Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 4.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What Did You Buy Today?
(11-09-2018, 09:37 AM)saimash Wrote: Guys, what are your thoughts about investing in BUD... I had bought 50 shares @ 87.96 and it is down to nearly 74.5$ today (since they declared that they would cut dividends to offset the burden of their SAB Miller acquisition)... I was thinking of putting a Limit Order of $72.5 for 50 more shares to Dollar-cost-Avg... Would it be a STUPID decision to do that ?

Not a fan of BUD at all. They overpaid for SAB Miller and are getting killed by local micro-brews. 

Consumer's tastes are changing, I don't see much growth in the big brewers.
My website: DGI For The DIY
Also on: Facebook - Twitter - Seeking Alpha
Reply
What Eric says times 2 on BUD.  I love to average down when the stock drops and the story has not changed.  The story has indeed changed.

Added some APPL under $204 today. It's about 3% of my port now. That's probably about enough as it is over weighted in my mutuals and EFTs.

Any thoughts on BMY? They look interesting to me for the next few years. Earnings have been volatile the past few years but they have a promising pipeline and solid balance sheet. IMO not currently overvalued like most pharma. DIV is just over 3% while I wait. I think I have talked myself into it. Smile
Reply
(11-09-2018, 09:45 AM)EricL Wrote:
(11-09-2018, 09:37 AM)saimash Wrote: Guys, what are your thoughts about investing in BUD... I had bought 50 shares @ 87.96 and it is down to nearly 74.5$ today (since they declared that they would cut dividends to offset the burden of their SAB Miller acquisition)... I was thinking of putting a Limit Order of $72.5 for 50 more shares to Dollar-cost-Avg... Would it be a STUPID decision to do that ?

Not a fan of BUD at all. They overpaid for SAB Miller and are getting killed by local micro-brews. 

Consumer's tastes are changing, I don't see much growth in the big brewers.

Can't comment on BUD as a company or their acquisition since I haven't been following.

But I do agree with the opinion that big breweries are going to face some tough times. People want different types of beer, maybe not as their "regular" one but they will buy new and different ones to try out. If they choose to go with a few different beers from smaller breweries even 1 time out of 5 when they are in the store, that's a lot of revenue loss for the big brewers.

And this trend could be just starting in the states. I'm visiting now and I just walked into a Publix yesterday... the selection of "special beer" was.. appalling. There are places in Europe where a tiny local grocery store in a 2000 person village has a beer selection 10 times better than I find in a relatively large grocery store in the middle of the city here. And 10 times might be an understatement.

(yes I know Publix is not THE place to go for beer. It was just close by. But it's a pretty close comparison since a tiny grocery store wouldn't be your number one option in Europe either.)
Reply
The only way bud survives is by acquiring one of the big cannabis companies. There's just too much competition in the space of beer and it will continue to squeeze margins. And with the dividend being cut that just says the company isn't too confident going forward; not to mention all the debt they have on their books. I just think there are way better buys in this market then BUD no matter how cheap it may look.
Reply
I am preaching to myself as much as anyone else here but I really feel we have to look at the consumer non-durables with eyes wide open. When I was young it was just inconceivable to think a brand like Coke, Heinz, Anheuser-Busch, Miller, Phillips Morris, Colgate, Kelloggs or even Proctor & Gamble could be anything short of dominant in their industry in my lifetime. EVERYTHING changes when the margins come under pressure. These are the stocks we are attracted to because of their reliable dividends. GE, ATT and Sears were also no-brainers. I'm no longer so confident even five years forward. I am keeping my bets small in any company that doesn't have a significant moat to defend their turf. We collectively seem to be good about diversification and I think that is going to be FAR more important going forward. It's clear the ability to afford national advertising is nowhere near enough. Finding the dominant companies of 2030 now is our challenge.
Reply
(11-10-2018, 11:13 AM)fenders53 Wrote: I am preaching to myself as much as anyone else here but I really feel we have to look at the consumer non-durables with eyes wide open.  When I was young it was just inconceivable to think a brand like Coke, Heinz, Anheuser-Busch, Miller, Phillips Morris,  Colgate, Kelloggs or even Proctor & Gamble could be anything short of dominant in their industry in my lifetime.  EVERYTHING changes when the margins come under pressure.  These are the stocks we are attracted to because of their reliable dividends.  GE, ATT and Sears were also no-brainers.  I'm no longer so confident even five years forward.  I am keeping my bets small in any company that doesn't have a significant moat  to defend their turf.  We collectively seem to be good about diversification and I think that is going to be FAR more important going forward.  It's clear the ability to afford national advertising is nowhere near enough.   Finding the dominant companies of 2030 now is our challenge.

