really every 2-3 years ? I thought they could stay on longer?

You would think so, but actually no. It's just like how there is enough info out there to beat sportsbetting or low to mid stakes poker, but yet many people do not.

In fact, I think it is quite like poker. The micro and small caps are not high stakes enough for the pros to be interested since the liqudity may be in the low millions per day, so there are only really amateurs looking into them. Even some of the low billion dollar market caps, like ANAT have such low volume that many hedge funds didn't bother with it, even though it was trading at an absurd 50% discount to book and 70% discount to adjusted book a few years back, profitable to all hell, managed by the Moodys as the primary investment for Galveston, TX, and spewing out a 4.5% dividend with management interested in increasing the dividend because they owned 70% of the shares. I'm still kicking myself a little bit for letting that one go too early when I had a cost basis of $70.

Aren't a lot of stocks trading at a discount to book for a reason? I'm guessing it's similar to how many etfs trade at a discount/premium to NAV only because their NAV is difficult to value

This is true, and for many of them it's because of management apathy in unlocking shareholder value or shareholder disinterest in the stock. So I don't do pure Graham value investing, as many of them do end up being value traps. AEY is a great example.

Hah thanks rafiki. Some bad luck there. I thought about buying more under 30 but now that i've missed that I will hold. However It wouldn't surprise me if the correct play is just to sell as the outlook is quite different now.

Although I don't know enough about it URKA is likely a better long for potash now as they will basically dictate the price and can produce it ridiculously cheap compared to their competition.

EDIT: I fully expect long term that the cartel re-establishes itself as well. It doesn't make sense for these companies to not act as a monopoly.

Yeah I know the feeling. Finding decent businesses selling for low adjusted net profit multiples (on a 10 year heavily discounted cash flow) is super hard too. I've made like 5 new investments this year total.

interesting. Any luck finding companies with alot of land and real estate that they bought in like the 80's or something? That should be pretty hard to spot without digging a bit.

hows this for a net net

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/msn

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/da...552862d10k.htm

Its the Emerson Radio Corp.

Total shareholder equity is about 74 million, and like 56million of that is cash. and its market cap is 47 million.. And they still have some receivable and are profitable. They recently lost about 30% revenue from walmart, one of their 2 big buyers, in microwave business. They outsource production. Just have a look at income statement and balance sheet.

Now up untill a few months ago this wasnt interesting for a few reasons. Emerson is 56% owned by Grande, a chinese company 70% owned by a certain individual named christopher ho. There are a few other guys in grande that are also in management of emerson. And these guys have a history of buying a company with grande and then funneling away the assets to grande away from creditors. Another issue was that deutsche bank was holding 12.5% of shares from Grande's emerson 56% block of shares as a collateral, but they have given them back very recently.

and this guy explains it better:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1292...n-see-catalyst

basicly FTI consulting is now restructuring grande, and he cant really syphon away the cash right now. And FTI now wants grande to sell the entire 56% share block. And Christopher ho owns the shares through grande, so if that happens hes basicly forced out of the company? Might at least be worth following?

so basicly if they are forced to sell, and an audit shows the cash is still there after these assdouches are kicked out, this could be a nice net net? But isnt the risk here that some hedge fund will come in before that and buy it all up?

DISCLAIMER: Investing fish, I have next to no knowledge of finance/investing.

----

I think this is the right place (longer term investing).

Coca-cola has paid a dividend and increased it every year for ~50 years. It has increased it's dividend payment by ~10% every year since 1967 effectively doubling it every ~7.2 years.

Currently it's $40/share and pays a dividend of $1.12/year (2.8%).

Is it feasible to assume Coca-Cola will continue to pay a dividend and increase it every year in the future, as well as maintaining a 10%/year dividend growth rate?

If so, the math would look like...

7 yrs = 5.6% yield on cost
14 yrs = 11.2% yoc
21 yrs = 22.4% yoc
28 yrs = 44.8% yoc

Of course assuming dividends weren't invested and this was a one time purchase but the theoretical aim would be to invest regular amounts and to reinvest all of the dividend payments.

Does this all seem correct/feasible?

I've actually been tracking this one. It's on the short list of stocks that I have for consideration during the October-November window dressing as I will probably add a few positions during that time frame.

The plus is that it is trading not just below NCAV, but below NNWC, so barring some huge colossal failure there is a lot of protection against the downside. However, I didn't really understand what was going on and I still don't, so I was going to look into it later. Anyone else have any views on it?

No. Past performance doesn't guarantee future performance.
The growth rate of a company also slows down as a company gets larger. It's a lot easier to increase 10% in market cap when you are worth 100 mil versus 100 bil.

it seems the biggest downside risk are those guys running grande, or the 3 guys running emerson. Any idea what it means that 2 of those 3 guys just resigned from grande? They have a long history of lawsuits and fraud. If they cant touch it, then there is no downside.
http://origin.fticonsulting-asia.com...gs-limited.pdf

And isnt coca cola one of the most analyzed and well priced stocks by value investors, since buffet always rags on about how great it is? Seems like the last place to look for value.

I should of been clearer, i don't mean a guarantee but there's a level of prediction in investing isn't there? especially in long term/value investing?

bolded was my concern although there development into third world contries/growing countries is strong and they have the money to establish themselves there -- i have no idea just how much this can affect their future growth though.

i love how mori****a's name is censored in quotes.

Back on sale now. $29.

And yet Coca Cola has been the market leader in sugar water for 50+ years. While you're certainly right about this as a general rule KO is the kind of company that has a chance to keep it up.

The real question on dividend growth for KO is a combination of available free income to pay as dividends, and future global population growth. I think global population growth is going to slow, so I really doubt that KO will keep growing at the pace it has over the last century when it still had entire markets to get into and global birth rates were higher.

EDIT: Some businesses are just significantly superior to the field. This objectively has to be true, because obviously there are bad businesses. In a scenario where one choice is 'bad' there must also be 'good' choices. Coca Cola is a textbook exceptional company. While it is not as exceptional as it once was it is still considerably more exceptional than 99.5% of SP500 component stocks in terms of quality of business.

There is no requirement for auditor rotation. The lead audit partner at a firm must rotate off of clients every 5 years. There is no requirement to switch firms.

Bored, if you are a proponent of auditor rotation, I think you are crazy. With the timeframe that many of these companies release earnings and the complexity of operations of companies in a global environment, he build up of knowledge over the years makes it much more likely that issues are identified before they become issues.

I'm hardly an expert on auditors... But I was given a strong impression in my accounting classes in college that auditors were ethically required to be replaced every few years (I don't remember the exact time frame).

I'm not 'for' auditor replacement... If it was mandated (and I really thought it was) then it would just lead to a circle jerk among the big x CPA firms for corporate audits where clients were passed along when it was firm y's turn.

but a different accountant within an audit firm, or actually change audit firms?

like said above, the auditor himself is supposed to rotate off, so he doesnt get so close to the client. you arent supposed to switch firms that often unless you keep signing up better and better firms

I can easily see how I could have gotten that confused. My bad.

Normally I would be feeling really dumb because I didn't know how auditors are replaced... But today was way too good for me to feel anything but awesome. I just wish that there didn't have to be bad days to make days like today possible.

On the other hand, ouch.

Maybe it'll drop below NCAV tomorrow and I may give it a go

not a big deal, unless you ever got into looking into fraud companies like the chinese RTO's or short a ton, you wouldn't need to know that.