Post New

[Mistakenly posted {twice, to make matters worse} to the Falling Knives board, a characterization which would be an exaggeration]

I couldn't think of any that seemed that great, off the top of my head.

Here are the public equity investments of significant size (over 0.2% of the current portfolio) initiated in the 3.5 years since January 2022. Most of them have been gradually built up to their current size over several quarters.

2025:
United Health Group UNH 0.6%
Nucor Corp NUE 0.3%
Lennar Corp LEN 0.3%

2024:
Domino's Pizza DPZ 0.5%
Constellation Brands STZ 0.8%
Pool Corp POOL 0.4%

2023:
Chubb Limited CBB 3.0%
Liberty Media Corp A and C shares LLYVA and LLYVK 0.5%
Lennar Corp LEN 0.3%
Capital One Financial COF 0.6%

2022:
Ally Financial ALLY 0.4%


For the rest, they were either very small (smaller than 0.2%), or bought and already sold, like Floor and Decor, Activision Blizzard, or Taiwan Semiconductor. And there was some buying of Apple (and, more recently, a ton of selling), along with small fairly regular increases to Chevron and Occidental. Nothing has done particulary well, as far as I can see, although of course it is early days.

That's a pretty long dry spell, with only Chubb amounting to more than 1% of the portfolio (3%), Constellation Brands and United Health Group a little less than 1% in second and third place, and all the others about 0.5% or less.

I can't say any of these sound very exciting to me. If I had to choose my favourite, it would be United Health, a hold your nose contrarian bet at a very low price. Most of the rest are probably Combs and Wechsler, so it seems that Buffett is just waiting.

Did I miss any? What are others' favourites among this group, and why?

Regards, DTB

Possibly no indevidual on, but I'm guessing as a group they would qualify - and are excelling:

8001:tyo Itochu Corp
8002:tyo Marubeni Corp
8031:tyo Mitsui
8053:tyo Sumitomo
8058:tyo Mitsubishi

Between them, they cover a vast proportion of the Japanese export economy.

Jeff

Possibly no indevidual on, but I'm guessing as a group they would qualify - and are excelling:

8001:tyo Itochu Corp
8002:tyo Marubeni Corp
8031:tyo Mitsui
8053:tyo Sumitomo
8058:tyo Mitsubishi

Between them, they cover a vast proportion of the Japanese export economy.


Yes, I like these too, and I coat-tailed 0.2% stakes in 3 of them in May 2025, up 21% on average since then.

I didn't put them in my list because they were mostly bought in 2019. But Buffett did buy a fair bit more at the beginning of this year, increasing his stakes by about 10-20%, and now owns about 10% of each, and perhaps a bit more, since they have all allowed him to go somewhat beyond the previous 10% limit.

After this last known increase, they represented 2.6%, 1.2%, 2.3%, 1.1% and 3.0%. So they are quite big investments, and even the increases would qualify as significant (>0.2%). Combined, they now represent about 10% of the $303b investment portfolio, about the size of the #3 holding (Bank of America). For comparison, #1 Apple was at 22% at the end of June, and #2 American Express was at 16%, with #4 Coca-Cola at 9%.

I have not counted subsequent share price movements, but it is worth noting that these sogo shosha are all up another 17-28% since June 30, so they probably represent an even higher share now.

There is an old quote: "Silence is the most powerful scream". Perhaps the comparative "silence" in only putting a pittance of Berkshire's huge cash hoard into stocks as noted in the recent 13F filing is a powerful sub-sonic scream that stocks are over-priced and none meet Berkshire's margin of safety requirements for new investments.

I'm finding itty bitty companies meeting my personal margin of safety requirements and gingerly still collecting information before pushing the buy button. As many of you know from experience, the extremely small companies with capitalizations under $500m are frequently hard to enter (you drive up the price when buying in quantity) and hard to exit (you similarly drive down the price when exiting in quantity). They also have other types of headwinds and issues.

Moving up the capitalization ladder, the majority of quality companies with market capitalization between 10 billion and 100 billion are currently priced above my MOS threshold. Thus, everyday is a reading and evaluating day while waiting for a market capitulation or more frequently, the capitulation of a particular quality company's stock valuation.

Anyone else in the same boat and doing research while waiting to pull the trigger to put available funds to work?

