Saturday, April 29, 2006

Microsoft; MSFT, A Good Investment? April 29, 2006

Microsoft suffered from the biggest single day decline since December 2000 as its share slided more than 11% yesterday. This is equivalent of a loss of $32B in a single day! The hot issue now is whether this company is a buy or not.

Prof. B. Greenwald, from Columbia Business School, has said in his lecture before that big company like Microsoft has hundreds of analysts following it. Therefore, it is crucial to know why you think you are right in comparison to the army of analysts.

Let me do some simple analysis on Microsoft:

Step 1: FCF/EV yield vs. Treasury yield

Enterprise Value (EV) = $232B

Free Cash Flow (FCF) = $14.5B

FCF/EV yield = 6.25%

Treasury yield (30 years) = 5.17%

Microsoft looks like a better deal than treasury yield.

Step 2: Insider holdings

I have mentioned about superior return by investing in founder-CEO companies. Investing in companies that have significant insiders holding is one of the great ways to achieve superior return.

Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates have holdings over 10% of the Microsoft, and they have significant passion for this company. Without doubt, they will work extremely hard to expand Microsoft Empire.

To read my previous comment on insiders holding, please visit:

Step 3: Is Microsoft a Good Company?

Profit Margin (ttm): 31.57%
Operating Margin (ttm): 40.92%

Return on Assets (ttm): 16.09%
Return on Equity (ttm): 28.56%

By looking at these simple indicators, Microsoft is not only a good company, but a superior one.

Step 4: Does Microsoft management shareholders-orientated?

Microsoft has been buying its own shares aggressively; purchasing up to $13.88B, which is more than its income of $13B. On top of that, Microsoft has paid up to $3.44B of dividend. I view this move as a very favorable management of Microsoft. Buying back shares and paying dividend are important steps to enrich shareholders, as long as it doesn’t restrict its financial ability to expand and improve its service.

Step 5: Do you understand its Business?

Almost everyone uses Microsoft products, and it is a simple company to understand. Microsoft Corporation engages in the development, manufacture, license, and support of software products for various computing devices worldwide. As Microsoft is famously known, I’m not going to elaborate further on its business.

Step 6: Does Microsoft have a Moat?

Warren Buffett emphasizes “moat” seriously. He would only invest in companies with “castle-like moat with alligators swimming around it”. At the moment, Microsoft does have significant moat with its dominance in PCs operating systems (over 90% of operating systems use Microsoft products). However, it is hard to tell what will happen in 10 years time. That is why Warren Buffett has not invested in a significant way in Microsoft despite Bill Gates is his good buddy.

Step 7: Does any superinvestor invest in Microsoft?

There are some superinvestors interested in Microsoft, e.g. Charles de Vaulx (2.79% of assets), George Soros (2.52% of assets), Brian Rogers (1.33% of assets) and others. However, I have not found any superinvestors invest in a significant way in Microsoft.

Step 8: What are the potential risks in buying Microsoft?

As I discussed above, I am not sure how will Microsoft’s moat evolves in 10 years time. In this fast changing world, many things could happen, and technology and software may become obsolete really fast. If Microsoft failed to maintain its superior software, its moat will evaporate.

As importantly, size matters in determining superior stock return. Microsoft has one of the largest capitalizations in the world. The bigger the company, the lower the return. However, John Chew, an independent analyst wrote……

“Intel, MSFT, Coke, CISCO are all behmouths--they became huge through their dominance, so their size will limit returns vs. a smaller cap company.

However, what you give up in returns you may pick up in safety through their consistent slower growth IF the management knows they are over capitalized and return cash to shareholders through buybacks and dividends.

MSFT is essentially a utility company--they control 95% of the operating systems market and they earn 100%+ returns on tangible capital, the problem is what do they do with the cash? Let it sit on the balance sheet, deworseify, or give it back to shareholders. If mgt. returns cash to shareholders then buying at a 30% discount to IV with IV growing through 4% to 6% organic growth and 4% to 6% share buybacks or dividend yield is not bad given that it probably will be hard for the market to average much above 6% over the next few years.”


Microsoft is a buy for me at current price of $24.15. I’m going to end my discussion here by quoting Warren Buffett….

“Buy companies with strong histories of profitability and with a dominant business franchise.”

Happy investing,
Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Friday, April 28, 2006

Investment from Difference Perceptive April 28, 2006

When people talk about investment, everyone thinks of shares, bonds, property and etc. However, there is more important investment other than making plenty of money that is HEALTH. There is a Chinese proverb that says to have good health is to have wealth. I couldn’t have agreed more.

I want to talk about cessation of smoking today as a way to be truly rich; HEALTH wise as well as MONEY wise.

If you were a smoker, stopping smoking not only improves your health tremendously, but also make you truly rich too.

Imagine that you smoke on average 10 cigarettes per day, since you were 20 years old until 50 years old. In 30 years time, you would have smoked 109,500 cigarettes! A pack of cigarettes costs about £5. Thus, you would have spent £27,375!

Even if you don’t know how to invest in shares or property, you could easily put the money in bank, i.e. INGDirect, that offers 4.5% interest. If you do just that, the amount of money that you will get when you are 50 years old is a staggering £57,000!

If you know how to invest, and could get return of 10% over 30 years, you would end up with £170,000!!! Could you believe this? Just by giving up smoking, you could potentially gain £170,000.

Not only that, you will gain significant improvement HEALTH wise. Cigarette smoking is widely recognized as the leading preventable cause of illness, disability, and premature death. Today one in five deaths is cigarette-related!

It is now well documented that regular smokers increase their risk of death by

Lung cancer 700%

Cancer of the larynx 500%

Cancer of the mouth 300%

Cancer of the esophagus 400%

Bladder cancer 100%

Cancer of the pancreas 100%

Emphysema 1,300%

Heart disease 100%

I’m going to end here. Hope you take some time to contemplate on this issue seriously. If you were a smoker, please stop smoking. Smoking WILL KILL you and make you POOR.

Happy investing and good health to you!

All the best,
Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Stick with the simple, if scary, solution; April 21, 2006

There’s certainly no dearth of advice on investment. The bestseller lists are full of books on how to be a successful investor “in only 15 minutes a week”, on how to become an “automatic” millionaire, and about how to invest if you’re “young, fabulous and broke”.

