Coca Cola or PepsiCo shares

bigfreddiel

gkerr4 wrote: »

recently? he has a holding in coke?

i might need to review my earlier statement - but there is your answer if you are deciding between the two!

In his most recent shareholder letter, Buffett said that Berkshire’s ownership interest in all four companies (American Express (AXP), Coca-Cola (KO), IBM (IBM) and Wells Fargo (WFC)) is likely to increase in the future. At yearend, they have a total unrealized gain of $26.7 billion. Berkshire received $1.1 billion of dividends from those shares.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gurufocus/2013/03/07/warren-buffett-mentions-top-4-companies-to-shareholders/

Jegersmart

bigfreddiel wrote: »

coke or pepsi

well warren buffett bought coke

there's your answer

what a lazy statement.

Apart from assuming that WB can get nothing wrong, the other problem with your statement is that if I hold BARC which I purchased at 144p, does that mean you should also buy as much BARC as you can at 310p?

Seriously...............?

J

bigfreddiel

Jegersmart wrote: »

what a lazy statement.

Apart from assuming that WB can get nothing wrong, the other problem with your statement is that if I hold BARC which I purchased at 144p, does that mean you should also buy as much BARC as you can at 310p?

Seriously...............?

J

you're not wb so i wouldn't risk it - hehehehehehe

see ya

fj

Browntrout_2

Neither unless part of a large portfolio of 20 stocks.

I prefer an actively managed fund, GAM North American Growth; real return +120% in 5 years and Threadneedle American Smaller Companies +125%, let the pros decide to trade in and out when necessary for you.

Thrugelmir

well warren buffett bought coke

Majority in 88/89 when still a growth stock.

simarks

Jegersmart wrote: »

Fizzy drinks are bad for your health, Coca Cola was recently forced to change the colouring they use to avoid having to put a carcinogen warning on their products. I don't normally allow ethics to get in the way - but even I would balk at investing in these parasites, along with psychopaths like Monsanto. Tobacco companies are at least (forced to be) open about the health-risks, this other lot are different breed and should be shut down altogether. Sustenance should be sacred and free from risks imho.

J

Coca Cola & Pepsi can be included in a healthy balanced diet, so I wouldn't feel any ethical considerations here. :beer:

gkerr4

Browntrout wrote: »

Neither unless part of a large portfolio of 20 stocks.

I prefer an actively managed fund, GAM North American Growth; real return +120% in 5 years and Threadneedle American Smaller Companies +125%, let the pros decide to trade in and out when necessary for you.

sorry, but what an awful post...

it took them 5yrs to get 120% so not great to start with - and what fee's did they take from it? - not to mention the fact that those are exceptions to most actively managed funds.

IMO - Most people, with a little study, can happily take on their own financial future and do reasonably well.

Linton

gkerr4 wrote: »

sorry, but what an awful post...

it took them 5yrs to get 120% so not great to start with - and what fee's did they take from it? - not to mention the fact that those are exceptions to most actively managed funds.

IMO - Most people, with a little study, can happily take on their own financial future and do reasonably well.

Not awful at all, very sensible in fact.

120% is 120% return - the value now is 2.2 times the value 5 years ago or an increase of 17% a year. That sounds pretty good to me. Also of course the published returns are after fees.

A small (or medium) investor in an area like North America should go for funds, particularly to access the Small Companies sector. Private investors would have real problems in individual Small Companies unless they had specialist knowledge of particular industries.

Browntrout_2

I judge that holding single company shares is very high risk. I prefer actively managed funds. Each to his own.

120% in 5 years is the real return after charges which are included on that fund. If I could double my money every five years I'd retire now!

BTW the S&P500 over the same period returned approx 30%

Many active funds don't beat the index and are not worth investing in, however many do, those are the ones I look for.

gkerr4

fair enough - and you have done well to find those funds, 17% a year isn't great though, and even that isn't indicative of most funds.

each to their own though, right enough.

Interesting to note your final para - clearly you research your funds, similar to researching individual stocks - and i congratulate you for that but this research is exactly what i mean.

but it isn't fair to assume, or indicate, that anyone can dump money in any fund and come out with 120% in 5 years!