# Blue Chip Shares ten years ago



## apgb8 (27 October 2011)

hi

would someone be able to tell or guide me to where i might be able to find what the top blue chip shares were ten years ago? 
i'm just making a simple analysis of the market and was curious as to what the most popular blue chip shares were back then and to see which ones are still going, what their average returns have been etc etc.

cheers


----------



## bellenuit (27 October 2011)

apgb8 said:


> hi
> 
> would someone be able to tell or guide me to where i might be able to find what the top blue chip shares were ten years ago?
> i'm just making a simple analysis of the market and was curious as to what the most popular blue chip shares were back then and to see which ones are still going, what their average returns have been etc etc.
> ...




Go to http://finance.yahoo.com

Enter the ticker you are interested in (suffix with .AX for ASX shares: e.g. NAB.AX)

Then select Historical Prices from the menu on the left of the screen. The default start date for NAB is January 4th, 2000, so I assume it goes back at least that far for all stocks that existed then.

I am not sure if the prices are adjusted for stock splits, so you need to check is the earlier prices are adjusted to compensate for subsequent splits.

For instance, if you look at the chart for CBA.AX (period = max), it shows a huge drop in 2005. I suspect that is due to a stock split. As I never owned CBA, I am not sure.


----------



## McLovin (27 October 2011)

apgb8 said:


> hi
> 
> would someone be able to tell or guide me to where i might be able to find what the top blue chip shares were ten years ago?
> i'm just making a simple analysis of the market and was curious as to what the most popular blue chip shares were back then and to see which ones are still going, what their average returns have been etc etc.
> ...




Google News Archive and search for the SMH, then go back 10 years and look for the business pages on a Monday. It will list the top 150 shares by market cap.

ETA: I just noticed they have shut down their newspaper archive project. What a shame.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (27 October 2011)

Keep inflation in mind, and understand that it compounds...


----------



## So_Cynical (27 October 2011)

apgb8 said:


> hi
> 
> would someone be able to tell or guide me to where i might be able to find what the top blue chip shares were ten years ago?
> i'm just making a simple analysis of the market and was curious as to what the most popular blue chip shares were back then and to see which ones are still going, what their average returns have been etc etc.
> ...




SFY is the State street ASX50 ETF below is a screen shot of the linked announcement, its the ASX50 components from 2001.

http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistic...play=text&issuerId=4734&announcementId=449995
~


----------



## robusta (27 October 2011)

Having trouble with the whole blue chip definition, if you ask most people, blue chip = large cap = safe.

Well there are a few on that above list that are either no longer around or a lot smaller market cap.


----------



## So_Cynical (27 October 2011)

robusta said:


> Having trouble with the whole blue chip definition, if you ask most people, blue chip = large cap = safe.
> 
> Well there are a few on that above list that are either no longer around or a lot smaller market cap.




Alot of stocks on that list are still around and are not on that list due to being taken over or split up, de-listed etc.

Only CSR, Aristocrat and Harvey Norman have shrunk....didn't Fairfax used to have some TV and radio assets they sold?


----------



## skc (27 October 2011)

It's actually amazing how much changes there are.

Taken over - AXA, CML, FGL, MIM, NDY?, SGB, SRP, WMC (8 out of 52, or 15%).
Major restructure/demerger - CML, CSR, FGL, MAY, MIG, GMF, PBL, TAH, WFT/WSF (10 out of 52, or 20%).

Looking up the commsec 10yr total share holder return (including dividends and what not) here are the results.

Code	10yr TSR
BHP       19%
WPL      14.20%
CCL       13.60%
RIO       13.30%
QBE      13.10%
STO      12.10%
WOW    11.60%
CBA      11.30%
WBC     10%
WES     8.60%
SGT      8.40%
ANZ      8.10%
FGL       8.10%
CSL       7.90%
AMC      6.90%
CPU       6.10%
NRM       4.60%
NAB       3.90%
SGP       3.50%
TAH       3%
TLS       2.80%
SUN       1.30%
CSR       1.10%
TEL       0.40%
LLC       0.20%
MBL      -0.40%
HVN      -0.80%
BIL       -1.10%
RMD     -1.20%
GPT     -3.40%
MGR     -3.70%
NCP     -4.30%
QAN     -4.90%
AMP     -5.20%
ALL      -7.50%
FXJ      -8.20%

Pretty amazing isn't it. 

