Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 5
In the credit where credit is due department, at an average cost of 140ish, so far, this was a nice piece of capital allocation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
In the credit where credit is due department, at an average cost of 140ish, so far, this was a nice piece of capital allocation.

From April 2011 to March 2013, IBM went from $170 (Buffett's average price) to 213.
I am just carping, but Apple is not IBM. But Apple has its own problems and strengths. Mainly, it's a tech stock with a lot of competition.
They are building their own Netflix or AWS (iCloud) or other services but they are not a service company yet.
Plus they are a $1T company. Munger thought Coke would be $2T at some point, clearly he was completely and utterly wrong. Apple buybacks/dividends can juice Buffett's percentage stake / returns but that also means Apple cannot profitably reinvest that money in growth. So there is a built-in limit on how successful his investment can be.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Re the 2 Trillion KO comment. I remember reading that in Charlies Almanac. Even the "perfect" brand and product can face significant headwinds and changes in consumer behaviour. Look at Kraft Heinz too. Investing is really tough.

---------->Moving more towards BRK and indexing...........
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Or looking at KO in particular and the 25 year chart it makes you realise for buying in valuation really does matter... 2009 / 10 would have been ok in hindsight.
Print the post Back To Top