The best book on the subject in years is value investor Joel Greenblatt’s The Little Book That Beats the Market, which is still a top seller months after its release. Beyond the credibility that comes from someone whose private investment partnership, Gotham Capital, has produced 40 per cent a year returns over the past 20 years, Greenblatt also brings an elegant and simple writing style to what can be a complicated subject.

He outlines a “magic formula”, based on how he himself invests, that anyone can use. The formula has only two inputs, a company’s earnings yield and its return on capital. The rationale is straightforward: buy shares in good businesses, measured by returns on capital, only when they’re available at bargain prices, defined as a high earnings yield.

The magic formula looks for companies that have the best combination of earnings yield and return on capital, with each input weighed equally. An outstanding company with an expensive stock ranked, say, first for return on capital but 1,999th on earnings yield, would have the same combined ranking of 2,000 as a low return on capital company with inexpensively priced shares, ranking 1,999th in return on capital but first on earnings yield.

Using this approach to create a regularly updated portfolio of about 30 stocks with the highest combined rankings, Greenblatt tested his formula between 1988 and 2004. The results were remarkable: with only one down year, the magic portfolio would have returned 30.8 per cent a year, against a 12.4 per cent annual return for the S&P 500.

Rather than using the latest 12 months’ earnings to calculate earnings yield and return on capital, Greenblatt and his analysts try to improve on the rote application of this formula by using earnings estimates in a “normal” year, one in which nothing unusual is happening within the company, its industry or the overall economy.

Greenblatt has created a free website for screening stocks based on his approach (www.magicformulainvesting. com). In a recent screen I carried out there of the top 100 magic formula companies with market capitalisations above $2bn, the top 10 companies ranked by market cap were Exxon Mobil [XOM], Microsoft [MSFT], Pfizer [PFE], Johnson & Johnson [JNJ], IBM [IBM], Intel [INTC], ConocoPhillips [COP], Dell [DELL], 3M [MMM] and Motorola [MOT]. Now that’s an impressive group of companies!

I own one of them (Microsoft) in my portfolio. Given how sceptical I am about the tech sector, owning this is a real leap for me but this is a fantastic business and the stock is attractively priced. Microsoft has a dominant franchise, some of the most jaw-dropping economic characteristics ever achieved, capable, honest, shareholder-friendly management and, unlike most technology companies, reasonably predictable future prospects.

I am optimistic about Microsoft’s future prospects for a number of reasons. Most important, the company will be releasing in the next year significant upgrades of its two cash cows, Windows and Office. Historically, these events have been big and highly profitable events for Microsoft, and there is no reason to believe otherwise this time.

Yes, Microsoft’s days of ultra-high growth are over, inevitable for a company with $40bn in annual revenues. But it is highly likely the company will grow substantially faster than the S&P 500 for many years to come and that its fabulous economic characteristics will remain largely intact.

At a recent price around $27, Microsoft, after adjusting for the company’s cash hoard, is trading at under 17 times earnings estimates for this calendar year.

I don’t claim this is screaming cheap but it is close to the lowest p/e multiple the stock has ever traded at and is, I believe, a very attractive price for a company of its quality and bright future.
You might wonder if Greenblatt is concerned that popularising his strategy will mean it will stop working. “Traditional value investing strategies have worked for years and years and everyone’s known about them,” he says. “They continue to work because it is hard for people to do, for two main reasons. First, the companies that show up on the screens can be scary and not doing so well, so people find them difficult to buy. Second, there can be one-, two- or three-year periods when a strategy such as this doesn’t work. Most people aren’t capable of sticking it out through that.”

Whitney Tilson is a money manager who co-edits Value Investor Insight and co-founded the Value Investing Congress.

This article is from:

While Whitney Tilson owns Microsoft, we owned Intel. :)

All the best,

Dah Hui Lau (David)

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Some Great Quotes; April 26, 2006

"Each man is the architect of his own destiny." (Claudius Caecus)

"He did it with all his heart, and prospered." (II Chronicles 31:21)

All the best,
Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Bill Miller: Where to Invest Now and the 5 Year Psychological Cycle April 26, 2006

Where should we invest now, we should invest where the returns have lagged in the past 5 years, according to Bill Miller. He wrote: The US equity market has lagged those of the rest of the world by a wide margin for several years, and within our market the mega cap S&P names have lagged the small and mid caps, which are in the 7th year of relative outperformance, quite long in the tooth by historic standards. Part of the reason for the relative lack of interest in US stocks has been the relentless rise in short rates. Our central bank has been noticeably more hawkish than the rest of world, and money has flowed to where money was the easiest, outside the US. As we end our tightening cycle, and others remain engaged in theirs, our market should become relatively more attractive.

In a world where global liquidity may be diminishing, relatively illiquid assets are likely to begin to lose their allure. Liquidity will become more valuable. I think the most liquid market in the world, the US market, will become more attractive, and within that market, money will flow to the largest, most liquid names, which also happen to be the cheapest part of our market

The excitement and enthusiasm surrounding commodities, and the belief that they will continue to rise, is not surprising. People want to buy today what they should have bought 5 or 6 years ago; call it the 5 year psychological cycle.

Today people want commodities, emerging market, non US assets, and small and midcap stocks. Those were all cheap 5 years ago and had you bought them then you would be sitting on enormous gains. But 5 or 6 years ago, everyone wanted tech and internet and telecom stocks, and venture capital and US mega caps. The time to buy them was in 1994 or 1995, when they were cheap. But in 1994 or 1995, people wanted banks and small and mid caps, which should have been bought in 1990, and well, you get the picture.

In general, you can get a good sense of what to buy now by looking to see what the worst performing assets or groups were over the past five or six years. That is long term for most people, and long enough to convince them that the malaise is permanent and to have migrated their money elsewhere, such as to whatever has done best in the past 5 or 6 years.

Given the choice of buying Commodities with a capital C, or buying capital C-Citigroup at current prices, I’ll take the latter. Check back in 5 years.

To read the complete letter

Thank you GuruFocus for the link.