Of 36 companies, 25 generated a positive return with average of 8%, while 11 generated negative return of -3.7%. Only 16 beat current term deposite rate of ~6%. Only 9 got better than double digits, and only 1 achieved better than 15% return that fundamental investors often use to value stocks.

If you invested equally in each one of these, you earned 4% p.a.

If you look at XFLAI (ASX50 cumulative index). At end of 2001 it was 17543, today it was 32899. This is an average return of 6.5%p.a.  I suppose it has to do with different weightings and changing of index components.

Still not much return for the good old buy and hold, is it?!


----------



## apgb8 (28 October 2011)

Wow thanks for the help guys!

yea i understand how to look up coys like CBA on yahoo or google. but for example like CBA, yahoo only goes back as far as 2001, so i'm assuming that's when they went public...? at that time CBA surely wouldn't have been classified as a blue chip share because it just came onto the market...and by blue chip i'm talking more in reliablity, like what would be used in long term investing i guess.
i'm just trying to do some predicting for myself, like for example what would have been a share 10 years ago that was the equivalent to BHP or CBA etc. just too see where coys like these actually ended up.


----------



## skc (28 October 2011)

apgb8 said:


> Wow thanks for the help guys!
> 
> yea i understand how to look up coys like CBA on yahoo or google. but for example like CBA, yahoo only goes back as far as 2001, so i'm assuming that's when they went public...? at that time CBA surely wouldn't have been classified as a blue chip share because it just came onto the market...and by blue chip i'm talking more in reliablity, like what would be used in long term investing i guess.
> i'm just trying to do some predicting for myself, like for example what would have been a share 10 years ago that was the equivalent to BHP or CBA etc. just too see where coys like these actually ended up.




CBA was sold by the gov't in 1991 and was blue chip the moment it was born without any doubt, and regardless of what definition of blue chip is.

http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/JournalArticles01/CBAPrivatisation01.html


----------



## Tysonboss1 (28 October 2011)

CBA, WOW and BHP were all considered blue chip.

I remember as far back as 1998 Commsec was selling baskets of shares to newbi mum and dad investors, For a a fixed investment of $1000, $5000 or $10,000 they would give you a holding of CBA,BHP and WOW, I remember it being widely marketed and featured on the money show ( that show that inspired money magazine ).

Looking back, Some one who took one of those baskets and held them would have done very well indeed.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (28 October 2011)

I wouldn't get to hung up on the term blue chip though, just focus investing in Great businesses regardless of what the are called, ( blue chip, green chip, large cap, micro cap etc )


----------



## So_Cynical (28 October 2011)

apgb8 said:


> i'm just trying to do some predicting for myself, like for example what would have been a share 10 years ago that was the equivalent to BHP or CBA etc. just too see where coys like these actually ended up.




As you should be able to see from SKC's post if you happened to be heavy resources  and energy (believed resources and energy had potential) way back in 2001 then today your laughing..if you spread your self out or concentrated on financials you didn't do as well.

In short as a fundamentalist you still had to pick well to do well.


#1 = BHP 19%
#2 = WPL 14.20%
#4 = RIO 13.30%
#6 = STO 12.10%


At least that's how the numbers fall this month.


----------



## Julia (28 October 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> CBA, WOW and BHP were all considered blue chip.
> 
> I remember as far back as 1998 Commsec was selling baskets of shares to newbi mum and dad investors, For a a fixed investment of $1000, $5000 or $10,000 they would give you a holding of CBA,BHP and WOW, I remember it being widely marketed and featured on the money show ( that show that inspired money magazine ).



Was that the show presented by Paul Clitheroe?  He would have to be one of the most unimpressive commentators around.



Tysonboss1 said:


> I wouldn't get to hung up on the term blue chip though, just focus investing in Great businesses regardless of what the are called, ( blue chip, green chip, large cap, micro cap etc )



Agree.




So_Cynical said:


> As you should be able to see from SKC's post if you happened to be heavy resources  and energy (believed resources and energy had potential) way back in 2001 then today your laughing..if you spread your self out or concentrated on financials you didn't do as well.
> 
> In short as a fundamentalist you still had to pick well to do well.
> 
> ...



Is that the total return over the ten years?
Or p.a.?
If the former, it's pretty pathetic.


----------



## So_Cynical (29 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Is that the total return over the ten years?
> Or p.a.?
> If the former, it's pretty pathetic.




