Value Investing Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jurgis Bekepuris who wrote (32706)	11/7/2008 11:57:40 PM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (1) of 78744

Jurgis Bekepuris: "It's easy to blame Marty that his buys were not "safe and cheap", but show me someone who's buys were." I'll guess most market participants would understand that there are cheap stocks and that these cheapies can or might get even cheaper. Very cheap if we go into a recession. It's just that to have something touted as both "safe and cheap" and have it drop from $40-$50 level to under $10, that imo really does not easily or comfortably cover the word for "safe". It could, but you have got to be a real believer. And who knows about something complex like a real estate developer. Mr. Whitman/others might say I'm confusing volatility with risk and therefore with "safety". Possibly, but I'll not easily shake my opinion that "safe and cheap" advertised at $40-50 is safe and cheap and just hang in there at $10. I guess I'm noting I should be very careful with the expression "safe and cheap". As far as I recall, I'm the only person here who has ever tagged any of his purchases with that Marty Whitman expression. (Everyone else here being too smart to do so with their picks -g-.) There are objective measures for "cheap". Not so sure now for stocks offered up as "safe".

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next