All the best,
Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Friday, April 21, 2006

Wallace Weitz; Be prepared April 21, 2006

Wally Weitz wrote in his shareholder letter: "We continue to believe that excessive credit creation and speculation in both real estate and securities markets will cause some anxious moments, at best, and possibly some serious financial distress for the stock market over the next few years. We are not cheering for trouble, but we think it is important to be prepared, just in case. So, we have continued to focus our portfolios on companies with strong balance sheets and managements that are flexible enough to deal with both favorable and hostile business environments. We offer no predictions about the next few quarters, but we feel very optimistic about the long-term prospects for the companies in our portfolios."

To read the complete letter

Thank you GuruFocus for this link.

All the best,
Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Some great quotes April 21, 2006

I like to share with you some great quotes that I come across....

"Quantum physics tells us that things do not change slowly over time – they make quantum leaps."

"There are no shortcuts to any place worth going." (Beverley Sills)

"Storms make oaks take deeper root." (George Herbert 1593-1633)

Hope you enjoy these quotes as much as I do.

Do share your previous quotes if you have any.

Happy learning,

Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Superior Stock Return by having "Founders Keepers" April 20, 2006

I have recently read a great article from Fortune Magazine called Founders Keepers.

Let me quote this interesting sentences from the article...

"The stocks of these 26 companies (plus Liberty Media, whose founder John C. Malone stepped down as CEO March 1, but remains chairman) returned an average of 18.5 percent annually from year-end 1995 through 2005, which is seven percentage points better than the FORTUNE 500's average return over the same period. Their profit growth has been superior, too, increasing at an average rate of 19.6 percent a year from 1995 to 2005, vs. 11.7 percent for the FORTUNE 500."

"Of course, 27 companies is a small sample, and we might have written this off as a statistical fluke had we not come across the research of an Ohio State University finance professor named Rudiger Fahlenbrach. Fahlenbrach analyzed the performance of the 2,300 largest U.S. companies from 1993 through 2002, and he discovered that those run by founder-CEOs (11 percent of the total sample) outperformed the broader stock market by eight percentage points a year."

I am very impressed by this significant findings of Rudiger Fahlenbrach.

"Fahlenbrach has a few theories on why founder-CEOs seem to be better corporate stewards. One is that they simply care more. Their companies are their life's work, so they're more likely to embrace long-term strategies. "

I totally agree with Fahlenbrach theory why founder-CEO companies perform better over long period of time.

This article also reminds me of Jim Chuong, the emerging great value investor with superconcentrated portfolio. Jim Chuong, in his partnership letters, also emphasized that he only invests in companies with significant insider holdings. Just look at his superior return, and you will agree that investing in companies with significant insiders' holdings could deliver wonderful returns.

Hope you will pay more attention to companies with founder-CEOs.

Happy investing,
Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Russell Corporation; RML April 20, 2006

Berkshire Hathaway has recently announced that it is purchasing Russell Corporation for $600M. I believe that by learning why Warren Buffett is buying into this company, we could learn about art of investing from the master investor.

Russell Corporation, an athletic and sporting goods company, engages in the manufacture and marketing of athletic uniforms, apparel, athletic footwear, sporting goods, athletic equipment, and accessories for a various sports, outdoor, and fitness activities in North America and internationally. It operates through two segments, Sporting Goods and Activewear. The Sporting Goods segment provides sports apparel, sports equipment, and athletic footwear under the names of Russell Athletic, Spalding, Brooks, American Athletic, Huffy Sports, Mossy Oak, Moving Comfort, Bike, Dudley, and Sherrin. It markets and distributes its products primarily through sporting goods dealers, specialty running stores, department and sports specialty stores, and college stores. The Activewear segment offers basic, performance, and careerwear apparel products, such as t-shirts, sweatshirts and sweatpants, knit shirts, socks, and career wear under the JERZEES and Cross Creek brands through mass merchandisers, distributors, screen printers, and embroiderers. Russell Corporation was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

Date: April 19, 2006
Price per share: $18.32
Market Cap (intraday): 607.93M
Trailing P/E (ttm, intraday): 17.72
Forward P/E (fye 31-Dec-07) 1: 13.47
PEG Ratio (5 yr expected): 0.97
Price/Sales (ttm): 0.42
Price/Book (mrq): 1.03
Enterprise Value/Revenue (ttm)3: 0.56
Enterprise Value/EBITDA (ttm)3: 5.505

Return on Assets (ttm): 4.55%
Return on Equity (ttm): 5.98%

Profit Margin (ttm): 2.40%
Operating Margin (ttm): 6.51%


My calculations:

Enterprise Value (EV) = $1067M

Free Cash Flow
= $4.53M (2005)
= $45.8M (2004)
= $19.3M (2003)

“Normalised” Free Cash Flow
= $23.2M

Therefore, EV/“Normalised” Free Cash Flow = 46

I like to use EV/Free Cash Flow ratio. However, based on this metric, it seems like Warren Buffett is paying a very high price for this company.

Joel Greenblatt, on the other hand, likes to use EV/EBIT.

EBIT = $84.37M
EV/EBIT = 12.6

By using EV/EBIT, we are getting a decent valuation.

However, there are a few things that I worry about.

Things that I worry about this company:

1. Poor ROE and ROA

2. Poor Profit margin

3. EV/“Normalised” Free Cash Flow

I would be gratefully if fellow readers could give me some comments and reasons why Warren Buffett might be interested in this company, which I may have overlooked. Do send me an email:

All the best,
Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Gannett Co; GCI April 19, 2006

Since my last post on Gannett on 18 days ago, Gannett's share has slided to $56.00, which is 8.6% below my recommended buying price of $61.26. I believe that this is even better opportunity to start accumulating shares in this wonderful company.

John W. Rogers Jr. who is the chairman and CEO of Chicago-based Ariel Capital Management, has written in Forbes Magazine for April 24, 2006 edition regarding his thoughts on "Premature Burial" of newspapers companies.

I like a couple of good points that he made.

Among his comments are......

"39 percent of young adults still read a daily paper."

"Despite the Internet's ubiquity, I doubt digital giants like Google and Yahoo can ever replicate the depth of local coverage or level of trust found in a hometown paper. As long as print media control local content, they will distribute it. And don't forget that papers have started Web sites of their own. If an electronic ad is the best way to sell a used Taurus or recruit a sales clerk, then a newspaper company can deliver it to you."