Uwharrie

everyday is a reading and evaluating day while waiting for a market capitulation or more frequently, the capitulation of a particular quality company's stock valuation.

Anyone else in the same boat and doing research while waiting to pull the trigger to put available funds to work?

There's a story about a guy caught in a flood, he climbs onto the roof of a building to await rescue. He prays to God for rescue. A raft comes along and he waves it away saying God will rescue me. A boat comes along and he waves it away saying God will rescue me. A helicopter comes and he waves it away saying God will rescue me.

Sadly, he drowns and then complains to God that his prayer was not answered. God said, "What do you mean? I sent you a raft and a boat and a helicopter."

Forget trying to catch the random short-term swings. Look at a 10 year chart of your stock and count all the times that waiting for a "better price" would have had you standing at the sideline while the stock sailed away without you.

I still remember a long discussion in the mid-2000's with a guy who insisted that AAPL was too expensive above 100 and he was waiting for it to drop to 95 to buy. That was before cumulative 28-1 splits. We poked fun at him for the next several years.
Today AAPL is split-reversed $6550. Holding out for a $10-$15 price drop cost him over $6000.

As Jim Cramer says, "Buy when you can, not when you have to."

If it's a good stock, it's a good stock at the current price. If it's not a good stock it doesn't matter how cheap it is.

I still remember a long discussion in the mid-2000's with a guy who insisted that AAPL was too expensive above 100 ...
If it's a good stock, it's a good stock at the current price. If it's not a good stock it doesn't matter how cheap it is.

The problem is that you've used the word "if" there twice. It's certainly true, but without either (a) a crystal ball to know in advance which tiny few firms have a super bright future, or (b) a margin of safety sufficient to cover the range of plausible outcomes, you're asking for a world of hurt.

It's fine for a post cite how smart it was to buy Apple back when: it would have been, with hindsight. But one must also realize that such a purchase involved intuiting that they were about to introduce the most successful product in all human history. (Or for that matter consider a Bogle-type post suggesting that the S&P was a brilliant purchase citing its fabulous returns since then, anticipating that it would soon be three times as expensive as its prior historical average: sure, knowing that in advance, it would have been a great pick. We could equally have seen valuation levels like the early 1980s, though.)

You tell me which few companies will grow 100-fold in the next decade, and I promise not to quibble about their current valuations!

Till then, I'll stick with stocks where I'm pretty-darned-sure I'll be getting at least €1/share/year on average in real owner earnings 5-10 years from now for every €10 of share price today.


On the subject of the points raised in the thread, current market conditions do offer pretty slim pickings for those that insist on a good value for money. The best bets seem to be in the scratch and dent bin: a firm with an obvious problem, but a good deal if you conclude the problem is probably not permanent or fatal. (there's that word "if" again).

Random thought from the damaged goods department: Brown-Forman (Jack Daniel's etc) is trading at 1/3 of where it was trading a while back, at $27.46. This is about their fourth year of flat sales per share. Now, maybe booze will not be the business it once was, but also maybe it won't totally go away. Their products might one day be for sale again in Canada. A doubling in share price in the next few years would not be surprising to me, and there's a 3.3% dividend yield to amuse you in the mean time.

Jim

Random thought from the damaged goods department: Brown-Forman (Jack Daniel's etc) is trading at 1/3 of where it was trading a while back, at $27.46. This is about their fourth year of flat sales per share. Now, maybe booze will not be the business it once was, but also maybe it won't totally go away. Their products might one day be for sale again in Canada. A doubling in share price in the next few years would not be surprising to me

Oh that’s an easy one. Get the right product placement in the right franchise and it’s done. Make Jack Reacher an Old No.7 drinker and sales will boom. Maybe make it with shaved ice to give it some faux cachet (and watered down to boot: see “shaken, not stirred”), somehow get Canada back (hey, we bootlegged their stuff for years in the 1920’s) on the drug, and all will be well.

And the divvy on the side is a nice treat, too.

What’s typical behavior for liquor stocks during recessions? Do they tend to keep their value due to increased sales to people down on their luck, or do they react like cosmetic makeup sales, increasing as a treat to oneself during hard times?

Oh that’s an easy one.
I’m not convinced. It’s still hard to find Heinz products in the province of Ontario, since they shut down a plant in 2014. For as nice as they are, Canadians can hold a grudge. And the didn’t like being called the 51st state.

