Picking great companies for the long run

[kiora]

Are you a believer in efficient market hypothesis? Price=value 100% all of the time?

No as KK says.

[ValueNZ]

No as KK says.

"If you had to sell shares for an emergency you wouldn't be selling them at a "loss".You would be selling them for what they are worth".

This statement implies you believe in EMH, since if you are made to sell at a point you could be selling them when they are undervalued.

[kiora]

"If you had to sell shares for an emergency you wouldn't be selling them at a "loss".You would be selling them for what they are worth".

This statement implies you believe in EMH, since if you are made to sell at a point you could be selling them when they are undervalued.

No it doesn't imply I believe in EMH.I would be selling them for the emergency. The market value is what it is: undervalued /overvalued doesn't come into it. It is their value on the day.

[SBQ]

As the recent discussion about selling shares in case of an emergency expense, more often there's flip side. What about the investors that don't want a dividend because they don't feel they need the cash flow? What if a person does not expect to upgrade or buy a new car until 2 or 3 years time, yet they've been receiving dividend payments where as Buffett says, how can you be so certain that the individual can reinvest those cash proceeds in a manner that does better than owning the shares instead?

I don't subscribe to the belief that great companies always pay a dividend. Look at the tech stocks that trade in the US exchange. It's very clear the CEOs focus is less about dividend payments and more about 'increasing shareholder value' ; the former is a draining of capital of the shareholder's equity. You can't have it both ways.

[Valuegrowth]

Good evening!

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this thread. Some fascinating replies.