sharetrader
Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 329
  1. #16
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    chch, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,951

    Default

    Probably more than you imagine.

    Can anyone here beat 1977 ? My father bought me some tesco shares as a reward for passing my "o" levels
    He chose Tesco for me because i was going out with one of the tesco checkout girls at the time. I still hold them now.

    Thank goodness she didnt work in Ratners
    Last edited by ratkin; 16-02-2011 at 01:18 PM.

  2. #17
    Member Lego_Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    439

    Default

    Isnt Buffett's average holding period 2-3 years? Which would align nicely with Mr P's "medium-long term uptrend" ideas.

  3. #18
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,059

    Default

    Who here actually buys and holds for 10 years?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbitrage View Post
    Me and Warren Buffett.
    'Fraid not Arb - maybe just you and Ratkin!

    Measured over 26 years, Buffett's average holding time of an investment is only one year, with only 20% of the stocks being held more than two years. Nearly a third (30%) were sold in less than six months.

  4. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Waitakere New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,183

    Default

    Still have some I bought in 1987
    Possum The Cat

  5. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Buffett started buying Coca Cola shares in 1988. Apparently one of his most lucrative holdings which he still has today.

  6. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    650

    Default

    However I still hold a miniscule quantity of Bridgevale Mining shares I bought in the dark ages which became Bridgecorp which became dust. A good example of not buying to hold however when the brokerage is greater than the sale price it makes things difficult to unload. Then along comes receivership...

  7. #22
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    chch, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,951

    Default

    Biggest problem i find with buy and hold is the good companies being sold off. Often way too cheaply.
    Im still peeved off that Frucor was allowed to go at a ridiculous price . Would of no doubt still owned some today
    if people were not so short sighted as to give the company away. Still see plenty of V cans lying around the place.

  8. #23
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,059

    Default

    Buffett was doing really well out of Coca Cola - but then the uptrend ended. They all do.
    KO must surely have been one of his worst performing investments over the last 12 years.
    Ah, the joys and rewards of a "Buy and Hold" approach eh!



    I won't deface the chart with sordid technical indicators - suffice to say that the most primitive TA would have got you and I (well, me at least) out of KO way back in 1998.

  9. #24
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    chch, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,951

    Default

    I see you not defacing it with dividend payments either , im sure they grew rather substantial after holding for thirty years, especially if reinvested


    http://www.dividend.com/historical/stock.php?symbol=KO
    Last edited by ratkin; 16-02-2011 at 03:10 PM.

  10. #25
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,288

    Default

    Im with you on this one Ratkin... charts can be made to show what you want them. If you bought Coca Cola in 1981 at $2 or whatever it was even if holding now you have done well.....

  11. #26
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    chch, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,951

    Default

    Coca cola not that unusual either , go back and look at the fortune 500 archives for the 70s and 80s and you will
    see many of todays top companies . If you had randomly picked ten from the top 100 and just held them i suspect
    you would of done very well indeed, especially if concentrating on the popular brands of the time.
    And even the ones that went bad such as Kodak , it would of been very easy to see the effect digital cameras would
    have allowing plenty of time for an exit on fundamental grounds.

    Heres a list of anyones curious.
    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...ive/full/1980/



    Of course i wouldnt put abano healthcare in that category !!

  12. #27
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ratkin View Post
    I'm sure dividends grew rather substantial after holding for thirty years, especially if reinvested....
    You would want to reinvest them in some other stock though - one that was going UP!

    It is really surprising how small a dividend yield it takes to influence some people. Over the time that KO has been trendless, dividend yield has averaged out at about 2.08% pa. Call me unreasonable, demanding, avaricious, or unrealistic, but I expect my investments to provide an annual return far, far higher than a mere 2%! Why would you settle for such a derisory sum?

  13. #28
    Super Investor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    You would want to reinvest them in some other stock though - one that was going UP!

    It is really surprising how small a dividend yield it takes to influence some people. Over the time that KO has been trendless, dividend yield has averaged out at about 2.08% pa. Call me unreasonable, demanding, avaricious, or unrealistic, but I expect my investments to provide an annual return far, far higher than a mere 2%! Why would you settle for such a derisory sum?
    I agree, but the massive growth achieved from the previous 17 years using buy and hold has been well and truly paid for. So any further growth thru a trendless share price plus a 2% divi would just adds to ones wealth. I'd be happy holding KO 20+ years.
    h2

  14. #29
    Member Lego_Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    439

    Default

    Yes, but you would compare your dividend yield to the current value of your investment.

    So it would be irrelevant what your investment has done up to now, when you are talking about ongoing yield gain.

    I almost tear my hair out when i hear people talk about their "yield to purchase price."

    For example you had Coke shares worth 5000, they have now grown to 10,000. Current dividend yield is 2%. You can get 6% in the bank.

    Why is it relevant what you paid for the shares initially? We are talking about future returns. All youre doing by holding at that point is giving your gains back to the market (relatively speaking) by compounding at an inferior rate than even the risk free rate.

  15. #30
    percy
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    13,482

    Default

    I just love talking to old guys,who tell me they are getting 50% divie yeild on this 65% on that,and 95% yield on the other.Good on them.If they had just put the money at the bank at 3 ,4 or 5%.in fact they have earned the right to talk like that,rather than those who chased high yields and lost the lot.So what their 50% yield is only 2% on todays purchase price.

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
  •