A cornerstone of Jeremy Siegel’s research in “Stocks for the Long Run” is that high-tech investments have a strong tendency to fizzle out over time. If you look at the best performing businesses over the past sixty years, they tend to sell products that are similar to what was being sold in the 1960s.
Colgate-Palmolive has been one of the best performers since 1956, and it is still selling toothpaste and soap. 3M is on the list, and its famous Post-It notes are still around. Pepsi is still on the list, and America continues to eat potato chips. A bunch of oil companies–Exxon, Shell, and Chevron–are on the list, and they’re still selling … Read the rest of this article!
Over the past several months to a year, exchanging U.S. dollars for Bitcoin has been such a fruitful endeavor that the purchase of cryptocurrencies have entered the public consciousness and many young men in their 20s and 30s have been profiled on CNBC as well as the largest financial websites to publicly disclose their newfound wealth.
Most of the analysis focuses on whether Bitcoin is the real deal–i.e. will Bitcoin become a store of value analogous to gold or hard metals, and then appreciate against other currencies due to a projected lower inflation rate?
Less attention has been dedicated to analyzing the psychology and cultural backgrounds of the individuals that are drawn to … Read the rest of this article!
My entire investment writing career has occurred in the context of the United States thirty-year treasury yielding 4.5% or less, often dramatically less (think 2% to 3%). Similarly, a stock market boom has also accompanied most of the past decade.
This has meant that certificates of deposit have yielded 1-4%, depending on the amount and length of time that the money must be locked up until maturity. Corporate bonds haven’t yielded much higher, unless they had weak earnings or a credible risk of impending bankruptcy. The stock market isn’t much compared to the corporate bond landscape.
And yet, time after time again, income investors desire investments with high starting yields. And yet, I … Read the rest of this article!
Target Corp. does not, and has not, grown its profit. This year, it is expected to make about $2.4 billion. That is the same amount of profit that Target earned in the recession year of 2009. As recently as 2015, Target was earning $2.9 billion per year in profits. These downticks in profitability are even more concerning when you consider that Target is perpetually opening up new stores—the implication being that the same-store sales profits are declining at a greater rate than the amount of new profit generated by the new locations.
And yet, despite this absence of profit growth, Target stock (TGT) has managed to deliver earnings per share growth for its … Read the rest of this article!
When I reviewed Stein Mart’s business model in recent years, I was unimpressed on both quantitative and qualitative grounds. Quantitatively, I thought it was embarrassingly poor that Stein Mart only managed to earn $27 million in net profits at its cyclical high over the past five years. For a company with 300 stores that consume gobs of square feet, a net profit figure of only $80,000-$85,000 was terribly insufficient.
And the above-referenced numbers refer to Stein Mart’s 2016 highs. When Stein Mart’s profits evaporated and turned to an $11 million loss this year, it was clear that the business model was seriously defunct.
That is where the qualitative aspect comes in—the retailer sells … Read the rest of this article!