What’s typical behavior for liquor stocks during recessions? Do they tend to keep their value due to increased sales to people down on their luck, or do they react like cosmetic makeup sales, increasing as a treat to oneself during hard times?

Historically they were considered very defensive. Earnings chugged along. Obviously everything sells off briefly during a stock market panic, but they generally held up better than most things. Brown-Forman was trading around $15 (say, 13.50 - 16.50) in the two years before the credit crunch, and was back there by around end '09 after a brief dip into the $10-11.25 range.

The pandemic was an exception for most alcohol groups. People stayed at home and drank a lot, among other things, so they had a little bubble then a hangover from the bubble. The Peloton effect. So you have to ignore earnings and price levels during the pandemic recovery.

I mentioned the big four international drinks firms a while back on the non-US stocks board, though it could just have easily been Falling Knives. (Diageo, Campari, Pernod-Ricard, and Remy Martin)
https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=448539467&wholeThre...
They're all currently still 37% - 57% off their 52 week highs. (well, 52 weeks ending at the date of that post)

Jim

I owned Brown-Forman for 25 years and enjoyed a more than tipsy 1,000% total return on the stock over that time. Brown-Forman is a dividend aristocrat and has paid dividends for 81 straight years and increased its dividend for 41 consecutive years. I happened to purchase the stock on March 10, 2000, the same day I added to my Berkshire position and bought Fastenal, Genuine Parts and Johnson & Johnson, all of which I still own. In hindsight, that date turned out to be the peak of Nasdaq during the dot-com mania with most “old economy” stocks in the bargain bin.

Like Berkshire, Brown-Forman has A and B shares but the family controls all the voting rights, which never bothered me, as I like family-run businesses. Over the years, Brown-Forman has done many acquisitions and divestitures. I was disappointed when they sold Lennox back in 2005, as shareholders received a free Lennox Christmas ornament each year which was a nice perk. My husband always enjoyed our visits to Brown-Forman’s Woodford Reserve distillery in Kentucky, as he is a bourbon drinker and still collects their special edition bottles put out each year for the Kentucky Derby.

However, we never made a trip to Lynchburg, Tennessee to tour Jack Daniel’s distillery and see the “infamous” safe that Jack Daniel supposedly kicked in frustration over forgetting the combination, severely injuring his toe and leading to blood poisoning and ultimately his death according to company folklore.

I recently and somewhat reluctantly sold my long-held position in Brown-Forman as this will likely be the third year in a row that the company will “grow backwards” with both sales and earnings declining. The company’s return on shareholders’ equity has also been steadily declining for several years from about 34% five years ago to an estimated 18% this year, which is a hint that its moat (brands) may be eroding as fewer young people drink its spirits.

For some reason, American whiskey is always the target of tariffs, and this time is no different. However, this is the first time that Canada pulled all Jack Daniel’s bottles completely off the shelf in protest of U.S. policies. Brown-Forman has undergone several significant management and organizational changes in 2024 and 2025 as part of a broader strategic initiative to streamline operations and position the company for future growth. I wish them well! Cheers!

Hemp beverages continue to gain ground. Any serious research starts in Minnesota where the regulatory framework is quite clear. Visit the liquor stores and see how much shelf space is being devoted to them...significantly more than a year ago. A privately owned brand that is doing extremely well is Uncle Arnie's. Getting back on the store shelves in Canada, etc. will provide a one time sales boost but otherwise can anyone cite a catalyst that will increase sales for liquor? Also if one goes to Costco they have a nice selection of Kirkland brands...do they taste any different?

I have some Diageo. My random thoughts on drinking trends.

*Boomers are getting older and drinking less or not at all due to age. Wine / beers / spirits.

*I'm a Millenial and am drinking far less, my body can't take it anymore and I feel better the less I drink. Noticeable amongst peer group also.

*Gen Z the trend is more extreme, and they're not in pubs / clubs like i was at that age, they're in the gym. I go too and mix with them. Instead they're gaming at home or watching netflix / youtube.

*Alcohol is going the way of tobacco, Youtube is full of podcasts linking alcohol to cancer etc.

