Comments (16)

Jun 22, 2012 - 7:22pm
SonnyZH, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Growth potential.

[quote]The HBS guys have MAD SWAGGER. They frequently wear their class jackets to boston bars, strutting and acting like they own the joint. They just ooze success, confidence, swagger, basically attributes of alpha males.[/quote]
Jun 22, 2012 - 7:30pm
BlackHat, what's your opinion? Comment below:
SonnyZH:
Growth potential.

Basically. KO might not be the best stock to own but it's a tremendous company. Problem is it's done growing. LULU has been a pretty great stock to own, but conversely it's probably a shitty business in the long run. Growth potential makes a stock, but it doesn't necessarily make a good business. In fact sometimes it means the business is shitty since it has a lot of room to improve or become better in one aspect or another.

I hate victims who respect their executioners
  • 1
Jun 22, 2012 - 9:04pm
WTFinance, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Strong competitive advantages. Return on invested capital is greater than company's cost of capital. Does not need to expend much capital expenditures to grow. Strong margins. Capable management. Solid corporate governance. Capable capital allocation abilities.

Jun 22, 2012 - 10:03pm
Onetwobit, what's your opinion? Comment below:
funkee monkee:
Strong competitive advantages. Return on invested capital is greater than company's cost of capital. Does not need to expend much capital expenditures to grow. Strong margins. Capable management. Solid corporate governance. Capable capital allocation abilities.
Buffett 2.0?
Jun 23, 2012 - 1:45am
WTFinance, what's your opinion? Comment below:
tmur:
funkee monkee:
Strong competitive advantages. Return on invested capital is greater than company's cost of capital. Does not need to expend much capital expenditures to grow. Strong margins. Capable management. Solid corporate governance. Capable capital allocation abilities.
Buffett 2.0?

i try

Jun 23, 2012 - 11:02am
cje1992, what's your opinion? Comment below:
funkee monkee:
Strong competitive advantages. Return on invested capital is greater than company's cost of capital. Does not need to expend much capital expenditures to grow. Strong margins. Capable management. Solid corporate governance. Capable capital allocation abilities.

How do you know what if their margins are strong? Simply based on comparing their margins to their comparables'?

"Respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life, beautify all things in your life."
Best Response
Jun 23, 2012 - 12:03pm
WTFinance, what's your opinion? Comment below:
craigje1992:
funkee monkee:
Strong competitive advantages. Return on invested capital is greater than company's cost of capital. Does not need to expend much capital expenditures to grow. Strong margins. Capable management. Solid corporate governance. Capable capital allocation abilities.

How do you know what if their margins are strong? Simply based on comparing their margins to their comparables'?

Yea, I guess at least better than industry peers. In absolute terms, I consider profit margin below 5% as weak and anything above 10% would pretty good. There's really no rule and it definitely depends on the industry. You have to look not only at the industry you're examining, but all the other industries and get a good feel about what's considered strong. Takes intuition.

Jun 22, 2012 - 10:20pm
WTFinance, what's your opinion? Comment below:

wait, OP your question is what's the difference between a good COMPANY and good STOCK? doesn't the stock represent the company? there's no difference

Jun 23, 2012 - 6:35am
einvar, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Haha had the same question posed to me by every PM I interviewed with for FT.

Good company: easily measured by ROE (decomposed DuPont), strong management, basically everything funkee monkee mentioned

Good stock: an underpriced stock

Jun 23, 2012 - 4:03pm
fomc, what's your opinion? Comment below:

first of all the question is stupid. If you think from an investor's perspective a company is good only if it is a good stock. A stock is "good" only because it is a good investment. the real question here is what makes a stock a good investment. and the answer for this is very simple: PRICE . Price is the main determinant of your return, NOT growth. What good is growth if it is already priced in the stock???????? would I buy facebook at 100bn valuation? hell no. Would I buy facebook at 10bn valuation? hell yes. The only way it makes sense to buy facebook at ABOVE 100bn is if you believe the growth is even higher. Personally I think 100bn valuation for facebook implies astronomic growth. even if that growth is achieved, you're not benefiting from it because you already paid for it, hence your return is simply the discount rate. its the same logic that some companies (the smart ones) apply when doing M&A. yeah synergies means you can pay a higher price for the company but if you paying for ALL of the synergy value then the acquiror's return on investment (investment=acquisition of the target company) will simply be whatever "cost of equity" was used in the wacc (i.e.9-10% as an example)....this assuming the target company will meet all the growth targets used in the valuation (...cause if not, their return on investment would be even lower than the cost of equity used in the wacc). So, growth in itself, without taking into account the price, is a crap answer to the question of "what makes a good stock a good investment". Understand the mechanics of what I have just written here and I guarantee you, you will be in a better position that 90% of your competition, come buyside (PE and HF) recruiting season.

