Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
ppant: I appreciate your perspective but the double digit growth rate in value creation in the last few years does not justify a multiple of 1.2, in my opinion.

You're right about the relatively poor capital allocation in the last few years, but the effect of that have not shown up in the numbers (yet?).

If this growth in value creation has been achieved despite the missteps and despite the relatively hostile environment for value stocks (which Berkshire generally favors), what would the growth rate (and consequently, the likely multiple to book value) be if the missteps are not repeated (perhaps, due to mean reversion) and in a more favorable environment for value stocks?

Thanks for your insights. I'm a fan of your work. :-)
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.