QUOTE(the snowball @ Feb 27 2011, 02:50 AM)
I think Buffett look at all of those. The differences between ROI, ROIC verus ROE stems from the type of return there are measuring. For ROI and ROIC, it incorporates both debt financing (e.g. banks and bond holders) and equity financing (e.g. stock holders like us), so it measures the total return of company in utilizing both type of financing. For ROE, it measures the return on equity financing only. The problem with ROE may be that, since it disregard debt financing, companies may generate extraordinary ROE by taking a lot of leverage. So, ROIC may be a better measure if companies employs a lot of leverage. Take the private equity firm Blackstone as an example, their ROE is impressive but if you look at the leverage, then it is a bit scary. Even Olam, the Singapore-based commodities trader, my school professor like them a lot and use it as a case study of good companies, I tell my prof that this company is doing crazy stuff and if things goes bad, can easily collapse. If you look at their leverage and what they are trying to do, you will understand why I say so. Or back to Malaysia, we look at Parkson, their ROE is pretty decent, above 20+% if I am not mistaken, but, if you look carefully, a lot of their assets is not stated on the balance sheet through the use of operating leases, so their ROE is actually overstated. If you bring those things back to balance sheet, their ROE is still very high, but it is achieve through the use of leverage rather than via operations.
So, at times, ROE may not give a good measure of a business if there is a lot of leverage. Using ROIC and ROI will allow users to easily compare across industry as it is not affected by their financing decision (e.g. how much debt a company holds). A Chinaman company with a lot of cash may looks bad when compared to a modern firm using some advanced but questionable theory like optimal capital structure. But, when compare based on ROIC and ROI, this Chinaman company may be better than all these so-called modern firms. This Chinaman company survive better during a crisis too. If Genting Malaysia were to leverage its balance sheet crazily like what Las Vegas Sands did, GENM would have one of the most impressive ROE in the world. At the peak before the crisis, it took LVS $7 dollars of debt to generate $1 dollars of revenue. LVS runs into trouble during crisis, but, they manage to take care of their debt. They could easily went bankrupt if not for their wealthy majority owner pump money into the company. But, that's was history, people already forgotten about that. Those who bought at the depth of the crisis would have made 20x their money buying LVS, but, hindsight is always 20/20.

Thanks a lot for your easy and readable explanations in English, unlike many pros who wrote in Alien language.

I'm still feeling pitiful on those cash cow red chips listed in Bursa which are still pricing in extremely undemanding valuation. I've sold my long holding msports last year, gave up waiting. Look at its price today, still the same. However, I bought sozo this year and I had took profit in its recent rally since I can't expect any good profit report to maintain its share price for red chip companies. One day, it may drop 50% in no reason.
btw, you are right. Genting is really a Chinaman company, imagine it only gives less than 1% dividend along with superb profit growth! Anyway, I hope it may increase it after its aggressive growing story comes to a resting stage, which probably...5-8 years later?

Added on February 27, 2011, 6:06 pmInternational NGOs uncovered 49 firms owned by Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Taib Mahmud:
Australia:
Australian Universities International Alumni Convention Pty Ltd (ACN: 081942903); Donmastry Pty Ltd (ACN: 093 907 843); Geneid Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN: 087759751); Golborne Pty Ltd. (ACN: 061844148); Golden Sovereign Development Ltd (ACN 103 925 613); Kesuma Holdings Pty Ltd. (ACN 105540636); Newtop Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN: 066588225); Ostgro Australia Pty Ltd (ACN: 094721070); Sitehost Pty Ltd (ACN: 062312743); Valentine on George Pty Ltd (ACN: 105541562)
British Virgin Islands:
Astar Properties Ltd. (201522); CMS Global (BVI) Ltd.; Tess Investments Ltd (203511)
Canada:
Canada: Adelaide Ottawa Corporation (2028546); City Gate International Corporation (446027-8); Glowell Development Corporation (1545868); Preston Building Holding Corporation (2108122), Sakto Development Corporation Pte. Ltd. (155207-4), Sakto Corporation (340439-1), Sakto Management Services Corporation (655948-4), Tower One Holding Corporation (2028542), Tower Two Holding Corporation (2018543)
Hong Kong:
Grand Shine Trading Ltd (0127665); Grand Will Ltd (0133932); Herolite Investment Ltd (129119); Natalite Investment Ltd (129502); Regent Star Company Ltd (0130318); Richfold Investment Ltd (0130308); Whittaker Company Ltd (0161304)
Jersey Island:
Sogo Holdings Ltd (43148)
Malaysia:Achi Jaya Holdings Sdn Bhd; Borsarmulu Resort Sdn Bhd (213014-M); Cahya Mata Sarawak Sdn Bhd (21076-T); K&N Kenanga Holdings Bhd; Kumpulan Parabena Sdn Bhd; Mesti Bersatu Sdn Bhd (758849-V); Naim Holdings Berhad (585467-M); Sanyan Group; Sarawak Aluminium Company (783974-K); Sarawak Energy Bhd.; Ta Ann Group; Titanium Management Sdn Bhd; UBG Berhad (240931-X)England:
Ridgeford Consulting Ltd (5572163); Ridgeford Properties Ltd (3268801)
USA:
Sakti International Corporation Inc.; Wallysons Inc; W.A. Boylston Inc; W.A.Everett Inc.
This post has been edited by yok70: Feb 27 2011, 06:06 PM