Well said and your 100% accurate. Times have sure changed. No one wants the boring names or brands who's growth has continue to slow. Everyone these days wants tech and the high flyers. The FANG ect. That's where all the growth is. At the same time those high beta growth stock are the first to go down big when the market corrects, but the first to recover when it goes up. But you still have to own some of those boring high yield stock. Just not overweight in them. 

I will never own T in my portfolio. Just too much debt and the dividend even at 6% isn't enough to move it up over time. It has done nothing in the last 5 years.  I much prefer VZ which is why I own that.  KO, BUD, HNZ, CL, K I don't own either. PEP I do because of the market shares and snack food. This is why I prefer names like AEP, D and XEL. You get better dividends then consumer stocks and everyone needs electric so have no choice lol

My investments have always been will this company be around in 10 years and who is there competition. AAPL, HD, BA, CVX, JNJ, D, MA, PEP, MCD and UNH are my top holdings. Some I have owned since 1990. I try and buy high quality over names that only pay a good yield.
Reply
(11-10-2018, 01:18 PM)divmenow Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 11:13 AM)fenders53 Wrote:

Well said and your 100% accurate. Times have sure changed. No one wants the boring names or brands who's growth has continue to slow. Everyone these days wants tech and the high flyers. The FANG ect. That's where all the growth is. At the same time those high beta growth stock are the first to go down big when the market corrects, but the first to recover when it goes up. But you still have to own some of those boring high yield stock. Just not overweight in them. 

I will never own T in my portfolio. Just too much debt and the dividend even at 6% isn't enough to move it up over time. It has done nothing in the last 5 years.  I much prefer VZ which is why I own that.  KO, BUD, HNZ, CL, K I don't own either. PEP I do because of the market shares and snack food. This is why I prefer names like AEP, D and XEL. You get better dividends then consumer stocks and everyone needs electric so have no choice lol

My investments have always been will this company be around in 10 years and who is there competition. AAPL, HD, BA, CVX, JNJ, D, MA, PEP, MCD and UNH are my top holdings. Some I have owned since 1990. I try and buy high quality over names that only pay a good yield.
[quote pid='15495' dateline='1541873889']

You just listed about 7 of my core holdings in your top holdings.  Smile  Anyone else that wants to jump into this conversation please do whether you agree or not.   I think it's important we discuss it and not lead a 20yr old down the wrong path.   

I am OK with the high yielders in moderation but I have free time to game them.  Especially KHC.  Own a hundred shares and collect the DIV.  Sell a put and a call most every month when it swings a few bucks up and down.  I'm "cashing" 2-3 checks a month on KHC and the share price is rarely more expensive than I paid for it.  Just a conservative income game that works well on a high yielder not in free fall.  The not in free fall part is important.  Smile  I wouldn't feel comfortable owning 1000 shares of most old school consumer durable stocks. 

Most of us here seem to like the utilities, but I wouldn't advise anybody to load up the truck if they were starting a port today as they are historically expensive and the FED almost certainly raising rates.  Some have PEs similar to tech stocks.  I will continue to average into them as I fatten the positions up. With some patience I absolutely agree utes are superior to consumer non-durables on a risk/reward basis.  If a ute gets in trouble and cuts the DIV, they'll apply for a rate hike and the DIV will be back soon.  With some patience I absolutely agree utes are superior to consumer non-durables on a risk/reward basis.  I think back to an investment club I was a member of 25 years ago.  All extremely solid companies, and mostly consumer non-durables.  By the time you subtract the losers I doubt the port outperformed utilities.  I really only feel compelled to own most of those stocks after a very severe market correction, not when they drop simply because they are struggling, which is becoming too common.  They've been overpriced for most of my investing career.              
    
[/quote]
Reply
(11-10-2018, 05:48 PM)fenders53 Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 01:18 PM)divmenow Wrote: Well said and your 100% accurate. Times have sure changed. No one wants the boring names or brands who's growth has continue to slow. Everyone these days wants tech and the high flyers. The FANG ect. That's where all the growth is. At the same time those high beta growth stock are the first to go down big when the market corrects, but the first to recover when it goes up. But you still have to own some of those boring high yield stock. Just not overweight in them. 

