types of ships they build in light of autonomous underwater drones, hypersonic missiles, etc., and have not followed it since.

To this list I would add IES Holdings. There is already a thread on it.

Is that different than the "Following" feed, as opposed to the "For You" feed? I only use the "Following" feed and do not get anything like what other posters have mentioned receiving. I agree, though, that it's difficult to search due to all of the crypto and technical trading spam.

That may make things easier, just like the rework of NAFTA during Trump I. Keep things vague, obtain something, declare victory.

Glacier made a misstep on interest rate risk in its securities book during COVID and is still paying for that. It's also pretty well recognized as a quality bank -- it has traded around 3x TBV for many years. And have returns for shareholders been good? 10-year total return looks to be around 10% annual and 20-year return lower than that, if TIKR isn't leading me astray.

I have not met any of them. Any opinion I had would just be an inference from who hired, trained, and anointed them successors. Cheney is ~67 and I don't think Hodges has turned 60 yet, so current management still has some runway.

Yes, I still own both.

OP Bancorp (OPBK)

Agreed, and it's fine if this is one of a basket.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241101796006/en/Mid-Penn-Bancorp-Inc.-to-Acquire-William-Penn-Bancorporation

Some others not already mentioned: Thomasville Bancshares (THVB) Citizens Bancshares (CZBS) United Bancorporation of Alabama (UBAB)

Clarus (CLAR)

On pipelines, WMB has irreplaceable assets and expansion opportunities so no criticism of it from me, but if someone is interested in big pipeline companies and can deal with a K-1, I would also look at Enterprise Products Partners (EPD) -- shareholder alignment, lower valuation, lower leverage, better debt profile, better tax characteristics, and significant expansion opportunities. Perhaps more controversially, I also think EPD management is more candid than WMB's about the other key variable -- returns on incremental invested capital.

TransAct Technologies (TACT). Unfortunately I think it's a lower quality business than most of the others I mentioned in my prior post, so I don't have a large position in it.

@tnathan It's not clear where you're getting tripped up. I believe these are the steps: 1. The ROIC and growth rates in the chart allow you to create a simple DCF model of cash flow to equity over time. 2. That DCF is assumed to go on in perpetuity. @EBITDAg gave you the formula for calculating the PV of a perpetuity with constant return on reinvestment and constant growth rate. 3. One input into the perpetuity calculation is usually referred to as the "discount rate". It is the "r" in the traditional denominator notation "r - g". This is normally thought of as accounting for the time value of money, risk, etc. But another way to think about the discount rate in this model is the IRR you will receive on the assumed stream of payments if you pay the price calculated by the PV formula once you put in the return. That is why footnote 1 in the paper you linked says "w = required return". In other words, if you assume initial earnings are $1, and given the stream of cash flow produced by the DCF, what price do you need to pay today to earn a 10% return? For the upper left box, that's $9.40, which is equal to 9.4x our assumed $1 in earnings. So, long story short, that chart is telling you the price you need to pay today to earn a 10% IRR on the perpetual stream of payments that would occur given the ROIC and growth assumptions. Which step above is throwing you off?