Of course. All public info.
All depends what it means to you though.
All depends what it means to you though.
ASX good value?
- Thread starter Pom
- Start date
Deltaberry,
I was referring to this post which suggested to me you were talking about a bit more than changes in substantial holdings which is publicly available information....
I was referring to this post which suggested to me you were talking about a bit more than changes in substantial holdings which is publicly available information....
How do you know that? Do you have access to the share registry
I think this person was trying to ask whether I was was misusing information, which of course I wasn't.
Looking at the chart below I can only imagine that behind closed doors at the RBA & Aus Treasury, the view of the worlds future is pretty bleak.
- The ASX200 (^AXJO) started underperforming the S&P500 (^GSPC) beginning Oct 2010
- AUD/USD went above parity in Oct 2010
- The housing market (not shown) peaked at the same time
Traditionally Australia major markets (shares & property) would be bought or sold off at different times, but now they are being sold off together. The inference is that our interest rate policy is the reason. It's not a matter of the direction of rates as such, while Europe has a 1pc policy, the US has a ZIRP, & we cant match that, things are unlikely to change.
Add Swann's budget balance tightening to the equation, & we will be the most financially responsible country in our trading group. Our markets will continue to suffer by comparison to those less responsible, until either we become less responsible or they hit the bottom.
- The ASX200 (^AXJO) started underperforming the S&P500 (^GSPC) beginning Oct 2010
- AUD/USD went above parity in Oct 2010
- The housing market (not shown) peaked at the same time
Traditionally Australia major markets (shares & property) would be bought or sold off at different times, but now they are being sold off together. The inference is that our interest rate policy is the reason. It's not a matter of the direction of rates as such, while Europe has a 1pc policy, the US has a ZIRP, & we cant match that, things are unlikely to change.
Add Swann's budget balance tightening to the equation, & we will be the most financially responsible country in our trading group. Our markets will continue to suffer by comparison to those less responsible, until either we become less responsible or they hit the bottom.
Sunfish said:
I was recently reading this regarding the the Annual Returns By Year - Total and Annualized Returns from 1999 through 2010 for Berkshire
1999 -19.90%
2000 26.60%
2001 6.50%
2002 -3.80%
2003 15.80%
2004 5.90%
2005 -0.70%
2006 23.30%
2007 28.70%
2008 -31.80%
2009 2.70%
2010 21.42%
2011 -4.73%
Total Return since 1/1/1999
62.9%
Average Annual Return
4.0%
Looking at the chart below I can only imagine that behind closed doors at the RBA & Aus Treasury, the view of the worlds future is pretty bleak.
- The ASX200 (^AXJO) started underperforming the S&P500 (^GSPC) beginning Oct 2010
- AUD/USD went above parity in Oct 2010
- The housing market (not shown) peaked at the same time
Traditionally Australia major markets (shares & property) would be bought or sold off at different times, but now they are being sold off together. The inference is that our interest rate policy is the reason. It's not a matter of the direction of rates as such, while Europe has a 1pc policy, the US has a ZIRP, & we cant match that, things are unlikely to change.
Add Swann's budget balance tightening to the equation, & we will be the most financially responsible country in our trading group. Our markets will continue to suffer by comparison to those less responsible, until either we become less responsible or they hit the bottom.
Hey toe and pom!
Of course on the above chart the asx200 is underperforming the US. You need to compare the ASX accumulation index to get a real comparison!!!
With US taxation rules the majority of the larger companies hoard vast amounts of cash in capital and dont pay it out to shareholders, because its more tax effective for shareholders to get CG rather then be paid it in dividends. We are the opposite, our companies dont hoard cash, because as shareholders its more tax effective to use the franking credits and get the dividends. This emphasis on CG means that if your comparing the straight index against index of the various markets overseas against the ASX often times it will look like the ASX is not performing aswell. It's quite crazy when you realise the effect franking credits have not just on a stockmarket, but on an economy the effect is quite significant. (increased distribution of capital)
The accumulation index takes into account total return (div distributions + current market value) so is a much fairer comparison (assuming you compare it with another overseas accumulation index of course.
And what you will also see is "Franking Credits" and the div's play a big part in the buy and sell volumes prior to 2008 and now,because holding companies that have been through a rough time after 2008 and depending on how many years it takes for them to recover is not always a smart strategy..imho..
Average Annual Inflation since 1999 = 3.03%
http://www.rateinflation.com/inflat...-inflation-rate?start-year=1999&end-year=2013
so you'd have made 1% pa.
yay.
No Div's with Berkshire either ?
sorry but all this talk about birkshire, and the justification for investing in the company (ie buying shares), based on the 10 year historical return of the share price is completely IRRELEVANT
People will say yeah see even Birkshire's share price performance was pretty sub-standard, so all this talk of Buffett's 'genesis' is just bullocks.
But you are lookin at the wrong datapoint.
The key to assess Birkshire is to look at the MOVEMENT in its book value. Its up to you to assess what price to pay to purchase that book value.
Book value per share of Birkshire in 1999: $37,987
Book value per share of Birkshire in 2010: $95,453
Simple total return over 11 years: 250%
Source for data:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/255268-berkshire-hathaway-is-undervalued-on-a-price-book-value-basis
Dont know the accuracy of that data, havent bothered to check.
So the underlying company has generated a return of 250% over 11 years. A reasonable return given
(a) Birkshires size (the larger the harder to outperform)
(b) the various secular winds that the US has faced over the last 11 years.
So all one needs to really focus on, is what price to book value would you be prepared to pay for this type of growth.
If the market was overpaying back in 1999, then thats not my problem.
People will say yeah see even Birkshire's share price performance was pretty sub-standard, so all this talk of Buffett's 'genesis' is just bullocks.
But you are lookin at the wrong datapoint.
The key to assess Birkshire is to look at the MOVEMENT in its book value. Its up to you to assess what price to pay to purchase that book value.
Book value per share of Birkshire in 1999: $37,987
Book value per share of Birkshire in 2010: $95,453
Simple total return over 11 years: 250%
Source for data:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/255268-berkshire-hathaway-is-undervalued-on-a-price-book-value-basis
Dont know the accuracy of that data, havent bothered to check.
So the underlying company has generated a return of 250% over 11 years. A reasonable return given
(a) Birkshires size (the larger the harder to outperform)
(b) the various secular winds that the US has faced over the last 11 years.
So all one needs to really focus on, is what price to book value would you be prepared to pay for this type of growth.
If the market was overpaying back in 1999, then thats not my problem.
Hi IV
Welcome back
Buffett is Legend..wait for it..ary, I don't think anyone can doubt that
Class A shares apparently gained 17% in 2012 vs the S&P 500's 13%
These Class A shares currently sit at around $142,964.00
But you are still missing the point redwing. Dont look at share price movement, its only 'use' is as a guide as to whether to sell or buy.
Discussion needs to focus on book value and only then compare it to current market price to ascertain what to do with the underlying stock.
Focus of discusson should be focussed on how that BV will grow in the future. What is the future growth rate? How will size influence the growth rate? Are there any exciting new developments of a fundamental size that will influencethe growth in BV etc etc.
There are only two fundamental equations that will significantly influence the future share price performance of Berkshire:
(a) the current share price relative to current BV
(b) the future growt of that BV
