header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Rankings ... ugh

 (Read 79041 times)

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71625
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1960 on: April 24, 2024, 07:56:48 AM »

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25280
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1961 on: April 24, 2024, 08:18:31 AM »
Must border Canada, unless you're Wisconsin!!
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71625
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1962 on: April 24, 2024, 08:59:40 AM »
Interesting brief article about the "Nifty Fifty" from back in the day (1970s stocks).  These were presented as "can't miss" kinds of things that garnered high valuations and were said to be great investments (by some).  I recall another old expression, "Trees don't grow to the sky.".

The Nifty-Fifty Re-Revisited (pomona.edu)

The basic elements of the Nifty Fifty story are sound: with the spectacular exception of Wal-Mart, the glamour stocks that were often pushed to relatively high P/E ratios in the early 1970s did substantially worse than the market, in both the short and long run.




Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71625
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1963 on: April 24, 2024, 09:14:12 AM »
valuing-growth-stocks-revisiting-the-nifty-fifty.pdf (csinvesting.org)

The Nifty Fifty were a group of premier growth stocks, such as Xerox, IBM, Polaroid, and Coca-Cola, that became institutional darlings in the early 1970s. All of these stocks had proven growth records, continual increases in dividends (virtually none had cut its dividend since World War II), and high market capitalization. This last characteristic enabled institutions to load up on these stocks without significantly influencing the price of their shares. The Nifty Fifty were often called one-decision stocks: buy and never sell. Because their prospects were so bright, many analysts claimed that the only direction they could go was up. Since they had made so many rich, few if any investors could fault a money manager for buying them. At the time, many investors did not seem to find 50, 80 or even 100 times earnings at all an unreasonable price to pay for the world’s preeminent growth companies. Forbes magazine retrospectively commented on the phenomenon as follows: “What held the Nifty Fifty up? The same thing that held up tulip-bulb prices in long-ago Holland—popular delusions and the madness of crowds. The delusion was that these companies were so good it didn’t matter what you paid for them; their inexorable growth would bail you out. “Obviously the problem was not with the companies but with the tempo rary insanity of institutional money managers—proving again that stupidity well-packaged can sound like wisdom. It was so easy to forget that probably no sizable company could possibly be worth over 50 times normal earnings.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71625
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1964 on: April 24, 2024, 09:26:25 AM »
Stray Reflections (stray-reflections.com)

The Dow shot up 16 percent from the October low, but then retested it again in December to mark its final bottom. The bear market of 1973—74 was over, 21 months after it began. The 45 percent decline was the worst ever since the Great Depression. 

“The Nifty Fifty were taken out and shot one by one,” wrote a Forbes columnist. From their respective highs, Coca-Cola fell 69 percent, Xerox 71 percent, McDonald’s 72 percent, Avon 86 percent, Disney 87 percent and Polaroid 91 percent.  
From 1973 to 1977, the Nifty Fifty stocks underperformed the market, with five-year average returns of negative 4.4 percent annually compared to the market’s positive 2.5 percent. The Dow’s January 1973 high would not be surpassed for another nine years, in November of 1982.


Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71625
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1965 on: April 24, 2024, 09:29:24 AM »
Are The Magnificent Seven In A Bubble? Ask The Nifty Fifty | ZeroHedge

 While we can quarrel with his analysis, the point is high valuations are not necessarily a warning. In fact, as we share with Philip Morris, a high valuation for a stock may not be high enough. The important question is, can a stock live up to the earnings growth implied by its valuation?
The market may be underestimating the growth potential for some of the Magnificent Seven stocks and overestimating it for others. But, Siegel states, the most significant risk in the short term may not be growth potential but confidence. Confidence can fade just as quickly as it was born.
We leave you with a quote from Benjamin Graham:
Quote
In the short run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.”


Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71625
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25280
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1967 on: April 24, 2024, 10:08:57 AM »
Where does this running back room rank with the best of all-time?

Gordon, Ball, White.

U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37586
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1968 on: April 24, 2024, 10:14:11 AM »
1982 - Roger Craig, Mike Rozier, Tom Rathman
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25280
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1969 on: April 24, 2024, 10:16:32 AM »
That's a good room too.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12220
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1970 on: April 24, 2024, 10:22:38 AM »
There's a point at which the shit would hit the fan, yes?
I've been at the same company for over 16 years. I've seen our stock price in the teens and I've seen it in the 115 range. We are in a bit of a cyclical industry. 

When the stock price is low, there are usually reasons why it's low. Some of them are cyclicality of our business, some of them are competitive missteps, etc. And the reasons why it's low (i.e. poor earnings or even losing money) bring pain. I.e. the "people I used to work with were told they no longer work with" pain of layoffs. I've had the difficult task of giving people that news myself, and if you think anyone in a company delights in layoffs, you're wrong. We spent the latter part of 2022 and all of 2023 in one of those painful periods--people say it's the most protracted downturn our industry has seen since 1986. Quite severe measures were taken to cut costs, because the company was losing money. Thankfully we're pulling out of that now. 

When the stock price is high, it's usually because cyclical business conditions are good and/or we've been executing well. Earnings are high. Those earnings fund raises / variable incentive payouts / benefits that lead to company morale being very high. 

In 2012, my boss who had been with the company ~40 years was retiring. He told me "I've seen this company almost go out of business four times. This might be the fifth." At the time we were in the middle of an expensive acquisition/merger with a competitor right at the time that a natural disaster hit the country where we do the bulk of our production. We literally had a factory under water. Or at least head-height on the first floor. I've been to the facility and they now have a plaque on the outside wall showing how high the floodwaters reached. Of our entire group, I was the only one who would have been able to stand up and keep my mouth above water. Luckily we survived (helped, in fact, by that flood--it disrupted the supply chain of multiple players in the industry, leading to shortages, leading to high prices). 

But not everyone has been so lucky. My industry used to have 100 companies building what we do. Today there are three, globally. Business is hard. 

As it relates to a company like KO, I obviously think there's a point where the shit hits the fan. As far as "existential crisis / go out of business", I think you have to look at a company like that and ask the odds of whether they'll be around at various points in the future. There could be a lot of reasons. Bad management is just one. Consumer preferences changing and KO being unable to adapt is another. The company having a major scandal that destroys the (very valuable) brand is another. A combination of those could knock them out all at once. But you think about it in the terms of timeframe. 20 years from now? I'd put money on KO existing. 50 years? IMHO certainly better than even odds. 100 years? Now we're not so sure, because so many consumer preferences could change in the interim and plenty of opportunities for management to screw up / damage the brand / etc to slowly deteriorate and have died by then. 

But none of these are caused by some sort of "perpetual growth" myth that everyone needs to hit. That's where your insistence was a fallacy. 

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11242
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1971 on: April 24, 2024, 10:02:28 PM »
Must border Canada, unless you're Wisconsin!!
Do the great lakes borders count?



 

In Ohio I had an argument with a coworker about that. I said we bordered Canada. He said it didn't count unless you could drive across it. He maintained his position even after I pointed out that you can ferry your car across the border. 



1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25280
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1972 on: April 25, 2024, 06:28:29 AM »
Do the great lakes borders count?



 
Yes, and Wisconsin does not share one with Canada. It shares Lake Superior borders with Michigan and Minnesota. Ohio and PA share a Canadien border but are not included.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2024, 07:29:22 AM by 847badgerfan »
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 17163
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1973 on: April 25, 2024, 06:45:06 AM »

According to who?People who manufacture snow plows? Or have Christmas Tree Farms?Own Ski Resorts?Salt Mines?
Suburbia:Where they tear out the trees & then name streets after them.

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.