To read John W. Rogers Jr's article, please visit:

To read my analysis on Gannett Co., please visit:

  1. Gannett Corp Undervalued at $61.26 March 14, 2006
  2. Gannett Corp; GCI April 2, 2006
  3. Lau Model Portfolio

Let me end my post with some wisdom from Warren Buffett...

“Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy only when others are fearful.”

"The most common cause of low prices is pessimism -- some times pervasive, some times specific to a company or industry. We want to do business in such an environment, not because we like pessimism but because we like the prices it produces. It's optimism that is the enemy of the rational buyer.”

All the best,

Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Most Important Choice by John Maxwell

I would like to share with you one of the greatest wisdom of John Maxwell, which I think everyone should apply to his or her life.

John Maxwell said "The only true freedom each of us has in life is the freedom to choose." And, "The most important choice is who we will become."

I have been reflecting hard on these statements..... and I hope fellow readers will do too.

All the best,
Dah Hui Lau (David)

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Berkshire Hathaway; BRK.A Reasons I love Berkshire April 2006

Well, as you know, Berkshire is a huge, huge business, with many subsidaries and holdings. It is so, so great that I couldn't possibly list out all the reasons why I love Berkshire. It takes me years to learn about Berkshire, and so I will list out reasons why I love Berkshire slowly over many days or weeks.

Reason 1:
Significant holding in Coca Cola. 8.4% of total outstanding shares of Coca Cola, which is worth about $8B.

These are what Warren Buffett said about Coca-Cola company over the years........

  • “Yes, competition there was in 1938 and in 1993 as well. But it's worth noting that in 1938 The Coca-Cola Co. sold 207 million cases of soft drinks (if its gallonage then is converted into the 192-ounce cases used for measurement today) and in 1993 it sold about 10.7 billion cases, a 50-fold increase in physical volume from a company that in 1938 was already dominant in its very major industry. Nor was the party over in 1938 for an investor: Though the $40 invested in 1919 in one share had (with dividends reinvested) turned into $3,277 by the end of 1938, a fresh $40 then invested in Coca-Cola stock would have grown to $25,000 by yearend 1993.” (1993)

  • “I can't resist one more quote from that 1938 Fortune story: "It would be hard to name any company comparable in size to Coca-Cola and selling, as Coca-Cola does, an unchanged product that can point to a ten-year record anything like Coca-Cola's." In the 55 years that have since passed, Coke's product line has broadened somewhat, but it's remarkable how well that description still fits.” (1993)

  • “The businesses in which we have partial interests are equally important to Berkshire's success. A few statistics will illustrate their significance: In 1994, Coca-Cola sold about 280 billion 8-ounce servings and earned a little less than a penny on each. But pennies add up. Through Berkshire's 7.8% ownership of Coke, we have an economic interest in 21 billion of its servings, which produce "soft-drink earnings" for us of nearly $200 million. Similarly, by way of its Gillette stock, Berkshire has a 7% share of the world's razor and blade market (measured by revenues, not by units), a proportion according us about $250 million of sales in 1994. And, at Wells Fargo, a $53 billion bank, our 13% ownership translates into a $7 billion "Berkshire Bank" that earned about $100 million during 1994.”

  • “It's far better to own a significant portion of the Hope diamond than 100% of a rhinestone, and the companies just mentioned easily qualify as rare gems. Best of all, we aren't limited to simply a few of this breed, but instead possess a growing collection.”

  • “Companies such as Coca-Cola and Gillette might well be labeled "The Inevitables." Forecasters may differ a bit in their predictions of exactly how much soft drink or shaving-equipment business these companies will be doing in ten or twenty years. Nor is our talk of inevitability meant to play down the vital work that these companies must continue to carry out, in such areas as manufacturing, distribution, packaging and product innovation. In the end, however, no sensible observer - not even these companies' most vigorous competitors, assuming they are assessing the matter honestly - questions that Coke and Gillette will dominate their fields worldwide for an investment lifetime. Indeed, their dominance will probably strengthen. Both companies have significantly expanded their already huge shares of market during the past ten years, and all signs point to their repeating that performance in the next decade.”

  • “Obviously many companies in high-tech businesses or embryonic industries will grow much faster in percentage terms than will The Inevitables. But I would rather be certain of a good result than hopeful of a great one.”

  • “Of course, Charlie and I can identify only a few Inevitables, even after a lifetime of looking for them. Leadership alone provides no certainties: Witness the shocks some years back at General Motors, IBM and Sears, all of which had enjoyed long periods of seeming invincibility. Though some industries or lines of business exhibit characteristics that endow leaders with virtually insurmountable advantages, and that tend to establish Survival of the Fattest as almost a natural law, most do not. Thus, for every Inevitable, there are dozens of Impostors, companies now riding high but vulnerable to competitive attacks. Considering what it takes to be an Inevitable, Charlie and I recognize that we will never be able to come up with a Nifty Fifty or even a Twinkling Twenty. To the Inevitables in our portfolio, therefore, we add a few "Highly Probables."

  • "With soft drinks, there has been no decrease in demand for decades. 30% of liquid consumption of Americans is soda and 40% of that is Coke products, so 1/8th of U.S. liquid consumption is Coke products." (2001 Annual Meeting)

  • "Coffee and milk consumption has been declining every year -- it's clear where preferences go once people start drinking soda." (2001 Annual Meeting)

  • "These trends are almost impossible not to happen in developing countries, where the consumption of Coke products is 1/50th what it is in the U.S. -- though Coke could screw it up by pricing too high." (2001 Annual Meeting)

  • "Coke has also benefited from its relative price. Since 1930, its cost per ounce has only doubled. This very low price inflation has contributed to the increase in per capita consumption." (2001 Annual Meeting)

  • "Coke's market share is about 50% of the worldwide soft drink business, and Gillette has about 71% by revenues of the worldwide razor blade business -- both are higher than they were when I called their businesses 'inevitables' five years ago." (2002 Annual Meeting)
    "With the world's population growing 2% annually, it is crazy to think they can grow profits at 15-18% per year, or even 10%, when unit grow is sure to be slower. But people got carried away, due to Wall Street and to some extent, company pronouncements." (2002 Annual Meeting)

Reason 2:

Ownership of Larson-Juhl.

These are what Warren Buffett has said about Larson-Juhl.......

