I say the same with Amcor, the large profits were made from $4...

I say the same with Amcor, the large profits were made from $4 to $11, if you were game to buy during the GFC.

Yes, but you could have said that about just about every stock of half-decent quality.


"However today at $14, I do not see much upside. Maybe a 10% gain if you are lucky."

I suspect I'm wired a bit different to you; for me, its not just "upside" in isolation that I look for, its risk-adjusted upside that matters most to me.

If you are offering me 10% pa capital appreciation, plus a 4% dividend yield, that's a 14% total return. Almost 5 times higher than a risk-free return.

Given the low-risk and defensive nature of AMC's earnings, viewed through the lens of risk-adjusted returns, that 14% looks darn attractive to me.

I dream of averaging 14% investment returns over the long-term, as the wealth I would create for myself in achieving that outcome would be prolific.

If offered the choice of a 14% investment return from AMC, a 25% return from BHP, a 50% return from some discretionary retailer, or a 100% return from some or other conceptual lithium hopeful, I'd choose AMC every time.


"I would say that I will sell all my resource stocks over the next 12 to 18 months.
What sector next, that is the question, maybe back into property if it falls enough."

Good luck getting the timing right, jumping from one sector to the next and from one asset class to another.

Because I am nowhere near smart enough to be able to do it succesfully; so instead I simply have to look for well-managed businesses that have the ability to create wealth for their shareholders over time by increasing their intrinsic value, and then wait for their valuations to become sufficiently cheap for me to buy.

And then I just hold them for as long as they increase their intrinsic value by growing revenues, profits, cash flows and dividends.

Companies like Amcor, for example.