As per SKC's post its supposed to be the (10yr total share holder return) however big charts shows the 2001 BHP SP at around $9 so perhaps, well it must be a PA figure.


----------



## skc (29 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Is that the total return over the ten years?
> Or p.a.?
> If the former, it's pretty pathetic.




Yes p.a.



skc said:


> If you invested equally in each one of these, you earned 4% p.a.






So_Cynical said:


> As you should be able to see from SKC's post if you happened to be heavy resources  and energy (believed resources and energy had potential) way back in 2001 then today your laughing..if you spread your self out or concentrated on financials you didn't do as well.
> 
> In short as a fundamentalist you still had to pick well to do well.
> 
> ...




The Big 4 minus NAB are respectable considering we are taking the measurement at a reasonably low point of the cycle. 

The picture between 1997 to 2007 would have been very different again.


----------



## So_Cynical (29 October 2011)

skc said:


> The picture between 1997 to 2007 would have been very different again.




Yep

Even though the industry experts tell us time and time again that timing doesn't matter etc...its absolutely clear to me that timing and selection is absolutely critical in determining outcome.

Almost impossible to predict via a system and yet absolutely critical to financial outcomes etc....so if you can pick a longer term trend and a rough bottom its possible to do very very well, make a poor decision and not do so well.

As is the way of the world.


----------



## apgb8 (29 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Yep
> 
> Even though the industry experts tell us time and time again that timing doesn't matter etc...its absolutely clear to me that timing and selection is absolutely critical in determining outcome.
> 
> ...




ATM i've noticed with most shares that since maybe 2009 there has hardly been an increase in returns. ofcourse we haven't included dividends (i assume that the figures put up so far are only capital reuturns..) then again  the price always decreases to the point of what didvend was paid anyway...

but back to the point, it's hard to see any potential in anything when there has been no upward trend in alot of shares post GFC. even just looking at the firm specifics and fundamentals of many companys, some have decreased massively like MMX, i mean they went from about 50c down to about 35c due to the latest financial statements, but they went down from 70c to 50c even with good news. it's stuff like this which make me doubtful to go into anything.


----------



## So_Cynical (29 October 2011)

apgb8 said:


> ATM i've noticed with most shares that since maybe 2009 there has hardly been an increase in returns. ofcourse we haven't included dividends (i assume that the figures put up so far are only capital reuturns..) then again  the price always decreases to the point of what didvend was paid anyway...




As for my portfolio i would think something like 85% of my stocks have delivered higher year on year dividend returns since 2009/10....overall nothing spectacular but still trending up.



apgb8 said:


> but back to the point, it's hard to see any potential in anything when there has been no upward trend in alot of shares post GFC. even just looking at the firm specifics and fundamentals of many companys, some have decreased massively like MMX, i mean they went from about 50c down to about 35c due to the latest financial statements, but they went down from 70c to 50c even with good news. it's stuff like this which make me doubtful to go into anything.




I see potential in lots and lots of stocks and know lots of stocks trending up since the GFC (Mar 09) ive been in the market since July 07 and in general (except for early and mid 08 and the last 3 months) i have had little trouble finding stocks to profit from.

I must be looking at different stocks, at different times to you. :dunno: my portfolio of 24 includes only 2 ASX50 stocks, over the years i have noticed that the bulk of my profits and dividend growth has come from my mid, small and micro cap holdings.


----------



## skc (29 October 2011)

apgb8 said:


> ATM i've noticed with most shares that since maybe 2009 there has hardly been an increase in returns. ofcourse we haven't included dividends (i assume that the figures put up so far are only capital reuturns..) then again  the price always decreases to the point of what didvend was paid anyway...
> 
> but back to the point, it's hard to see any potential in anything when there has been no upward trend in alot of shares post GFC. even just looking at the firm specifics and fundamentals of many companys, some have decreased massively like MMX, i mean they went from about 50c down to about 35c due to the latest financial statements, but they went down from 70c to 50c even with good news. it's stuff like this which make me doubtful to go into anything.




The p.a. returns are total shareholder return which includes dividend and other effects I think (like dilution, cap raising etc).

MMX is a bad example because it's not a producer with an ambitious project that's too much to handle for them.

Companies with the greatest gains from the GFC bottom are small/mid cap producers and growing mining services. The financials and retailers did pretty good until April this year, while sectors like REIT are still shadows of their former self.


----------

