원문 보기
We have focused much more on buying into companies that have that earn lots of money in other currencies on the thought that they will be somewhat favored over companies earning just US. But that's not as I mentioned in the report that is not a huge determination of what we buy. It's a factor but it's not it's not 50% of the decision or anything like that.
uh we are following policies in this country that are likely to cause the dollar to decline in in value against against many major currencies. Uh uh and who knows what speed whether it happens this year or next year. We don't have any idea on that sort of thing. Uh but the fundamental forces are are fairly strong.
We actually only own one currency now uh trade uh which would surprise you actually. We'll tell you about it next year. Charlie. Yeah. So far something peculiar has happened during this exact period of maximum dollar decline in value versus other currencies. The dollar prices at Costco have showed an inflation factor of approximately zero.
So what really matters of course is how things are working in your own country. And and it's been perfectly amazing how well we've gotten by so far with the uh decline of the dollar. Yeah. As Charlie says, you know, we reference everything in terms of our own country. If you look at oil, for example, which we'll say has gone from roughly $30 a barrel to $60 a barrel over the last few years, you know, during that same time, the euro has gone from like 83 cents to $1.35.
Uh so the price of oil, if you're a European, has gone up very little. I mean, we we think oil's run wild, but in in in terms of the anybody that's using the euro, the price of oil has gone up about 25% and we think and we feel the price has gone up 100%. So, you you do have this anchoring of uh of thought to to your own currency, which is not is understandable.
We do we I do think you'll need to think about currency matters more than Americans traditionally have. I I was struck 20 30 40 years ago uh when I would travel elsewhere how how much more sophisticated uh most people in Europe, in the UK, wherever were about currency than in the United States. We never had to really think about it because, you know, everything everything was dollar-based and and uh an American didn't have to be smart about currency or even think too much about it in terms of their business.
But that world has changed. I would say that mo um most writers and most most uh shareholders probably have a little bit of a distorted version at least how most corporations large corporations have operated over the years. Usually for a long time uh I would say that directors generally were sort of potted plants.
I mean, you you sat there and the the management had its agenda and didn't really want input on major matters. Uh, and Charlie and I can certainly testify the fact that we had had great lack of success even when we were the largest shareholder of a company. And in terms of talking about the things that really count, I mean, if somebody spends their whole lifetime, 25, 30 years rising to the position of CEO, you know, they want to be boss and you can't blame them.
And the only thing in their way is the board of directors. So they they they look for people who are big names and they look for ways to keep them happy, but they don't really want them getting into the business very much. There's a lot more process now that's been imposed by the recent rules. But I would say still in terms of the reality of the guts of business and the discussions that take place and all that, I I think you might be surprised that the level overall of that uh throughout corporate America uh as I've written in the report, you know, overwhelmingly the job of the board of directors is to have the right CEO.
I mean, if you got the right CEO, you know, 90% of it takes care of itself. If if you were a director of Cap Cities and you had Tom Murphy as the CEO, you know, case closed. It was all you needed. And if you have that CEO, I think you have an obligation on the board and to make sure that there's not overreaching by the CEO because the CEO can have different interests.
And I think the third thing that the board does should do is they really should bring some independent judgment in on major acquisitions because there is a natural tendency for people with usually big egos, big motors who get to be CEOs to like to do big things and to become [clears throat] bigger spending other people's money.
and and uh normally when big deals come along, you know, the management by the time it gets there, they've made the deal anyway, um they have investment bankers there who go through a little ritual. I've never seen one come in and make a presentation that says it's a dumb idea. I mean, they're they know what the answer is supposed to be and it it just becomes kind of a little game.
And I so I think in those three respects, a good director will first make an affirmative decision. You you've got a very good CEO, not the best in the whole world. Not everybody can do that, but a good very good CEO that that CEO is not overreaching and when when significant deals come along that that they get a chance to weigh in and that you really get a balanced discussion about the real economics of of what you're doing.
And I I would say in that latter point, what I've seen over the years has really been pretty bad. But I can understand it because the CEO wouldn't bring in the deal unless he wants it done and he and once he brings it in, he's going to stack the deck and and uh make the presentation in such a way that it's almost impossible to exercise independent judgment.
Charlie, do you have any thoughts on I think big big deals on average in America are contrary to the share shareholders interest. That's the way to bet. Yeah. the on the acquirer side, usually the shareholders are worse off. Most stock deals, they think about what they're getting and they don't think about what they're giving.
I mean, I've had been involved time after time where people are giving a significant percentage of the business, which they wouldn't sell at the current market price. If somebody came along with a tender offer 20% higher, they would say that's inadequate, but they hand away a piece of the business because they want to own something else.
And there's nothing wrong with that, but you just have to be sure that you're getting as much as you're giving. I have very seldom heard a discussion, in fact, I don't think I virtually ever heard of and a discussion uh of weighing what you were actually giving away on a stock deal versus what you're what you're getting.
I've heard a lot of discussion about dilution and when dilution will be overcome and all that sort of thing, but that is not the question. You know the real question is are you g if more value is being created how is it being whacked up between the two companies and if not extra value is being created what are you getting more than you're giving.
댓글 0