06-04-2022, 02:41 PM
Are there life stages of a company?
If so, does it matter at what life stage you put your money to work in any particular company?
IMHO, the answer to both questions is "YES"
I think about this every now and then, and again it was brought to my attention when ken mentioned kerim's top 10 list about some %'s in the top few companies--kerim responded but also added he did have some concerns about MO.
Well, I also have some concerns about MO and PM--I liquidated PM and sold a good percentage of MO. I see them as slow to no growth companies--they've had a good run for decades but are they near their last stage??
People will bring up how well they did with MO and some have been investors for decades.
PM/MO were one company once upon a time, they owned other investments such as General Foods, and Kraft, wineries, SAB Miller (beer), a home builder, yes they owned and were invested in a home builder from the 1960's to the 1980's. PM had multiple companies under it's umbrella.
But today, it's different--PM and MO are not the same company--not even close. Are they near the "end stage"?? I don't know, but if looking at these companies like a baseball game they're definitely not in the early innings. They are not the same businesses, they don't have the same support, from investors, from politicians, from customers--to be people in general.
If PM or MO would split up and dissolve into multiple companies as we speak, as investors what would we be stuck with??
Which brings me to companies in earlier life stages, even though some of these companies have been around for decades themselves now.
Microsoft--Apple--Amazon--Alphabet--Berkshire Hathaway--META...hell...even Tesla!!
As investors, let's assume all these companies were broken up, all of them--as investors what would we be left with?? The answer, IMHO, would be a lot more wealth accumulation than holding a company like MO or PM--the runways are further and longer.
We have more time with these latter companies, as investors.
Now, this is not to say MO or PM will cease to exist in our lifetime, but as investors in the later innings we as investors might not see the same high quality returns as earlier investors.
That's my thinking when I put money to work
There's a reason why I've been building up certain positions
Interested to hear your thoughts--I'm expecting a good one from Fenders because he see's the field through a broad scope.
If so, does it matter at what life stage you put your money to work in any particular company?
IMHO, the answer to both questions is "YES"
I think about this every now and then, and again it was brought to my attention when ken mentioned kerim's top 10 list about some %'s in the top few companies--kerim responded but also added he did have some concerns about MO.
Well, I also have some concerns about MO and PM--I liquidated PM and sold a good percentage of MO. I see them as slow to no growth companies--they've had a good run for decades but are they near their last stage??
People will bring up how well they did with MO and some have been investors for decades.
PM/MO were one company once upon a time, they owned other investments such as General Foods, and Kraft, wineries, SAB Miller (beer), a home builder, yes they owned and were invested in a home builder from the 1960's to the 1980's. PM had multiple companies under it's umbrella.
But today, it's different--PM and MO are not the same company--not even close. Are they near the "end stage"?? I don't know, but if looking at these companies like a baseball game they're definitely not in the early innings. They are not the same businesses, they don't have the same support, from investors, from politicians, from customers--to be people in general.
If PM or MO would split up and dissolve into multiple companies as we speak, as investors what would we be stuck with??
Which brings me to companies in earlier life stages, even though some of these companies have been around for decades themselves now.
Microsoft--Apple--Amazon--Alphabet--Berkshire Hathaway--META...hell...even Tesla!!
As investors, let's assume all these companies were broken up, all of them--as investors what would we be left with?? The answer, IMHO, would be a lot more wealth accumulation than holding a company like MO or PM--the runways are further and longer.
We have more time with these latter companies, as investors.
Now, this is not to say MO or PM will cease to exist in our lifetime, but as investors in the later innings we as investors might not see the same high quality returns as earlier investors.
That's my thinking when I put money to work
There's a reason why I've been building up certain positions
Interested to hear your thoughts--I'm expecting a good one from Fenders because he see's the field through a broad scope.