  • “On December 17, 2001, Berkshire Hathaway announced that it was acquiring Albecca (known as Larson-Juhl), the nation's leading provider of custom picture frames. Buffett was asked to talk about this business (these comments are from the annual meeting, plus those made at another presentation)”: (2002 Annual Meeting)

  • "Craig Ponzio, the owner of Larson-Juhl called me, told me about his business, its sustainable competitive advantages, its financial characteristics, and the price he wanted. Shortly thereafter, he came to visit me at 9am and by 10:30 we had a deal. I haven't seen him since." (2002 Annual Meeting)

  • "The company has $300 million in revenues, earns $50 million in pre-tax profits, ties up no capital, is growing slowly, and distributes every dime of profit." (2002 Annual Meeting)
    "There are about 18,000 picture framing shops in the United States, mostly very small businesses with a few hundred thousand dollars per year in sales. They can't afford to have much inventory, so they show a catalogue to a customer who chooses the frame. Then, if they call Larson-Juhl before 3pm, 85% of the time the frame will be there the next day. Larson-Juhl and its customers are focused on service, not price." (2002 Annual Meeting)

  • "Larson-Juhl calls on its 18,000 customers an average of five times/year. It has an incredible distribution system. Tell me how you'd attack that business? You wouldn't want to anyway, as the market's not big enough. Larson-Juhl has a HUGE moat. I always ask myself how much it would cost to compete effectively with a business. With businesses like these, nothing's going to go wrong. If you bought 20 of them, 19 of them would work out well." (2002 Annual Meeting)

  • "Craig wanted to sell to me because he didn't want to waste a year doing a deal that might fall through at the end. With us, it's 100% certain that the deal gets done, and he can enjoy life." (2002 Annual Meeting)

  • "The only thing that's unfortunate is that it's a small business." (2002 Annual Meeting)

Reason 3:

Ownership of Nebraska Furniture Mart.

These are what Warren Buffett has said about Nebraska Furniture Mart.........

  • “We now move on to the high point of 1983 - the acquisition of a majority interest in Nebraska Furniture Mart and our association with Rose Blumkin and her family. Last year, (1982), in discussing how managers with bright, but adrenalin-soaked minds scramble after foolish acquisitions, I quoted Pascal: “It has struck me that all the misfortunes of men spring from the single cause that they are unable to stay quietly in one room.””

  • “Even Pascal would have left the room for Mrs. Blumkin. About 67 years ago, Mrs. Blumkin, then 23, talked her way past a border guard to leave Russia for America. She had no formal education, not even at the grammar school level, and knew no English. After some years in this country, she learned the language when her older daughter taught her, every evening, the words she had learned in school during the day. In 1937, after many years of selling used clothing, Mrs. Blumkin had saved $500 with which to realize her dream of opening a furniture store. Upon seeing the American Furniture Mart in Chicago - then the center of the nation’s wholesale furniture activity - she decided to christen her dream Nebraska Furniture Mart.”

  • “She met every obstacle you would expect (and a few you wouldn’t) when a business endowed with only $500 and no locational or product advantage goes up against rich, long-entrenched competition. At one early point, when her tiny resources ran out, “Mrs. B” coped in a way not taught at business schools: she simply sold the furniture and appliances from her home in order to pay creditors precisely as promised.”

  • “Omaha retailers began to recognize that Mrs. B would offer customers far better deals than they had been giving, and they pressured furniture and carpet manufacturers not to sell to her. By various strategies she obtained merchandise and cut prices sharply. Mrs. B was then hauled into court for violation of Fair Trade laws. She not only won all the cases, but received invaluable publicity. At the end of one case, after demonstrating to the court that she could profitably sell carpet at a huge discount from the prevailing price, she sold the judge $1400 worth of carpet.

  • Today Nebraska Furniture Mart generates over $100 million of sales annually out of one 200,000 square-foot store. No other home furnishings store in the country comes close to that volume. That single store also sells more furniture, carpets, and appliances than do all Omaha competitors combined.”

  • “One question I always ask myself in appraising a business is how I would like, assuming I had ample capital and skilled personnel, to compete with it. I’d rather wrestle grizzlies than compete with Mrs. B and her progeny. They buy brilliantly, they operate at expense ratios competitors don’t even dream about, and they then pass on to their customers much of the savings. It’s the ideal business - one built upon exceptional value to the customer that in turn translates into exceptional economics for its owners.”

  • “Mrs. B was wise as well as smart and, for far-sighted family reasons, was willing to sell the business. I had admired both the family and the business for decades, and a deal was quickly made. We purchased 90% of the business - leaving 10% with members of the family who are involved in management - and have optioned 10% to certain key young family managers.”

  • “And what managers they are. Geneticists should do handsprings over the Blumkin family. Louie Blumkin, Mrs. B’s son, has been President of Nebraska Furniture Mart for many years and is widely regarded as the shrewdest buyer of furniture and appliances in the country. Louie says he had the best teacher, and Mrs. B said she had the best student. They’re both right. Louie and his three sons all have the Blumkin business ability, work ethic, and, most important, character. On top of that, they are really nice people. We are delighted to be in partnership with them.”

Reason 4:

Ownership of McLane.

These are what Warren Buffett has said about McLane......

  • “Yesterday we announced a deal to buy McLane from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart announced that the price for the two deals it did -- one was a small trucking company -- was $1.5 billion. [It's been reported that the purchase price McLane was $1.45 billion.] McLane is a wholesaler to convenience stores, quick-serve restaurants, Wal-Mart, movie theaters and so forth. It will have about $22 billion in revenues this year. Wal-Mart had owned it since 1990 and it grew substantially while they owned it. It is run by a terrific manager, Grady Rosier, and under his leadership, it grew from $3 billion to $22 billion.” (2003 Annual Meeting)

  • “Wal-Mart, for very good reasons, wants to specialize on what they do extremely well. We were approached by Goldman Sachs to buy the business a week ago. It makes sense for both sides. It was a sideline business for Wal-Mart. Their ownership of McLane resulted in certain people who would be logical customers not to do business with McLane because they didn't want to do business with a competitor. We'll be seeing them soon to explain that they can sleep well at night buying from us.” (2003 Annual Meeting)

  • “It serves presently 36,000 of the 125,000 convenience stores in the United States, and has 58% share among the largest chains. To each store, it sells about $300,000 of products/year. McLane also serves 18,000 quick-serve restaurants, mainly those operated by YUM Brands (Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC).” (2003 Annual Meeting)

  • “It's a tough business. You have Hershey and Mars on one side and 7-11 Eleven on the other side, so you have to work hard to earn 1% pretax. [If McLane earns 1% pre-tax on $22 billion in sales, that's $220 million, so Buffett may have bought this business for 6.6x pre-tax earnings. I think this is a good price, especially if the business can grow substantially under Berkshire, but not a steal -- the guys at Wal-Mart aren't fools. But I think they let it go for a below-market price to Buffett because their biggest concern is that the business continue to be a reliable supplier to their stores. Such a low-margin business has little room for error, and it could get into trouble (as other similar companies have) under the ownership of a financial buyer that used too much leverage or tried to tinker with its operations.]” (2003 Annual Meeting)

Reason 5:

Ownership of Clayton Homes.

