sharetrader
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Value investing

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peat View Post
    No, I mean this in terms of evaluating companies performance. If they make excuses instead of results then exit or reduce the position.
    It is a stunning axiom (also something Beagle has commented on ) that the most reliable predictor of the future is the present and the immediate past. If a company is doing well as a result of its management performance it is likely to continue to do well , and if times get tough it will adjust and do the best it can given the circumstances - active skilful management is the best asset a company can have.
    Basically what Warren Buffet says, a company with a large moat.

    But really, before anyone starts investing into shares, they need to start understanding taxation. Most would disagree as in the past in other postings i've been very critical to NZ's tax approach to investments in shares, particularly domestic vs foreign. Don't forget NZ corporate tax rate at 30% is a clear disadvantage to other countries where corporate tax rates are far less.

    @ timinator: The studies you read about finance online, around great investors like Buffet will be in conflict to the NZ perspective. Again it's due to differences in taxation. If you asked Buffet about investing in NZ, he would point you 1st thing to probably declare non-resident in NZ and move to a country that is more favorable (or equitable) to investing in shares. Because what we have right now in NZ is a huge inequality between investment in real estate properties and equities in the share market.

  2. #12
    Legend peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    Basically what Warren Buffet says, a company with a large moat.
    To be frank I don't see good management as a moat, although clearly it is a point of distinction.

    A moat is something that operates as a barrier to entry in the industry - which could be a lot of capital but would generally be something more specific. A good example is Trade Me (no longer listed but familiar to all NZer's) and its large installed user base resulting in dominance of the online auction sector here in NZ. That is not something that can be created by a competitor overnight no matter. Regulatory compliance can also act as a moat - acquiring govt approval to sell a drug or a health product - something that can take time and effort to obtain. There are probably even better examples.
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  3. #13
    percy
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    17,221

    Default

    Moat....
    Management.?
    When we look at Mainfreight and Ebos there was no moat.
    Ebos were a very small medical supplier.Nothing clever.Sir Ron Brierley told Mark Waller it had potential to do $40mil turnover.[$8 bil this year].
    Mainfreight was just a very small trucking business.
    There was no moat with either.There was no barrier of entry to either.
    Today they have created big moats.
    So a moat can be a company's reputation or the way a business does business.
    Bruce Plested at Mainfreight,and Mark Waller at Ebos created moats out of very ordinary businesses.
    So yes management can create moats.
    Last edited by percy; 14-01-2020 at 06:48 AM.

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    But really, before anyone starts investing into shares, they need to start understanding taxation. Most would disagree as in the past in other postings i've been very critical to NZ's tax approach to investments in shares, particularly domestic vs foreign. Don't forget NZ corporate tax rate at 30% is a clear disadvantage to other countries where corporate tax rates are far less.
    The corporate tax rate in NZ is 28%, not 30%, and as a shareholder this is mitigated by NZ being one of the very few countries in the world to offer imputation credits with dividends to avoid double taxation.

  5. #15
    Legend peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,435
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peat View Post
    To be frank I don't see good management as a moat, although clearly it is a point of distinction.

    A moat is something that operates as a barrier to entry in the industry - which could be a lot of capital but would generally be something more specific. A good example is Trade Me (no longer listed but familiar to all NZer's) and its large installed user base resulting in dominance of the online auction sector here in NZ. That is not something that can be created by a competitor overnight no matter. Regulatory compliance can also act as a moat - acquiring govt approval to sell a drug or a health product - something that can take time and effort to obtain. There are probably even better examples.
    I would disagree with TradeMe. They use a model similar to eBay and the reason why TradeMe has been successful was simply "The 1st Mover" model ; that is they were the 1st to capture the market share and it's not likely something better will come later on. Pre 2000 Yahoo Auctions came out but could not beat eBay's market share of being 1st mover. Even eBay had it's go in NZ (in conjunction with eBay Australia) but no one uses it in NZ.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfd View Post
    The corporate tax rate in NZ is 28%, not 30%, and as a shareholder this is mitigated by NZ being one of the very few countries in the world to offer imputation credits with dividends to avoid double taxation.
    A pointless issue just like how NZ building products pride itself on "Made for NZ Conditions". NZ corporate tax rate is uncompetitive to the big OECD nations and inputation on dividend tax credit is nothing to be raving about. Why? Because places like Canada and the US already provide tax free registered investment schemes for their residents. If you follow my posts in the other thread here i've explained for the vast majority of investors, they do so without their portfolios being subjected to paper gain taxes year after year (their portfolio does tax free compounding). So programs like Canada's TFSA, they receive dividends 100% tax free, even on foreign shares - something you can't do in NZ where the NZ resident is subjected to withholding tax by owning foreign shares abroad. Besides, inputation credits by IRD is very strict and rarely 100% is credited. IMO no investor should be subjected to a narrow base investment such as NZ equities for the key reason that they get a tax cut on the dividend imputation.

    But who am I to say? Even the financial advisors i've spoken to tell me that the issue of taxation in NZ must be consulted by a tax consulted and they can't speak on any scenario of taxation like the qualified CPA financial planners in N. America are required to when advising for all of their clients.

  8. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    480

    Default

    Well aware that other countries have different rules, some will be better, some worse. With no strict capital gains tax and imputation credits, investing in NZ companies is quite favourable, perhaps the different treatment on foreign holdings is to encourage capital to stay in the country. Maybe I just have more of a 'glass half full' attitude.

    I can't comment directly on reclaiming imputation credits as I haven't had to yet, but I believe it is possible.

    You may have found it pointless, but I thought it worth correcting your error in a post talking about the importance of understanding and researching tax.

  9. #19
    Legend peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    I would disagree with TradeMe. They use a model similar to eBay and the reason why TradeMe has been successful was simply "The 1st Mover" model ; that is they were the 1st to capture the market share and it's not likely something better will come later on. Pre 2000 Yahoo Auctions came out but could not beat eBay's market share of being 1st mover. Even eBay had it's go in NZ (in conjunction with eBay Australia) but no one uses it in NZ.
    I would argue that the first mover status allowed them to build a moat and as such they have a moat.
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  10. #20
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    7,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peat View Post
    I would argue that the first mover status allowed them to build a moat and as such they have a moat.
    I agree, peat. In fact, capturing a dominant market share by being first mover is one of the widest, deepest moats to be had.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •