mhdousa Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Attached. As always, plenty of creative vitriol directed at usual suspects. I'm having trouble dissecting what he is suggesting in this paragraph. Can anyone interpret it for me? Notwithstanding this concern, I believe we are well on the way to my “emerging emerging bubble” described 18 months ago (1Q 2008 Quarterly Letter). I would recommend to institutional investors, including my colleagues, to give emerging equities the benefi t of value doubts when you can. For once in my miserable life, I would like to participate in a bubble if only for a little piece of it instead of getting out two years too soon. Riding a bubble up is a guilty pleasure totally denied to value managers who typically pay a high price to the God of Investment Discipline (Thor?) for being so painfully early. I think the fi rst 15 percentage points over fair value would satisfy me. If I’m right, the fi rst 15% will be a small fraction of the eventual bubble premium. So in a sense, we would be early once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benhacker Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 He is saying that managers should 'relax' their valuation rules on Emerging stocks because he thinks there is a significant probability that the next bubble will be in this asset class. He is arguing that the sector should receive an option premium value in addition to replacement value. Regardless of what you think of him, he is one of the most remarkably consistent and accurate pundits out there... he has saved and made me a fair amount of money over the years which I thank him for. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldye Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 China's middle class (40,000-100,000rmb) is expected to increase 6 fold in the next 15 years gdp of women world wide is going up by 50% in the next 5 at the current rate internet use world wide will be fully saturated in the next 10 years (think cell phones) You don't need to look oversea's for companies that will benefit from huge macro trends I'm gonna go out on a limb and project that women drink 50% more cokes 5 years from now and JnJ sells 50% more lapband surgeries :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 You don't need to look oversea's for companies that will benefit from huge macro trends I'm gonna go out on a limb and project that women drink 50% more cokes 5 years from now and JnJ sells 50% more lapband surgeries Or all those power plants need GE turbines, or those new Chinese jets need GE engines...not to mention reliable P&C insurance, computers, mobile devices... Some things are just easier to import or allow established multinationals to build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhdousa Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 Thanks, Benhacker. So, in trying to take advantage of Grantham's thesis, what do people think are the most attractively-valued "high-quality" companies out there? JNJ seems like one. While it's not the screaming deal that it was in March (obviously), it still is selling at much less of a premium than it usually does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Mhdousa, There was a thread around those lines recently and these are the stocks that I have found to be large, safe and high quality at quite attractive multiples: JNJ, KFT, BRK, GS, POW (Canada), CVX You won't double your money overnight with these, but you will sleep well at night and stuck in a drawer for 5 years, I would hazard to guess that the return should beat the S&P and I would say reach at least 10% a year. Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinod1 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Thanks, Benhacker. So, in trying to take advantage of Grantham's thesis, what do people think are the most attractively-valued "high-quality" companies out there? JNJ seems like one. While it's not the screaming deal that it was in March (obviously), it still is selling at much less of a premium than it usually does. Grantham's implementation of this is GMO Quality Fund, the top holdings (as of 9/30/09) of which must be what he considers the most attractive. Microsoft Corp. 6.6% Johnson & Johnson 6.3% Wal-Mart Stores Inc. 5.6% Oracle Corp. 5.4% Procter & Gamble Co. 5.3% Coca-Cola Co. 5.1% Pfizer Inc. 4.8% Cisco Systems Inc. 4.1% Exxon Mobil Corp. 4.0% Chevron Corp. 3.8% PepsiCo Inc. 3.6% Google Inc. (Cl A) 2.8% QUALCOMM Inc. 2.5% International Business Machines Corp. 2.4% Abbott Laboratories 2.2% Total 64.5% Vinod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now