What’s your preference?
Both I like a lot and both appear in the top 5 buys of the “superinvestors” in the last qtr and 6 months. Both are moaty and are at reasonable valuations. If you have strong conviction for one over the other say why.
0 voters
Both are moaty and are at reasonable valuations.
And both are immensely profitable.
But Alphabet’s long term business prospects seem better to me.
Consider the different reasons for their respective renaming:
Google became Alphabet because they wanted to be clear that they do other things under the corporate umbrella.
It wasn’t necessary, but I can see that there was some reasoning.
Facebook became Meta because they wanted to distract people from the weakening (and in some circles reviled) blue app.
It smacks so much of desperation to me that it’s the first time I kinda felt sorry for them.
Imagine if Fedex, seeing the writing on the wall for physical document delivery, had renamed itself ZapMail.
If you don’t know what ZapMail was, just Alphabet it.
Jim
The thing about Facebook is that esp with my friends and family they grumbled for a bit about what was in the news but they use the app or apps more than ever now.
Messaging, sharing of lives, marketplace and small business owners esp. The pandemic has encouraged greater use by existing users IMO.
As for Google it’s a no brainer really, love the company and the services it offers. It’s just a case of valuation and growth prospects I suppose (returns) vs Meta eg 10% vs 15% compounded. Perhaps best to have both!.
No offense to Blackswanny nor Mungo…two posters I thoroughly enjoy…but this makes me want to once again add to my energy investments. Although I went into this sector for now about a year, far to small! Buffett once again out-did me.
I’m guessing 2-3 years from now energy stocks will be obsessed upon.
Google. Not even close. Munger once said it has the greatest moat he has ever seen.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4508914-alphabet-bear-marke…
No offense to Blackswanny nor Mungo…two posters I thoroughly enjoy…but this makes me want to once again add to my energy investments.
Well, the question was A or B.
As always, there are lots of other investment choices.
And, arguably, lots of different ranking criteria.
e.g., Depending on position size one might prefer either best central expectation or least awful worst outcome.
Jim
Makes you wonder why DJCO or BRK didn’t invest in the window when it dropped to 1000/1100 level. Or T&T for that matter.
Newspaper in the 1960s was as no-brainer as Google is today. No one knew then there would be Internet. Maybe, just maybe, in a decade or three, metaverse would be like Internet today and Meta would be much more valuable than Alphabet.
If you had to say which companies you think could be candidates for that (i.e. GE) collapse because of what’s happening inside, which ones would you name?
David Gelles: Meta certainly comes to mind, and we’re starting to see that reflected in the stock price in the last few weeks. But two things, in particular, make me wonder whether a company like that will still be as dominant as it is today in 20 years. The first is that advertising patterns and habits are known to change very abruptly with the rise of new technologies. Second, with every passing day, we learn more and more about just how harmful and destructive social media usage can be, especially to young people. To me, that seems like a company poised for a reckoning.
https://the.ink/p/like-capitalism-itself-business-journalism…
OK…I got off topic. Google!
Chomp, I avoid anything commodity, financial or retail (bricks and mortar) related nowadays.I’m just trying to identify those few compounders that are already highly profitable, moaty and still have room to grow. We don’t need to be greedy but 15% pa would be nice if you’re investing outside of Berkshire. An index looks like 4-5% if you’re lucky, Brk c8%. Meta and Goog look like a reasonably good bet to juice some higher returns. The prices may well drop from here. I was keen on Goog at c1800 to get a 15% pa but perhaps it won’t drop that low.
Commodity prices have soared, and inflation has hit levels not seen since the early 1980s. Due to long-term supply/ demand dynamics in commodity markets, we may have to get used to high prices
in the years to come. Resource equities trade at deeply discounted levels and offer investors both a chance to benefit from high commodity prices and to protect their portfolios from inflation. While there are always risks in the resources sector, we believe investors are likely to be rewarded with a compelling mix of strong returns, inflation protection, and diversification.
https://mcusercontent.com/6750faf5c6091bc898da154ff/files/07…
Meta 3% (1 Vote)
Alphabet 96% (29 Votes)
What was my comment?
…it’s the first time I kinda felt sorry for them.
Twice now!
If much of the investing public thinks the way the board voters do, it’s certainly a contrarian signal.
Enough that one would have to look at Meta again.
At 13.6 times estimates of next year’s earnings, one might argue that to get a bad result buying during this dip would require a whole lot of things to go wrong.
All the ones people worry about, and probably more.
I don’t invest in them because I don’t like management, but otherwise I’d be looking–watching for the compelling entry.
It’s still a formidable a moat. It’s just that the liquid in the moat smells bad.
Jim
I already have six figs in Meta down c15%.
It’s still a formidable a moat. It’s just that the liquid in the moat smells bad.
As the thus-far lone dissenter, I would say that you say it has a foul-smelling liquid in the moat as though that were a bad thing!
d
Interestingly we had quite the discussion a few months back on Meta and those of us who weren’t willing to buy more…yet…caught a good level of negative vibes. I’m sorta wondering where this went, the buy more Facebook/Meta story seems to have waned.
That’s the stock price I suppose. I was a pretty strong believer in Meta for some time and bought multiple chunks. I decided I have enough of it so I’m an observer.
Still like to discuss the business though.
First piqued for me looking at Li Lu’s portfolio. I’ve be watching a lot of his talks and following him since. Interesting guy, has evolved into a younger version of Munger starting out as a Grahamite and has dinner with Charlie every Tuesday night apparently.
As the thus-far lone dissenter, I would say that you say it has a foul-smelling liquid in the moat as though that were a bad thing!
Fair point, I mangled the metaphor. Moats are good. Nasty ones are even more effective.
Let’s just say it’s a reasonably effective moat, but I choose not to be anywhere near it : )
Jim
Neither. I’m maxed out on both.
Meta has more recovery potential if it manages to maneuver through obstacles. Replace Sandberg. Prosper in the Meta environment. Replace ad revenue lost due to Apple restrictions.
Alphabet is a more likely steady growth stock.
Both are at risk of antitrust action.