Can you link that to the relative value of a share for example? I know Naspers is a high quality share, but don't you think it is overpriced? Or do we buy now and wait for the share price to catch up a bit?
Blik - All these shares are "expensive" relative to there peers. It's because it's quality and they have a history of overperformance. The question really is how long can they maintain this performance curve ? Your guess is as good as mine. The two cheapest blue chips I follow in a portfolio - Implats and Exxaro also seems to be the worst performers. I think in the long run and in unsure economic times investing in these start performers will beat "cheap" shares where a perception of underperformance exist anytime.
funny, it seems a couple of those that others call the obvious ones are missing: BTI, SAB, BIL, ANG, ... I might just add Firstrand, Woolies and Bidvest to the list as its also got great leadership. I quite like Michael Jordaans style.
Look at charts for the shares you just mentioned over a couple of years. I'm looking at blue chips that added 200% + over the last three years. BIL, ANG doesn't even come close. BTI and SAB are ok, but can't compare with my list. Bidvest might just reach the list.
I know, I made the point the other day that everybody believes (eg) BIL is always such a keeper, a must have, a no-brainer - Yet when you do the actual research it really doesnt produce great returns (its safe though, but not great). Same with SAB.
that is a very good return but if you take it over longer periods it starts reducing by a lot (below 12% CAGR). Its more of a chugger, it keeps on chugging but doesnt really shoot out the lights when compared to some other stories. But admittedly cant fault anyone for choosing this share, there are much worse choices.