<< However, we never made a trip to Lynchburg, Tennessee to tour Jack Daniel’s distillery ... >>

Former local here. My sister-in-law is from Lynchburg. If for some reason you
do make it out there, I'd also recommend a side trip to the Cascade Hollow
Distilling Co. in Tullahoma, home of George Dickel whiskey.

We used to do regular bicycle rides from Nashville to both distilleries.

-Rubic

My random thoughts on drinking trends.

*Boomers are getting older and drinking less or not at all due to age. Wine / beers / spirits.
*I'm a Millenial and am drinking far less, my body can't take it anymore and I feel better the less I drink. Noticeable amongst peer group also.
*Gen Z the trend is more extreme, and they're not in pubs / clubs like i was at that age, they're in the gym. I go too and mix with them. Instead they're gaming at home or watching netflix / youtube.
*Alcohol is going the way of tobacco, Youtube is full of podcasts linking alcohol to cancer etc.


Though what you say is certainly the observed trend, enough to be received wisdom, it may not be a trend without end. Perhaps there is nuance worth considering.

Consider

An article in the FT from July 2
https://www.ft.com/content/1ae55e45-64a6-463a-b04b...

Gen Z acquires taste for drinking as cost of living pressures ease
Survey shows drop in abstinence among young adults as drinks industry battles perception of structural decline

"An IWSR survey of more than 26,000 people across the 15 largest alcoholic drinks markets found 73 per cent of Gen Z respondents — people of legal drinking age to 27 — had consumed alcohol in the previous six months, compared with 66 per cent two years ago. That was the biggest increase of any generation, according to IWSR, a market researcher for the global beverage industry. Meanwhile, 72 per cent of baby boomers — people aged 60 and over — said they had drunk alcohol over the same time period, compared with 73 per cent two years ago, said IWSR, which also found overall alcohol consumption was still moderating across generations.
...
The share of Gen X (those aged between 44 and 59) that said they had drunk alcohol in the last half year rose from 77 per cent in 2023 to 79 per cent this year. The figures for millennials (28 to 43) rose from 79 per cent to 83 per cent. Six per cent of boomers said they were actively drinking more, compared with 29 per cent of Gen Z respondents."


Some fraction of the fall off in drinking is because it costs money. One possible view is that drinking rises with age for a while as the average person gets a bit wealthier, and only later falls off as the body handles it worse. The peak may be lower than in the past, but that doesn't mean that alcohol spending among those who are relatively abstemious at age 20 will be equally low at age 30.

Humans have been enjoying a drink probably since before there was language, so I doubt it will fade away completely and forever.

Jim

I did not have access to the article, so apologies if what I conclude from your excerpts are incorrect.

... had consumed alcohol in the previous six months,...

So one sip for a toast at a friend's wedding puts you in the drinking category? Over 6 months time, no less? I would be more impressed if there were some qualifier such as "regularly" consumed...

Some fraction of the fall off in drinking is because it costs money. One possible view is that drinking rises with age for a while as the average person gets a bit wealthier, and only later falls off as the body handles it worse.

This would not explain the huge rise in Mocktails, which are just as expensive as alcohol based drinks, if not more. We have been eating out quite a bit recently, in Montreal and Quebec City, with every restaurant we go to having a page on the drink menu for Mocktails. Back in the US, I frequently notice new alcohol free bars popping up. Alcohol free wine and spirits are even available at places like Home Goods. I don't see this trend happening to the degree it does without serious coin being put towards it. Does that mean no alcohol consumption at all? Probably not, but it seems to be a declining consumption trend.

IP,
who finds the hard cider here in Canada so much better than what we can buy at home

I think the reduction in alcohol consumption may be an enduring long term phenomenon. I was watching US Open Tennis on TV recently and one of the main sponsors of the Open is Heineken 0.0 (non-alcoholic beer).

Tom Russo of Semper Vic Partners ($9B)has a big stake in Heineken held for many years, decades actually. He voiced reasons for holding Heineken in a recent podcast interview.

Uwharrie

I think the reduction in alcohol consumption may be an enduring long term phenomenon.

Enduring could mean a few things. I think that in the grand sweep of history, it's more likely to be cyclical.