I will never own T in my portfolio. Just too much debt and the dividend even at 6% isn't enough to move it up over time. It has done nothing in the last 5 years.  I much prefer VZ which is why I own that.  KO, BUD, HNZ, CL, K I don't own either. PEP I do because of the market shares and snack food. This is why I prefer names like AEP, D and XEL. You get better dividends then consumer stocks and everyone needs electric so have no choice lol

My investments have always been will this company be around in 10 years and who is there competition. AAPL, HD, BA, CVX, JNJ, D, MA, PEP, MCD and UNH are my top holdings. Some I have owned since 1990. I try and buy high quality over names that only pay a good yield.
[quote pid='15495' dateline='1541873889']

You just listed about 7 of my core holdings in your top holdings.  Smile  Anyone else that wants to jump into this conversation please do whether you agree or not.   I think it's important we discuss it and not lead a 20yr old down the wrong path.   

I am OK with the high yielders in moderation but I have free time to game them.  Especially KHC.  Own a hundred shares and collect the DIV.  Sell a put and a call most every month when it swings a few bucks up and down.  I'm "cashing" 2-3 checks a month on KHC and the share price is rarely more expensive than I paid for it.  Just a conservative income game that works well on a high yielder not in free fall.  The not in free fall part is important.  Smile  I wouldn't  feel comfortable owning 1000 shares of most old school consumer durable stocks. 

Most of us here seem to like the utilities, but I wouldn't advise anybody to load up the truck if they were starting a port today as they are historically expensive and the FED almost certainly raising rates.  Some have PEs similar to tech stocks.  I will continue to average into them as I fatten the positions up.  With some patience I absolutely agree utes are superior to consumer non-durables on a risk/reward basis.  If a ute gets in trouble and cuts the DIV, they'll apply for a rate hike and the DIV will be back soon.  With some patience I absolutely agree utes are superior to consumer non-durables on a risk/reward basis.  I think back to an investment club I was a member of 25 years ago.  All extremely solid companies, and mostly consumer non-durables.  By the time you subtract the losers I doubt the port outperformed utilities.  I really only feel compelled to own most of those stocks after a very severe market correction, not when they drop simply because they are struggling, which is becoming too common.  They've been overpriced for most of my investing career.              
    

[/quote]

I'm 25 and started out buying heavily based around a stock's dividend. I have now switched mostly to business perspective investing.

I  own some the classic dividend stocks - JNJ, PG, MCD, XOM, MO, AFL, CAH, ULVR along with MSFT, DIS, SBUX, V and AAPL less pure dividend plays.

The rest of my portfolio contains growth orientated companies that I feel have large economic moats and have the ability to generate a lot of free cash with modest capital input. I am aware that many of these, especially the Chinese holdings, are risky but over the long term they should do well.

These include - ADBE,  BABA, FB, TECHY (down heavily on this one!)

I feel balance is important but am very sceptical of capital intensive businesses like utilities and automakers. I like businesses that can make a lot off very little capital as opposed to businesses that can make a little from very heavy capital input. This is why I have stayed away from T for example.

Maybe this approach would be of help to investors?

Don't go all in low-growth div stocks but don't think you're going to become rich by piling money purely into tech stocks either.
Reply
[quote pid='15497' dateline='1541899528']
I'm 25 and started out buying heavily based around a stock's dividend. I have now switched mostly to business perspective investing.

I  own some the classic dividend stocks - JNJ, PG, MCD, XOM, MO, AFL, CAH, ULVR along with MSFT, DIS, SBUX, V and AAPL less pure dividend plays.

The rest of my portfolio contains growth orientated companies that I feel have large economic moats and have the ability to generate a lot of free cash with modest capital input. I am aware that many of these, especially the Chinese holdings, are risky but over the long term they should do well.

These include - ADBE,  BABA, FB, TECHY (down heavily on this one!)

I feel balance is important but am very sceptical of capital intensive businesses like utilities and automakers. I like businesses that can make a lot off very little capital as opposed to businesses that can make a little from very heavy capital input. This is why I have stayed away from T for example.

Maybe this approach would be of help to investors?

Don't go all in low-growth div stocks but don't think you're going to become rich by piling money purely into tech stocks either.