These are what Warren Buffett has said about Clayton Homes......

  • “Clayton Homes is the class of the manufactured home industry. The deal came about in an unusual way. Every year, a class (about 40 students) from the University of Tennessee comes to Omaha. They visit some sights and then we a have classroom session for a couple of hours. Afterward, they typically give me a football or basketball. Last year, Bill Gates happened to be in town. This year, we had a good session and when they got through, they gave me a book, the autobiography of Jim Clayton, the founder of Clayton Homes. He'd written a nice inscription. I said to the students that I was an admirer of Jim's. I read the book and called Kevin Clayton, Jim's son, and said how much I'd enjoyed his dad's book. I said if they ever decided to do anything [regarding selling the company], we'd be interested and I told him what price I'd be willing to pay. A few phone calls later, we had a deal. That's the way things tend to happen at Berkshire.” (2003 Annual Meeting)

  • “The manufactured home industry got in a lot of trouble. They'd gone crazy with credit and when you go crazy with credit, you get into a lot of trouble. Look at Conseco and Oakwood (we owned Oakwood's junk bonds), which went into bankruptcy. The industry lost the ability to securitize receivables and was in the tank. There were 160,000 new manufactured homes this year, but there were 90,000 repossessions, so this hurts demand. For the strong, like Clayton, especially with a backer like Berkshire, it should be a good time in the industry. And it's a big industry -- about 20% of new homes are manufactured. We can put you in one for $30/square foot. Compare the prices -- that's a deal.” (2003 Annual Meeting)

  • “Competitors admit that Clayton is the class of the field, but even for Clayton, financing was hard. The lenders had gotten burned. Clayton did a securitization earlier this year, but [to get the deal done, they] had to keep more of the risk on their books.” (2003 Annual Meeting)

  • “[Later in the meeting, in response to a question, Buffett commented further on Clayton Homes:] In the manufactured housing industry, everyone is losing money, but Clayton is making money. Most of Clayton's houses are sold through 297 outlets that they own. Managers are in a 50/50 profit split with Clayton. This is unlike what was going on in the industry a few years ago, whereby dealers would have a floor plan and the [manufactured housing] company would finance 130% of the purchase price, so the dealer would bring in any warm body. The system was designed for disaster. At Clayton, if a dealer takes in an inadequate down payments, it's his problem and he has to take care of repossessing it. This creates the right incentives.” (2003 Annual Meeting)

  • “If you read Jim Clayton's book [First A Dream], he tells about the first home he sold [when working for someone else] and all of the funny business and gaming of the financing. These activities are coming home to roost in a huge way among the manufacturers and those who financed them. There's such a stain that Clayton is only one that can securitize, and without us, not to the extent they wanted. They are a class player and have the right systems in place with the right incentives. We will not securitize -- we will keep it for the portfolio.” (2003 Annual Meeting)

  • “You're right [he was speaking to the questioner] that if you see companies with lots of gains on sales, be suspicious.” (2003 Annual Meeting)

Reason 6:

Ownership of NetJets.

These are what Warren Buffett has said about NetJets.....

  • "We have 265 planes and can be at any one of 5,500 airports with four hours notice." (2001 Annual Meeting)

  • “We took a loss in the first quarter and will have a loss for the year. It's our only business that's losing money.” (2003 Annual Meeting)

  • “The used aircraft market has excess capacity, which is pushing down prices. We bought back some planes from our owners, which we've always done and will continue to do. [Because NetJets owns both new and used aircraft -- before selling them to fractional owners -- I believe it had to take a non-cash charge in Q1 for the decline in this asset's value.]” (2003 Annual Meeting)

  • “We're slightly profitable in the US and losing money in Europe. 1/2 of all [business jet] miles flown in Europe are by Americans, and this will rise. We've made a huge investment Europe and there will be no competitors behind us.” (2003 Annual Meeting)

  • “There are three major competitors. We have always been the biggest and our market share is rising. At 75% recently. I believe all of our competitors are losing money on an operating basis -- not even including asset write-downs. I think some of them will exit the industry -- look at Raytheon's recent prospectus. There will be a shake out, and we will not be one of the ones shook. (2003 Annual Meeting)

  • This will eventually be a huge business for us -- 10 times what it is currently.” (2003 Annual Meeting)

To be continue......

All the best,

Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Inside the strategy of Soros and Buffett; April 8, 2006

Buffett, born in 1930, started managing funds in 1956 and has produced an annual compound rate of return of 24.7 per cent. The American has had just one "losing" year - 2001 - compared with 13 years of negative returns for the Standard & Poor's 500 index in the period. Soros was born the same year as Buffett, in Budapest, Hungary, and began the Quantum Fund in 1969. Since then, he has enjoyed an average annual rate of return of 28.6 per cent and has had just four losing years against nine for the S&P 500.

While they have both delivered stellar performances, their strategies seem to be polar opposites: Buffett buys bargain-priced stocks and business for cash - and likes to own them "forever"; Soros is renowned for his highly levelled, quick-footed bets in the currency markets.

A master investor:

1 Believes the first priority is preservation of capital.

2 As a result, is risk-averse.

3 Has developed his own investment philosophy, which is an expression of his personality. As a result, no two highly successful investors have the same approach.

4 Has developed his own personal system for selecting, buying and selling investments.

5 Believes diversification is for the birds.

6 Hates to pay taxes, and arranges his affairs to legally minimise his tax bill.

7 Only invests in what he understands.

8 Refuses to make investments that do not meet his criteria. Can effortlessly say 'no'.

9 Is continually searching for new investment opportunities that meet his criteria and actively engages in his own research.

