Forum Archive Index - September 2001

["Mike Hudson" <mikehudson@clear.net.nz>]

Hugh wrote (presumably from Mount Olympus)

"Right on the nail. I refused to go in the competition (again) as it was purely measured by shareprice rather than net profit growth and net assets per share."

Well, I don’t think we need to get our knickers in a twist about this. As Nick said the Beat the Brokers competition and its derivative the SGI is only a bit of fun, however I would point out that performance is measured on total shareholder return i.e. share price and dividends. As far as net profit growth and net assets per share are concerned, are they not reflected in the share price? I am not sure what you mean by "again" as this is the first time we have run anything like this as far as I am aware.

"On a Warren Buffett basis I wouldn't I wouldn't have picked any of those shares nor did I buy them with the result that my portfolio value has not declined despite all the angst. "

Good for you, both Warren and I wish we could say the same.

"But you learn from experience - trying to persuade the mass of the conventional wisdom and fashion is like trying to sweep water uphill. I gave up with the result that the 'chartists' and short term capital boys and low NZ $ is bad camp hold sway to their own undoing."

Something has gone wrong in the transmission here but I think this is a swipe at the great unwashed on Sharechat in which case I find it rather patronising and uncalled for.

Sorry you didn’t enter our little competition Hugh; I hope you will reconsider your refusal if we run it again next year and give the rest of us mere mortals something to benchmark against.

Cheers

Mike H