I would say, best of luck, but you don't need to be lucky with Berkshire if you buy and hold. Although, I guess you have done it, read all the books you can about his way of thinking. Buy the way, Berkshire actually will paid for those books and much more in the form of compound interest. It is a company that creates value on the long term like now other. Not to mention the fact that The Melinda Gates foundation is probably the most underestimated philanthropic effort of our time.
When anything else is almost equal among peers, go always with a company the sets the lowest expectations for their next quarter. Of course, it is a good signal if that company has beat those expectations before. But google Blackberry´s former CEO´s predictions for more information.
If they buy some of Juniper, it would be stupid to give away any dividend.
Most US investors do not need to take so much pride of US companies, for there are just so many around the world. Maybe a few: Mac, Coca-Cola, Nike, Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook...but those success stories are taken for granted, cause all of them are felt as the result of how things "are done" in the US. In fact, a
reaction is very common: US activists (historically, the most effective, by far, at changing policies that had a great influence on the rest of the world) rely on the First Amendment which is, so far, un-matched: One can say almost anything about anyone, or any institution or company if she/he is, more or less, documented (all still controlled by the media or directly tracked) . Now, if one uses humor and(or fiction there are almost no boundaries to free speech.
But, you see, EU countries share just a few values: No death penalty, social security almost granted (those days might be gone), respect to privacy...I,m afraid that is it. Oh! The euro! I forgot.
While it is true that Europeans are far from developing any sentiment about "our" companies: BMW is Germany, Nokia is Finland, Ferrari is Italy, Zara is Spain and so on...EU policy makers need to stand for EU companies as a whole. Simply because we have no choice. I know this sounds cheese, but Nokia is, therefore, one of us. A very important one. It is not that is too big to fall, but it is too much of a "flagship" to fall, and especially so when you consider that we live in the patent fight cycle and the espionage cycle thrill. Policy makers will have to apply some reciprocity agreements sooner or later. So here comes Nokia.
Nokia is going to get all the money it needs (off- balance) to fight this patent cycle and espionage cycle, at least on EU territory: 500 million people in the room. Since Germany is not a big player in the mobile service solutions, who, do you think, they are going too push forward? Of course, US policy makers may go Huawei. Or the Chinese might grant Us access!..Sure!
Actually, companies do not need to repatriate new cash-flows anymore. I goes from the Us to Ireland, from Ireland to the cayman islands, to a tiny empty building, no staff, and then back to the US. That is well documented
Not only US companies. Paying 10% tax on the US is considered a failure, bad accounting staff.
Of course messageboardid , Rad did perform better than Nok, and it could double. But debt seems too high. I might be wrong, as my approach is more towards value than growth. I wish you the best with both companies.
There is a good book: "Fixing the game", in which the author compares Apple to Enron. I guess there are still much more Enrons types than Apples in the way executives behave. I think Apple is a safe bet, but Nokia has to prove it yet. Being a Finnish company, somehow I took that for granted, but...
Good point mrkruncher: " In addition, a lot of companies just end up giving executive employees free or cheap stock options that increase the total number of shares outstanding to near previous buyback totals"...I guess I am naive as to how things work in most public companies. I think that would never happen at Berkshire Hathaway, but I guess that is the exception to the rule. Thanks for pointing that out.
A dividend could be a signal for dissapointing news, while buying back shares means that they believe the future value of the company is greater than it´s actual per share market price, plus the dividend, and that they know how to invest that money . A long term investor would prefer a buyback than a dividend, unless they need that money to spend it and not to invest.
Not all earnings are created equal. If a company increases their debt , almost doubles the shares outstanding, creating on the equity side an accumulated deficit at almost the same pace, one has to take any good news with more than a grain of salt. In general, I like Motley fool, but my feeling is that they tend to follow the trend. Being contrarian is way too risky if one wants to keep her/his job. As any analyst, in the past and now, it is much better to be wrong on popular stocks, and no stock is "boring" once its price surges on the short-term. It is not a change in value, but a change in price what makes a stock exciting again.
So you are not completely sold on that! You think It could double at least. Rad retained earnings are minus 7billion. If you do know what that means, and how it relates to other fundamentals, and how it could affect long term value, please, tell me. If you don´t, I´ll give you a hand
Do not ever, ever, buy an un-locked smartphone from t-mobile. Getting and un-lock code is a nightmare. You will end up lock up even thought you paid full price for the phone. They take you to an endless process. NEVER...buy it on amazon or anywhere else. Please, be aware.
For some US investors this might be difficult to understand: Nokia is still perceived as probably the greatest hardware company in Europe...it´s brand still means a lot to European customers, coming back now to a 10% market share. This does not resemble at all the Sony-Ericsson deal, as Erirsson never had that status. Actually, Sony did. So Nokia was very smart not to sell or license it´s brand name. To illustrate my point just look at the packaging of MSFT´s Xbox. You will see how MSFT cleverly hides it´s brand name to the limit.
That said, I do not want MSFT to fail with their Microsoft Lumias. Chances are they will call their next smartphones just Lumia, or trademark any other name, like Google did with Nexus (while Motorolas get uglier)...I just think they should not brand any more hardware with their brand name. The fact now is that MSFT spent more money on a Surface 2, which is kind of a joke again...a "brick", if you compare it with the 2520. However, in my view, the best thing MSFT could do is to keep working with Nokia on new products on a win-win kind of deal. I also agree that MSFT should embrace the Nokia Normady concept, and see it as an opportunity, and not as a threat.