-------------------------
That port looks appropriate enough for a 25yr old.  It's OK to lose some money while you have time to adjust course.  You aren't "all in" on tech.  I'll be joining you in some of those Chinese stocks at some point, but nothing too substantial.  The first ten years I confused investing skill with a bull market.  I learned about non-diversification, getting greedy, margin abuse etc.  It's an easy trap when no matter you do it works out next month.  The market humbled me and I am fortunate it was only $30K and not a $300K lesson later on.  Just my opinion, but you don't know what kind of an investor you really are until you get your nose bloodied bad, and see how you then react.  This decades perfect plan is rarely ideal next decade.  When the tech bubble crashed I thought I would just ride it out since I owned quality like MSFT, INTC etc.  That's a nice theory until you live it. Valuation at time of purchase will matter eventually.  Waiting 10+ years for a company like MSFT to recover was hard on my net worth (not to mention my appetite for risk).  I was very lucky to have a good income and buy fairly low with new money for the next decade.  But I wish I'd had a little more cash so I could react to my first crash.  I will never be 100% invested again. I'm getting off topic telling investing war stories. 

I'm with you on the FCF. A stock like APPL may very well be your best dividend ten years from now. Those companies can diversify to other sectors going forward if they desire. They can acquire an insurance company if they like. Not so much the other way around.

Don't give up on the utilities.  You lost me some on your logic to avoid them.  I have a 500% return on XEL.  If I had managed to do that a little more often I would be worrying about CD rates a lot more than the S&P 500 now.  Smile    Of course I could have grabbed the wrong utility and I'd be sitting on an extremely low growth dividend play a few years later.  
[/quote]

[quote pid='15497' dateline='1541899528']



          

       
[/quote]
Reply
(11-10-2018, 09:52 PM)fenders53 Wrote: [quote pid='15497' dateline='1541899528']
I'm 25 and started out buying heavily based around a stock's dividend. I have now switched mostly to business perspective investing.

I  own some the classic dividend stocks - JNJ, PG, MCD, XOM, MO, AFL, CAH, ULVR along with MSFT, DIS, SBUX, V and AAPL less pure dividend plays.

The rest of my portfolio contains growth orientated companies that I feel have large economic moats and have the ability to generate a lot of free cash with modest capital input. I am aware that many of these, especially the Chinese holdings, are risky but over the long term they should do well.

These include - ADBE,  BABA, FB, TECHY (down heavily on this one!)

I feel balance is important but am very sceptical of capital intensive businesses like utilities and automakers. I like businesses that can make a lot off very little capital as opposed to businesses that can make a little from very heavy capital input. This is why I have stayed away from T for example.

Maybe this approach would be of help to investors?

Don't go all in low-growth div stocks but don't think you're going to become rich by piling money purely into tech stocks either.

-------------------------
That port looks appropriate enough for a 25yr old.  It's OK to lose some money while you have time to adjust course.  You aren't "all in" on tech.  I'll be joining you in some of those Chinese stocks at some point, but nothing too substantial.  The first ten years I confused investing skill with a bull market.  I learned about non-diversification, getting greedy, margin abuse etc.  It's an easy trap when no matter you do it works out next month.  The market humbled me and I am fortunate it was only $30K and not a $300K lesson later on.  Just my opinion, but you don't know what kind of an investor you really are until you get your nose bloodied bad, and see how you then react.  This decades perfect plan is rarely ideal next decade.  When the tech bubble crashed I thought I would just ride it out since I owned quality like MSFT, INTC etc.  That's a nice theory until you live it. Valuation at time of purchase will matter eventually.  Waiting 10+ years for a company like MSFT to recover was hard on my net worth (not to mention my appetite for risk).  I was very lucky to have a good income and buy fairly low with new money for the next decade.  But I wish I'd had a little more cash so I could react to my first crash.  I will never be 100% invested again.  I'm getting off topic telling investing war stories. 

I'm with you on the FCF.  A stock like APPL may very well be your best dividend ten years from now.  Those companies can diversify to other sectors going forward if they desire.  They can acquire an insurance company if they like.  Not so much the other way around.  

Don't give up on the utilities.  You lost me some on your logic to avoid them.  I have a 500% return on XEL.  If I had managed to do that a little more often I would be worrying about CD rates a lot more than the S&P 500 now.  Smile    Of course I could have grabbed the wrong utility and I'd be sitting on an extremely low growth dividend play a few years later.    

[quote pid='15497' dateline='1541899528']
Yes like the wrong utilities such as EIX and PCG. Those stocks are getting smoked due to CA wild fires. 


          

       
[/quote]

[/quote]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: xapity, 9 Guest(s)