워렌버핏과 시즈 캔디, 투자 철학과 비법

워렌버핏과 시즈 캔디, 투자 철학과 비법

아담과 이브가 60억 인류를 만들었듯이 시즈캔디에서 번 돈으로 여러 회사를 인수할 수 있었습니다. ..설비투자 하지 않고 돈 버는 것이 얼마나 좋은지 구글이나 마이크로소프트사에 물어 보세요

http://www.buysiders.com/2012/08/22/the-secrets-of-sees-candies/

The secrets of See’s Candies

Gustavo Ballvé on August 22nd, 2012

Very interesting article in Fortune Magazine about See’s Candies, which (for the readers not terribly familiar with Buffett lore) is the Californian candy company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. There’s also a nice companion piece about the reporter’s experience interviewing both Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett. Buffett has discussed See’s Candies many times in the annual reports, but the 2007 one was definitive. The whole section called “Businesses – The Great, the Good and the Gruesome” from pages 7-10 is unmissable, but I’ve excerpted the part on See’s Candies inside.

Excerpts on See’s Candies from Berkshire Hathaway’s 2007 annual report (it really is much better if you read the entire section from pages 7-10):

“Let’s look at the prototype of a dream business, our own See’s Candy. The boxed-chocolates industry in which it operates is unexciting: Per-capita consumption in the U.S. is extremely low and doesn’t grow. Many once-important brands have disappeared, and only three companies have earned more than token profits over the last forty years. Indeed, I believe that See’s, though it obtains the bulk of its revenues from only a few states, accounts for nearly half of the entire industry’s earnings.

At See’s, annual sales were 16 million pounds of candy when Blue Chip Stamps purchased the company in 1972. (Charlie and I controlled Blue Chip at the time and later merged it into Berkshire.) Last year See’s sold 31 million pounds, a growth rate of only 2% annually. Yet its durable competitive advantage, built by the See’s family over a 50-year period, and strengthened subsequently by Chuck Huggins and Brad Kinstler, has produced extraordinary results for Berkshire.

We bought See’s for $25 million when its sales were $30 million and pre-tax earnings were less than $5 million. The capital then required to conduct the business was $8 million. (Modest seasonal debt was also needed for a few months each year.) Consequently, the company was earning 60% pre-tax on invested capital. Two factors helped to minimize the funds required for operations. First, the product was sold for cash, and that eliminated accounts receivable. Second, the production and distribution cycle was short, which minimized inventories.

Last year See’s sales were $383 million, and pre-tax profits were $82 million. The capital now required to run the business is $40 million. This means we have had to reinvest only $32 million since 1972 to handle the modest physical growth – and somewhat immodest financial growth – of the business. In the meantime pre-tax earnings have totaled $1.35 billion. All of that, except for the $32 million, has been sent to Berkshire (or, in the early years, to Blue Chip). After paying corporate taxes on the profits, we have used the rest to buy other attractive businesses. Just as Adam and Eve kick-started an activity that led to six billion humans, See’s has given birth to multiple new streams of cash for us. (The biblical command to “be fruitful and multiply” is one we take seriously at Berkshire.)

There aren’t many See’s in Corporate America. Typically, companies that increase their earnings from $5 million to $82 million require, say, $400 million or so of capital investment to finance their growth. That’s because growing businesses have both working capital needs that increase in proportion to sales growth and significant requirements for fixed asset investments.

A company that needs large increases in capital to engender its growth may well prove to be a satisfactory investment. There is, to follow through on our example, nothing shabby about earning $82 million pre-tax on $400 million of net tangible assets. But that equation for the owner is vastly different from the See’s situation. It’s far better to have an ever-increasing stream of earnings with virtually no major capital requirements. Ask Microsoft or Google.”

"Microsoft Google CapEx" 검색해보시면 엄청난 클라우드 군비경쟁이 일어나고 있는 것을 보실 수 있습니다. 돈이 있어도 감가상각이 엄청난 분야에 투자하는 결정과 집행이 또 쉬운 일이 아닌데 옆집이 늘 부러운 효과인지.

버핏이 이 글을 적을 때만해도 구글은 검색 엔진으로만 알려졌을 때라서 그랬을 것 같군요

07년 Annual Report에 있는 말이군요. 그때면 아이폰 이전 시대이니 그러려니 하겠지만, MS는 미리 준비를 못하고 어려움을 맞기도 했죠. 최근 MS는 사실상 클라우드서비스 회사로 거의 전환을 완료해가고 있는 느낌입니다.

 

2014/10/28 - [주식/투자/금융] - 워렌버핏의 성공비결

2014/10/16 - [주식/투자/금융] - 한국 부자들의 자산 축적 방법.jpg

2014/10/15 - [주식/투자/금융] - 한국 일본 물가 비교, 물가상승률 둔화?

2014/10/17 - [부동산] - 홍콩 부동산 상승, 집값 상승률, 중국 이주자

2014/10/13 - [부동산] - 한국 부동산 시장의 미래 예측, 분석

2014/10/04 - [주식/투자/금융] - 일본 버블 경제가 붕괴한 이유, 거품경제 망한 이유

2014/09/30 - [주식/투자/금융] - 전세계 IT 기업 시가총액 순위.jpg

2014/09/25 - [취업/전문직] - 커피숍 창업 조언, 분석, 수익, 카페 창업, 운영

2014/09/24 - [주식/투자/금융] - 일드갭(Yield Gap), 그린메일(Green Mail), 드라기노믹스 뜻, 의미 개념

2014/09/24 - [잡동사니] - 현대미술에 대한 고찰

2014/09/22 - [7급/9급 공무원] - 공무원 연금 개혁안, 공무원 연금 삭감 개정

2014/09/21 - [부동산] - 현대차 삼성동 한전부지 매입 관련 분석

2014/09/16 - [잡동사니] - 대기업 양극화(?).jpg

2014/09/16 - [취업/전문직] - 중소기업 실태, 인건비 후려치기

2014/09/12 - [부동산] - 대한민국 고층건물순위.jpg