10 Has the patience to wait until he finds the right investment.

11 Acts instantly when he has made a decision.

12 Holds a winning investment until a pre-determined reason to exit arrives.

13 Follows his own system religiously.

14 Is aware of his own fallibility. Corrects mistakes the moment they arise.

15 Always treats mistakes as learning experiences.

16 As his experience increases, so do his returns.

17 Almost never talks to anyone about what he's doing. Not interested in what others think of his investment decisions.

18 Has successfully delegated most, if not all, of his responsibilities to others.

19 Lives far below his means.

20 Does what he does for stimulation and self-fulfilment - not for money.

21 Is emotionally involved with the process of investing; but can walk away from any individual investment.

22 Lives and breathes investing, 24 hours a day.

23 Puts his money where his mouth is. For example, Warren Buffet has 99 per cent of his net worth in shares of Berkshire Hathaway; George Soros, similarly, keeps most of his money in his Quantum Fund. For both, the destiny of their personal wealth is identical to that of the people who have entrusted money to their management.

Thank you GuruFocus for the above article.


All the best,

Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Bruce Berkowitz Interview; March 31, 2006

Consuelo Mack WealthTrack - Original Air Date: March 31, 2006


Here are some statements made by Bruce Berkowitz:

BRUCE BERKOWITZ: The investment field is a mine field, and the non-professional person, the person who is not 100% involved investing has some very serious issues. I believe it is very important who they pick and how they find a financial advisor or fund which is going to make all of the difference in the world. That's why when people ask me what they should do with their money, I talk about funds. Our strategy has been to really become a silent partner with who we consider to be the great business people in the United States. People that have tremendous paper trails, over long periods of time. Very successful, especially during adverse periods. People that eat their own cooking. They take their family net worth and put it into the same ideas they're recommending their clients to do. Situations where companies have a level playing field, where if you do well, the manager does very well, and if you don't do well, they get hurt.

And of course, you want to find someone with a level of honest and integrity and with a philosophy and strategy you can understand. Because during the most difficult periods, that's the time you may get shaken, and that's the time when you have to stay with these people.

BRUCE BERKOWITZ: As I was saying before, it feels good to have cash. The older I get, the more I want it. I can't predict the future. I can only react to what happens. And you need the cash to take advantage of the opportunities. And the same way we look for solid balance sheets with companies, I take a lack at our fund and I want to fund a company to have a solid balance sheet, and that liquidity is very important.

All the best,

Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Berkshire Hathaway Inc; BRK.A April 6, 2006

Price per share: $90,000
Market Cap (intraday): 138.60B
Trailing P/E (ttm, intraday): 16.25
Forward P/E (fye 31-Dec-07) 1: 18.70
PEG Ratio (5 yr expected): N/A
Price/Sales (ttm): 1.70
Price/Book (mrq): 1.52
Enterprise Value/Revenue (ttm)3: 1.34
Enterprise Value/EBITDA (ttm)3: 7.877

Profit Margin (ttm): 10.44%
Operating Margin (ttm): 15.20%

Return on Assets (ttm): 4.18%
Return on Equity (ttm): 9.62%


Today is an important day for me. It’s my Birthday. I’m 26 years old today. Therefore, I’m going to share something special with all investors.

I am going to discuss one of my top holdings, which I truly believe is undervalued and will provide good returns over the long-term.

I am sure you have read a lot about Berkshire Hathaway and its legendary CEO, Warren Buffett. There are so many great things to talk about this company, and its subsidiaries, as well as its CEO and Vice Chairman.

Whitney Tilson, a hedge fund manager, has discussed in great details why Berkshire is undervalued. Mohnish Pabrai has done a good article on ValueInvestor Club about Berkshire too. I personally couldn’t do much better analysis than that anymore.

Please read: My favourite Stock Idea: Berkshire Hathaway

Please read: Berkshire:Your Biggest Holding? March 6, 2006

Please read: Shareholders’ Letter

I will discuss in my next posting what I like about Berkshire.

At current price of $90,000 per share, a lot of superinvestors believe that Berkshire is worth at least $120,000 per share, which means there is a 33% upside to it before considering growth. Happy investing.

All the best,
Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Fighting an investing slump; April 2, 2006

Robert Olstein compares his job of picking stocks to a slugger stepping up to the plate in Major League Baseball. In both jobs, you have to be tough enough to take the strikeouts along with the home runs. You may even hear jeers from the crowd if you are in a slump.

"A great hitter in baseball has a .333 average," Olstein said in a recent interview. "On the other hand, a great hitter on Wall Street is probably at .700. So the fact is that when you go through your .300 period and underperform as a fund manager, you have to hang in there.

"Right now, we find ourselves in the very same boat as a number of respected value managers," Rogers said in a recent letter to his investors.

"Hopefully until I am 100," he said. "I have fun doing this. I take annual reports on my vacation. I love tennis and golf and fishing. I am a big outdoorsman. But there is only so much time that you can spend outdoors."

To read the complete article: Fighting an investing slump

All the best,
Dah Hui Lau (David)

Please visit: Olstein Financial Alert Fund Decade E-Book
Please visit: The Price of Victory; Feb 22, 2006

WPS Resources Corp; WPS April 5, 2006

Price per share: $51.00
Market Cap (intraday): 2.05B
Trailing P/E (ttm, intraday): 12.55
Forward P/E (fye 31-Dec-07) 1: 12.06
PEG Ratio (5 yr expected): 2.68
Price/Sales (ttm): 0.29
Price/Book (mrq): 1.56
Enterprise Value/Revenue (ttm)3: 0.45
Enterprise Value/EBITDA (ttm)3: 7.629

Profit Margin (ttm): 2.26%
Operating Margin (ttm): 2.64%

Return on Assets (ttm): 2.66%
Return on Equity (ttm): 13.27%


Total Cash / Investments = $0.03B
Total Liabilities = $4.099B (including Account Payable)

Enterprise Value (EV)
= Market Cap + Total Liabilities – Total Cash/Investments
= $2.05B + $4.099B - $0.03B
= $6.119B

Free Cash Flow (FCF)
= Negative for the last 3 years consecutively.