Ignoring the stretch around and just after prohibition up to the war, the low stretch in pure ethanol consumption in the US for the last century or two was 1947-1961 at around 7.6 litres/year. It rose sharply for a while and was over 10 litres/year around 1973-1983. The most recent figures seem to be around 9.5 litres. A lot of the changes can be explained by changes in the shape of the population pyramid, less by changes in human nature.

So, offhand, I would consider the scale of a major lasting generational drop in consumption levels, if we see it as you suggest, to be equivalent to a fall of maybe ~20% back to the figures seen in the prior postwar low stretch. Real dollar value of consumption might fall less, as people are on average richer than they were before. My investment thesis is that the better companies might have a slowdown or one time shrinkage, but will still be formidable businesses with extremely resilient and long-lasting income streams. That requires a discerning eye on what the new volume levels might be, but those "remnants" may well deserve a strong premium in valuation.

In some other markets like France, the fall may be more major and lasting, simply because there were extremely high levels a while back. Nobody here wants to consume the oceans of mediocre wine that used to be guzzled day and night, when consumption per capita was over 25 litres/year in the 1960s. (it's now under 12, but interestingly the whole of the fall has been in wine...spirits and beer consumption are flat in the last 60-70 years)

Jim

Likewise here in the UK on Sky Guinness Zero is the only drink in that category being advertised on the network, is their fastest growing brand (up 50% in 2024) and now accounts for 8% of Guinness Sales.

So, offhand, I would consider the scale of a major lasting generational drop in consumption levels, if we see it as you suggest, to be equivalent to a fall of maybe ~20% back to the figures seen in the prior postwar low stretch.

The use of spirits has waxed and waned over the centuries but there has never been a period where it has gone away (the failed Prohibition experiment excepted, and even then…) but I would note there is a new player on the field, because Along Came Mary. After a century of locking people up for the use of a mild psychoactive it has finally come out of the closet - and can be substantially more potent than when it was (widely) consumed underground. That, I believe, takes some of the oomph out of the alcohol gas tank, pardon the mixed metaphor, as a significant cohort of people now socialize, sexualize, and otherwise entertain themselves with different lubricants.

While MJ has always been around it certainly hasn’t been as conveniently around, nor as potent as it is these days, so I would expect *some* diminution in the use of alcohol spirits, though I think it will be a far day when there are Blunt stands at the local football games to compete with Budweiser and Miller Lite.

We’ve cut back a bit not only based on middle-age metabolic slowdown/calories, but also Inflation.

Recently bought a “tall boy” can of domestic beer at a local MLB venue as well as a nearby concert venue & it was $18, without tip. How about those margins?! We can buy an import 12-pack of bottles for a similar price at the local store.

I’m sounding like my late father!

I think that in the grand sweep of history, it's more likely to be cyclical.

Ignoring the stretch around and just after prohibition up to the war, the low stretch in pure ethanol consumption in the US for the last century or two was 1947-1961 at around 7.6 litres/year. It rose sharply for a while and was over 10 litres/year around 1973-1983. The most recent figures seem to be around 9.5 litres. A lot of the changes can be explained by changes in the shape of the population pyramid, less by changes in human nature.

So, offhand, I would consider the scale of a major lasting generational drop in consumption levels, if we see it as you suggest, to be equivalent to a fall of maybe ~20% back to the figures seen in the prior postwar low stretch. Real dollar value of consumption might fall less, as people are on average richer than they were before. My investment thesis is that the better companies might have a slowdown or one time shrinkage, but will still be formidable businesses with extremely resilient and long-lasting income streams. That requires a discerning eye on what the new volume levels might be, but those "remnants" may well deserve a strong premium in valuation.



I think this might be the case if it were just a matter of alcohol going out of fashion, like people substituting marijuana for alcohol for instance. But I don't think alcohol's fairly steep drop* in the last few years is because of marijuana, I think it is out of concern for general health. I have been impressed at how seriously people around me have taken the public health warnings about small increases in cancer risk, for instance. I personally think the cancer risk associated with what I would call moderate drinking (2-3 drinks a day) are not very impressive, and certainly nothing like the huge increases in risk from smoking, but I think people are genuinely worried about this. If I am right, the decline in drinking may not swing back as fashions change, just like I suspect that smoking will (thankfully) not bounce back.

*USA:
2023: 62% of USA adults report that they consume alcohol
2024: 58%
2025: 54%

Post New

Living Abroad FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.