Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Mr. John Chambers

My 'Dear John' Letter
By Andy Serwer
May 14, 2001

(FORTUNE Magazine) – Dear John,

Hey, dude! How ya doin'? No, really, are you okay? 'Cause I know you're going through some pretty heavy stuff out there. (Understatement!) Anyway, I need to talk to you about something. I know we spoke on the phone the other night, but it was rushed and I just didn't feel comfortable. I hate to do this in a letter, but, well, you've been so busy meeting with all those analysts and suppliers and employees.

But first I want to show you this picture I found of the two of us. Yup. Those were the days! You and me bombing around your hometown in West Virginia. The times we had were really special. Anyway, let me get to the point. This is really hard for me, John, because as you know I have so much respect for you, but right now I'm hurting pretty bad, so I guess I'll just have to say it.

John, things aren't the same between you and me anymore. Last year you were on top of the world. Cisco was on this great run, and you were talking about how it would last forever. And like a fool I bought it--lock, stock, and router. Now look at us! You're stacking up sandbags to stave off the 100-year flood, and I'm keeping my head down. Trying to avoid the stares, the whispering. (As in, "There goes the guy who wrote, 'No matter how you cut it, you've got to own Cisco.'")

Yes, John, as you well know, I penned that remarkably imperceptive sentence in what today looks to be a remarkably imperceptive story on Cisco (May 15, 2000). My timing couldn't have been less impeccable. Sure, maybe I'm being a little hard on myself. The stock was already down almost 30% from its peak of $82. But of course, that's small consolation for the 70% drop since then! Let's just say I hit as close to the top of the curve as I ever want to again.

As you may also recall, John, in that story I inducted you into the CEO Hall of Fame. It was still early, I acknowledged, but I suggested that you were as sure a bet as Ken Griffey Jr. (who ironically enough is injured right now!). Well, maybe I was a bit premature. After all, the primary stat buttressing my case wasn't RBIs or homers but the fact that you had presided over the creation of more than $541 billion in stockholder value during your first five years as CEO of CSCO. Had to be an all-time record, I wrote.

Now, let's take a look-see. Yes, Cisco's market cap is still up $103 billion during your tenure. On the other hand, you now have the ignominious distinction of presiding over the destruction of $438 billion in shareholder value! (Closing in on a trillion-dollar swing!) I wonder if any other CEO can lay claim to that feat either!

And then there are the layoffs. You've often said how painful it was to pink-slip thousands of folks at Wang earlier in your career. It was something you said you never wanted to do again. So you can't be feeling very good about dinging all those Cisco-ites. "A personal failure" is how you described it to me on the phone the other night. Lesson here, I guess, is never say never.

You told me something else too. "Stick by us," you said. Cisco will be back, and I'll feel warm and cozy about John Chambers and Cisco again. FORTUNE and Street Life will look good by making the right call for the long haul. Well, I don't know, John. I just feel so burned! (Also, as other journos always remind me, I'm a shareholder too!) One thing I do know, John, is that if ever there was a time to earn your Hall of Fame stripes, it is now. To use your own metaphor, CEOs, like the rest of us, are probably best measured not when the waters are running fast and true between the banks but when the levee breaks.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Power of being a Consumer Monopoly: Passing Along Rising Costs Lifts Kraft, Wrigley

Passing Along Rising Costs
Lifts Kraft, Wrigley

Meat Glut Chops
Tyson's Earnings
By JULIE JARGON and LAUREN ETTER
July 29, 2008; Page B1

Passing along higher costs to consumers helped Kraft Foods Inc. and Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. post strong second-quarter results, but Tyson Foods Inc.'s profit suffered because it couldn't raise chicken prices enough to offset high feed costs.

Food companies of all kinds have been hit by rising fuel and ingredients costs. But while some manufacturers of packaged food have been able to protect their profits by raising prices, an oversupply of meat and poultry has made it harder for meat companies like Tyson to do the same.


In June, the average U.S. retail price of cereals and bakery products was up 10.4% from a year earlier, compared with a 2.9% increase for meat, poultry, fish and eggs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"There's no oversupply of Oreos, so the packaged-food companies have been able to offset enough inflation to post profit growth," said Edward Jones analyst Matt Arnold.

In addition, Kraft, one of the world's biggest food companies, and gum maker Wrigley have benefited from sales in overseas markets where local currencies are strong against the dollar.

Monday, Kraft said its second-quarter net income rose 3.5% to $732 million, or 48 cents a share. Revenue rose 21% to $11.2 billion.

The company's chief executive, Irene Rosenfeld, said in an interview that she expected to see a significant decline in sales volume in the quarter, but volume fell just 1% despite a 7% increase in the company's prices.

[Chart]

Ms. Rosenfeld, who is midway through a three-year turnaround plan at Kraft that includes cost-cutting and developing premium-priced products, said the company will continue to increase its marketing spending and boost prices.

"The best thing we can do is make necessary investments in the value of our brands so that we can price away costs as they come up," she added.

Meanwhile, the Chicago-area company, whose products include Oreo cookies, Oscar Mayer hot dogs and Kraft cheese, raised its guidance for net organic revenue growth this year to 6% from 5%, due to price increases. It also raised its 2008 target for earnings, excluding items, to at least $1.92 a share, up from $1.90.

Wrigley said second-quarter net rose 14% to $194 million, or 70 cents a share. Sales also rose 14% to $1.57 billion. The Chicago company, which makes Juicy Fruit and Orbit brand gums, attributed more than half its sales gain to strong foreign currencies, with the rest coming from higher-priced products and increased shipments in Asia. In North America, where sales were up 5%, Wrigley's volume declined by about 5% because of higher prices.

Things weren't so rosy for Tyson, which warned that its U.S. chicken business will take longer than expected to recover from high feed costs. Tyson's net for the fiscal third quarter ended June 28 plunged 92% to $9 million, or 3 cents, as revenue rose 3.5% to $6.8 billion. An operating loss of $44 million in Tyson's chicken business largely offset profits at the Springdale, Ark., company's beef and pork businesses.

Dick Bond, Tyson's CEO, told investors that he expected the company's corn and soybean costs to be about $550 million higher this year than last. So far, Tyson says, it hasn't been able to pass along the higher costs to consumers, but Mr. Bond warned that higher prices are on the horizon.

"The consumer really hasn't felt the $6 and $7 grain markets yet, either on beef, pork or chicken," he said. "We are going to see the effects of that coming through at some point in time."

Sunday, June 8, 2008

KOG- Oil Company

This stock does not fit to Buffettology but it rocks to $ 4 recently because of oil in the Williston Basin of North Dakota. Does SJC have property in Montana? Below are from thestreet.com:

First up is Kodiak, an oil and gas producer that operates in the western U.S. The main catalyst for the company lies in the Bakken Shale play, located in the Williston Basin of North Dakota and Montana. The company recently increased the amount of land it owns in this area to approximately 38,000 acres. Kodiak has yet to drill a well on the property, but activity in the area has been successful for several operators -- leading to high expectations for Kodiak. This has resulted in a nice jump in the stock price over the past two months, from its 52-week low of $1.54.

Friday, May 16, 2008

Visa (V) Maket Cap: $68B PE(F) 32

Biz Summary:

Biz: Global electronic payment system

Market: Consumer, financial institution and government

Product: 3 business operations: a) transaction processing service; b) product platforms and c) payment network management.

1

Consumer Monopoly

Yes

2

Predictable, expanding Earning

Earning Growth 19%(yoy)

3

Conservatively Financed

Cash=$5.6B; Debt =112m

4

Higher ROE> 12%

25% (only a year)

5

Retaining its Earning

Yes

6

Spending on current operation

Operating Margin =35

7

Reinvest wisely

Yes

8

Priced to inflation

No

9

Retained Earning increase market value

Think so












Income Statement(From Etrade)


2004

2005

2006

2007

Revenue

2429

2665

2948

3590

OP Expensive

1999

2212

2218

5039

OP Income

430

453

730

(1449)

All in Million






Chart for Visa Inc. (V)

Who else invest and perform similar to Warren

The following is the lists provided by Soumen during our 5/13/2008 Meeting. Enjoy!

Remember to share what you find under this topic.


FAIRHOLME FUND: Bruce Berkowitz
LEUCADIA (LUK)
Longleaf Partners (LLPFX): Mason Hawking
Third Avenue Value (TAVFX): Marty Whitman
Sears Holdings: Eddie Lampert
Templeton Dragon Fund Inc (Public, NYSE:TDF)

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Simplified Value Investing Principles (Buffet & YesInvestor)

Here is a link to version 1 of value investment principle based on older Warren Buffet speech.

I posted about 3 years ago. For those involved in my businesses, you will see them fully applied in all my investment business.

http://yesinvestor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25

P.S. If you want a user name and pass, please e-mail me directly as I have shut down auto-registration due to spamming.

Saturday, May 3, 2008

Why I go to work in the morning

Buffett goes to Wharton

Why Warren Buffett views his job as similar to painting the Sistine Chapel.

By Nicholas Varchaver, senior editor

(Fortune) -- In a presentation he made to students at the Wharton School earlier this month and a subsequent interview with Fortune, Warren Buffett shared his thoughts on everything from the economy to the credit crisis and the Bear Stearns bailout.

In this Web exclusive, we present further excerpts from his talk with the students, in which the megabillionaire offers his insights on judging managers, buying businesses, what metrics - if any - he relies upon, and why he views his job as similar to painting the Sistine Chapel.

Q: You said before that one of the things you look for in businesses you're buying is good managers who are honest, capable, and hard-working. To me, that's a hard judgment to make if you haven't known him for long on a personal level. How do you go about figuring that out about somebody, and how long does it take you to make that evaluation?

WB: Well, almost always, we're buying businesses where the managers come with it, so I do have a record [I can judge]. If I had to pick out the five people in this group here who would be the best managers, I wouldn't know how to do it. I mean, you all have great IQs, you have great academic records. You've all shown the energy to get into school and push hard and all that. So you'd have all these attractive qualities.

Can I pick out the five best? I don't think I can do it. What I can do, when I've seen somebody run a business for 20 years, is decide whether they're going to keep behaving in the future as they have in the past, if I keep the conditions that caused them to behave that way in the past. So when I buy a business - it's the biggest question I ask myself if I decide it's a good business - is "Do they love the money, or do they love the business?" Now, if they love the business, we can do business. If they love the money, we can't.

Now, let's say they love the business, as our managers do. They sell me a business for a billion dollars and can hardly wait to get to work in the morning.

In that situation, I'm the only guy that can mess it up. I can take that out of them. I can't put it into them. But I say to myself, "Why do I go to work in the morning?" I've got enough money. I've got Social Security now, even. [Laughter] I'll make it, you know? The kids won't get much, but that's their problem. So I say, "Why do I go to work in the morning?"

Well, there are two reasons. I love painting my own painting. I come down to the office, I get on my back, and I start painting. And I think I'm in the Sistine Chapel. It's my painting. Now, if somebody says, "Use more red paint instead of blue. Paint a seascape instead of a landscape," I would hand them the brush in five seconds and I'd say-I'd say a few other things, too - but I'd say, "Do your own painting. I'll go paint what I want to paint." I get to do my own painting. And then I get applause - if I deserve it. And I like that. I like having the painting admired, and I like to get to paint my own painting. That's so much more important to me than getting my golf score down three strokes or beating somebody at shuffleboard or something. I mean, it is the ultimate pleasure.

Now, if that turns me on, why won't it turn on these people who have built their own businesses? They have spent their life creating a wonderful painting. Now, for one reason or another, maybe tax reasons, maybe sibling reasons, who knows what, they need to sell it, they need to monetize it.

They come to me, and they know that at Berkshire they're going to keep the brush, they're going to keep doing the painting, and I have to look at them and decide whether they are people that really care about their painting or care about the money. [One giveaway is] if they auction the business. We've never bought a business at an auction. Never. Anybody that wants to auction off their family or auction off the creation of a lifetime, that's not what we want.

I tell people you've got two choices. You've spent a lifetime building this business. Or maybe your father built the business and you carried it on. Maybe your grandfather. You've given up vacations sometimes. You worked on weekends and all these things to create this really incredible painting that you're bringing to me. Now, if they want to auction it, they're not for me.

I tell them they have two choices. They can sell it to us, and it'll be in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. We'll have a wing for their painting. People will come and admire it, which they do. And they will say, "That's one hell of a painter." And you get to keep painting. Or you can take this marvelous painting and you can sell it to a porn shop. [Laughter] And he'll take the thing and he'll make the boobs a little bigger, something like that. And put it in the window. And a guy will come over in a raincoat a few years later, and he'll buy it, post it in his window, and it'll become a piece of meat, basically. We get the ones who care about having in it the Metropolitan Museum.

I got a fax almost three years ago on a Wednesday from a fellow I'd never met about a company I'd never heard of. This fellow named Peter Liegl ran Forest River over in Elkhart, Indiana. He sent me a couple pages, and said, "This is the sort of thing it looks like you're generally interested in."

I called him up that day. I said, "Pete, send me the last few audits. FedEx it, and I'll call you tomorrow afternoon." Never met him, never heard of the company. (It's a recreational vehicle company.) So I got in on Thursday morning, and I called him that afternoon. I said, "Pete, here's what I'll do. And if it works for you, fine." I'd never met the guy, but I could still tell by just the way he presented it and his thinking on it. And he said, "Fine. I'll come over next week with my wife and daughter, who own the stock."

