KO shares are sitting at the same price they were back in the BUBBLE of 1998. It is 16 years later and the dividend has gone up 450% and the revenues have risen from 18B to 46B.
Net-net KO has paid out about 10/SH in dividends since 1998, so the return has been positive, but it shows how long it takes to grow OUT OF A BUBBLE VALUATION, which KO was in that cycle 1997-1999. The current internet craze is justified based on future growth, but the problem is figuring out years from now which stocks will be good investments. KO is a great example of just how difficult it is to make money buying into a business at a very high price: Facebook investors take heed, for example.
Note the margins that KO has are stable at 18.8% after acquiring the bottling operations. Before that they were 22% and steady. From the year 2000 to 2012 KO had reduced the share count by a slight 2.45 Billion down to 2.25 Billion over years of "buying back" stock.
Enjoy this long term KO chart and enjoy the power of TradingView's charting capability. You have the power of history in your hands. Unleash yourself on the available data.
Cheers.
Tim 5:01PM EST FRIDAY, 8/1/2014
Comments
A-shot
⋅
that debt...
timwest
⋅
Right... debt is so cheap now that companies are taking it on just because it is so cheap.... and to finance acquisitions and stock buybacks. KO has done both.
QuantitativeExhaustion
⋅
Your comparing the wrong bubble crash. Quants have taken over the trading. You should see all these 20 to 32 year old's. They manage trillions of dollars. 1987 or 1907 should be your comparison. This is going to be fast and deadly. However, not right now, we're only starting a long topping process.
timwest
⋅
JR, Thanks for the reply. The point to make is the level of valuation and the returns that are offered in the market versus other returns that are offered in other markets. You seem to have a lot of confidence but nothing to base any of your opinions on. "Long topping process"... How do you know that? "Going to be fast and deadly. However, not right now"...What do you mean and how do you know? "1987 or 1907 should be your comparison"... Based on what? Why? "They manage trillions"... What does that matter? I'm normally thrilled to receive your comments and insights but this reply leaves me wondering where you are coming from. I hope you can provide some insights and not just make blanket statements based on guesses. I simply stated a long list of facts and realities. Do you have any trouble with Coke being a bubble when I labeled it a bubble back in the late 1990's? There have been a lot of bubbles in the last 30 years: We could make a BUBBLE PAGE here at TradingView and put it in the education section for people to review. Here's hoping we can catch a great trade based on fundamentals and technicals.