Jul 1, 2012 - 9:09pm
madmoney15, what's your opinion? Comment below:
fomc:
first of all the question is stupid. If you think from an investor's perspective a company is good only if it is a good stock. A stock is "good" only because it is a good investment. the real question here is what makes a stock a good investment. and the answer for this is very simple: PRICE . Price is the main determinant of your return, NOT growth. What good is growth if it is already priced in the stock???????? would I buy facebook at 100bn valuation? hell no. Would I buy facebook at 10bn valuation? hell yes. The only way it makes sense to buy facebook at ABOVE 100bn is if you believe the growth is even higher. Personally I think 100bn valuation for facebook implies astronomic growth. even if that growth is achieved, you're not benefiting from it because you already paid for it, hence your return is simply the discount rate. its the same logic that some companies (the smart ones) apply when doing M&A. yeah synergies means you can pay a higher price for the company but if you paying for ALL of the synergy value then the acquiror's return on investment (investment=acquisition of the target company) will simply be whatever "cost of equity" was used in the wacc (i.e.9-10% as an example)....this assuming the target company will meet all the growth targets used in the valuation (...cause if not, their return on investment would be even lower than the cost of equity used in the wacc). So, growth in itself, without taking into account the price, is a crap answer to the question of "what makes a good stock a good investment". Understand the mechanics of what I have just written here and I guarantee you, you will be in a better position that 90% of your competition, come buyside (PE and HF) recruiting season.

Some of that is true and some of that is complete bullshit. Just because you know what Weighted Average Cost of Capital does not mean you know what the hell you're talking about. Growth is the biggest factor in regards to buying. Sure, price is a factor but it shouldn't be the ultimate because it is nearly impossible to time the market correctly. For example, if I bought RIM at 20 (selling .5-.6x book value), it would be comparably "cheap" to its highs but if i bought it at there I would of lost about 65% of my investment as of now. Growth and beating expectations is what moves the prices up. And why do prices go up because of the beat expectation numbers... because of implied GROWTH in the future. OP listen to that post with a grain of salt.
I truly am willing to put 100 dollars on anything that you got the 100billion dollar valuation is overrated because you were watching CNBC or Bloomberg. I sincerely doubt you know jack dick about the business model of Facebook or its projected growth rates and why people think its faulty.

Jul 7, 2012 - 8:26am
fomc, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Et dolor quasi id tenetur vero beatae. Rerum veritatis earum est delectus sit modi iste. Numquam et veritatis commodi et. Impedit sed quod temporibus. Voluptatum sed occaecati neque. Dolore dolor tenetur consequatur ut et. Nemo architecto autem aut.

Accusamus sit repudiandae quos dolorem quia. Sed soluta sed nemo ut est aut nisi distinctio. Sunt id dolor ut occaecati ut culpa quia. Vero repellat cupiditate eum ea dolorem et.

Start Discussion

Career Advancement Opportunities

July 2022 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company (▲03) 99.6%
  • Lincoln International (= =) 99.2%
  • RBC Capital Markets (▲07) 98.8%
  • Bank of America Merrill Lynch (▲01) 98.4%
  • Houlihan Lokey (▲06) 98.0%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

July 2022 Investment Banking

  • Lincoln International (▲06) 99.6%
  • Jefferies & Company (▲11) 99.2%
  • Greenhill (▲07) 98.8%
  • Rothschild (▲01) 98.4%
  • Evercore (▽01) 98.0%

Professional Growth Opportunities

July 2022 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company (▲04) 99.6%
  • Lincoln International (▲04) 99.2%
  • RBC Capital Markets (▲09) 98.8%
  • Houlihan Lokey (▲07) 98.4%
  • Bank of America Merrill Lynch (▲04) 98.0%

Total Avg Compensation

July 2022 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (9) $661
  • Vice President (37) $394
  • Associates (190) $246
  • 2nd Year Analyst (117) $162
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (17) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (369) $150
  • Intern/Summer Associate (78) $147
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (292) $92