And they came over late in the afternoon. I said to him, "Pete, what kind of salary would you like"; this is a company that did a billion seven last year. That's not the way they teach you to do it in business school, but I don't want anybody working for me that has a compensation system they're unhappy with. These people don't need me. They've got all the money they need. I'm going to [invest] hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars [in their businesses]. And he said, "I don't know." And I said, "Well, just tell me because I want you to be happy. You have to run this thing." "Well," he took a little while, "Well," he said, "I looked at the proxy statement, you make $100,000. I wouldn't want to make more than you do." So that became his salary.

Then I said, "You should get paid for exceeding the figures [on which I'm basing the decision to buy the company]. So," I said, "I want you to have a percentage interest in future earnings above this level," which we worked out. But he offered $100,000 and I offered the percentage above that. He has run the business magnificently since then. I've never been to Elkhart, Indiana. I've never seen this place. I hope it's there. [Laughter] Pete may have some 11-year-old kid in there that says, "What figure shall we send Warren?" [Laughter] The guy has done a remarkable job.

If I told Pete whether he should build a new plant, whether he should bring out a new model, whether he should change dealer firms, he'd tell me to take a hike. You know, why shouldn't he tell me to take a hike? He doesn't need the job. As long as that thing is a lot of fun for him, he's going to keep running it. And he'll run it for a long time.

[I get offered all] kinds of deals from LBO operators. I would just love to bet against the projections of every one that they give me. They hand me these books, which I don't even want to look at, but they hand me the books, and of course they always just project like that [points upward like a graph that only increases]. I would just love to make a career out of betting against the figures presented in those books, but I don't get a chance to do that. If you ever get a chance to short investment banker books, that would be a great activity.

Q: When you purchase a subsidiary, you've mentioned that you allow them to reinvest capital if they're able to go above a certain hurdle rate. So I was wondering how you decide what the cost of capital should be on a risk-adjusted basis.

WB: Well, we don't think about cost of capital or risk-adjusted. I mean, we don't want to take any risk, and we don't. That doesn't mean we don't do things that are wrong and all that, but we are not doing anything that risks real losses.

You know, GEICO spends 800 million on advertising. I may spend $200 million that's wrong this year at GEICO or something. But I recognize the things that I can't further refine. What we do with capital is we just look for the best thing we can do at any given time. I mean, in the end, we're going to retain everything.

We don't want to do anything that doesn't create more than a dollar's worth of value for every dollar expended. And we'll do the best we can. And as I said earlier [regarding stock holdings], we would have sold the thing to do something that offered even better opportunity. We won't do that with businesses at Berkshire. That's a pledge I make to people. If they sell me the business, it's going to stay in the Metropolitan Museum forever. I may make a mistake.

If it's going to permanently lose money, I reserve the right to sell it, and if it has labor problems, I reserve the right to sell it. That's in the back of the annual report every year. They've been there for 20-plus years, those principles. But we believe in them. We follow through on them. So we won't dump a business that way. But about 200 million a week comes in to me every week. I like it, too. [Laughter] And it's my job to figure out how to allocate that.

The smaller capital expenditures, or even fairly large ones at the subsidiaries, they just do them themselves. They don't need me, because if some guy comes in to me and talks about something in the yarn plant or something in Georgia, what the hell do I know about it? I mean, they can always present it in a way that makes it look good. If I say the internal rate of return we demand is 15.83, it'll be 15.84. I mean, you just can bet on it. I've never seen a project that doesn't meet your hurdle rate, you know, if they really want to do it. We don't go through those charades. And it saves my time, saves their time.

If we get into bigger deals, then I get involved. Buying businesses of any size and things of that sort. But we just look for the most intelligent thing. And our cutoff point is where we don't think we're creating more than a dollar of value for every dollar we lay out. Marketable securities, to some extent we just look for the things we think have the best expectancy, but we're not buying - there isn't one security that I've got in the portfolio that I look at as-in terms of risky - in the sense of permanent capital loss. They can go down 50%.

Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA, Fortune 500) stock itself has gone down 50% three times since I bought the first stock in at 7 3/8. In 1974 it got cut in half. In 1987 it got cut in half. In 1998, 2000 or so it got cut in half. So that doesn't make any difference. I mean, I just don't worry about it. I worry about permanent loss of capital. I worry about making the right businesses. I worry about keeping the managers happy. Everything else pretty much takes care of itself.

Last Updated: May 2, 2008: 9:41 AM EDT