I received an email asking for my opinion regarding WPS Resources Corp.

So, what does WPS Resources Corp do?

WPS Resources Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates in the energy and energy related businesses. It generates and distributes electric energy in northeastern Wisconsin, as well as provides electric energy to various customers, including municipal utilities, electric cooperatives, energy marketers, other investor-owned utilities and municipal joint action agencies in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The company also distributes regulated natural gas to nearly 300 municipalities in northeastern Wisconsin and adjacent portions of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. In addition, WPS Resources provides energy management and consulting services to retail and wholesale customers primarily in the northeastern quadrant of the United States and adjacent portions of Canada. The company was founded in 1883 and is based in Green Bay, Wisconsin. From

What I don’t like about WPS Resources Corp?

This company has very small margin, low ROA and ROE. Also, I don’t like companies that don’t generate Free Cash Flow. For the last 3 years, it has negative free cash flow.


I would avoid this capital intensive company, which has low margin, ROA and ROE.

Let me end my thoughts with another Warren Buffett’s quote……

“Before looking at new investments, we consider adding to old ones. If a business is attractive enough to buy once, it may well pay to repeat the process.”

All the best,
Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Telstra Corporation; TLS April 4, 2006

Market price: $13.47
Market Cap (intraday): 33.32B
Trailing P/E (ttm, intraday): 11.82
Forward P/E (fye 30-Jun-07) 1: 14.64
Price/Sales (ttm): 2.07
Price/Book (mrq): 3.44
Enterprise Value/Revenue (ttm)3: 2.60
Enterprise Value/EBITDA (ttm)3: 5.442

Profit Margin (ttm): 17.17%
Return on Assets (ttm): 12.36%
Return on Equity (ttm): 27.10%


Total Cash / Investments = $1.179B
Total Liabilities = $17.22B (including Account Payable)

Enterprise Value (EV)
= Market Cap + Total Liabilities – Total Cash/Investments
= $33.32B + $17.22B - $1.179B
= $49.36B

Free Cash Flow (FCF)
= Total Operating Cash Flow – Capital Expenditure
= $6.22B – $2.282B
= $ 3.938B

FCF/EV yield
= $3.938B / $49.36B
= 7.98%

Treasury yield (30-years)
= 4.56%

One investor alerted me to this company Telstra.

Telstra has plunged from about $20 per share to current price of below $14 per share in less than a year, a 30% drop. From my quick and simple analysis, Telstra seems to be an interesting company to be investigated further. Telstra’s FCF/EV yield is 7.98%, which is a lot higher than treasury yield of 4.56%. It also has good ROA and profit margin.

My major concerns are……

Although Telstra has been very profitable in the past, future profitability is difficult to judge. Telstra would be required to give rivals below-cost access to its network by new regulations. I couldn’t imagine how a company could survive if it is required to give below-cost access to its network.

Revenue from its high-margin fixed-line business, which accounts for a third of total sales, fell a faster-than-expected 7.6 per cent. From Feb 8, 2006

Cost is increasing 3X faster than revenue growth. From Feb 8, 2006


It would be much safer to invest in companies with moat. In Telstra case, moat is being eroded by regulations to provide below-cost access to rivals, and increasing competition from other telecommunication providers. Current wonderful yield may evaporate if management couldn’t reduce costs and stop customers’ defection to other companies.

I would avoid this company, and focus on other strong, dominant companies, which would provide me with good returns in a safe manner.

Having said that, if you have more knowledge and deeper understanding in telecommunication industry, and think Telstra is undervalued, please send me an email. I would love to hear and learn from you.

I love to end my article with Warren Buffett's quote..... “It is more important to say "no" to an opportunity, than to say "yes".”

All the best,
Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive:

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Gannett Corp; GCI April 2, 2006

A few weeks ago, I did a simple analysis on Gannett Corp based on Knight Ridder selling price to McClatchy, and concluded that Gannett is undervalued and has potential to rise up to 27% or more. At the time of analysis, Gannett was selling at $61.26 per share. Since then, its share has slided down to current price of $59.92 per share.

I would like to reiterate that Gannett is a good buy at current price. As expected, a few superinvestors, who are tracked by GuruFocus, started to invest in this wonderful company. Among these superinvestors are Arnold Van Den Berg (3.64% of Assets), Bruce Sherman (3.46% of Assets), Bill Nygren (1.6% of Assets), Robert Olstein (1.28% of Assets), Warren Buffett (0.49% of Assets), and others.

Good management is critical for improving shareholders' return. It is extremely hard to avoid paying excessively for acquisition. Gannett Corp has once again proved that it has superb management by avoiding purchase of Knight Ridder. Selling at 22X Enterprise Value/Normalised Free Cash Flow was overpriced.

Rather than buying Knight Ridder, Gannett could invest in itself, which it has proudly been doing over the last two years. Gannett has been repurchasing its own shares aggressively over the last two years; using more than its net income for year 2005 and 2004.

Good company, coupled with good management, selling at reasonable price is a great strategy to beat the S&P500 return.

If you have any comments or insights to share, please send me an email. Remember, sharing is the best way to learn.

All the best,
Dah Hui Lau (David)

To read my Gannett's Analysis:

To visit my archive:

Saturday, April 01, 2006

Google; GOOG April 1, 2006

David Dreman, Chairman of Dreman Value Management of Jersey City, recently wrote in Forbes magazine saying that Google that is overpriced at 68X trailing earnings, and investors are predicting high growth many years ahead.

His advice is to steer clear from overpriced stocks.

"Don't buy glamour stocks like these. Buy solid earners at reasonable multiples."

Among his suggestions are Anadarko Petroleum, which has solid earning for year 2005 as well as this coming year. Anadrko Petroleum has also authorised share repurchase up to $1B.

His other suggestions inclue EnCana, selling at PE of 12; 3M, which has grown 13% over the last 5 years; and United Technologies.

What David Dreman said reminded me of what Warren Buffett mentioned before, that was....

"You pay a very high price for cheery consensus"

"We insist on a margin of safety in our purchase price. If we calculate the value of a common stock to be only slightly higher than its price, we're not interested in buying. We believe this margin-of-safety principle, so strongly emphasized by Ben Graham, to be the cornerstone of investment success."

All the best,
Dah Hui Lau (David)

To visit my archive: