Twister, how about clarifying what Sandborn does if he does not use Graham's "bag"? Like maybe his quote: "We do a lot of visiting with suppliers, customers and competitors. We do spend a lot of time with senior management. We tend to be long-term owners and develop very good relationships with these people because we tend to think like owners, not just traders, and company managements relate to that, identify with that, and so we spend a lot of time with them."
I believe his firm keeps very detailed records of what he calls "transactions that occur in the marketplace" so that they can do comp evaluations.
Believe -but not sure of myself- that they pride themselves on documenting and analyzing each takeover, buyout, self-tender, etc. reported in the press -- going back over many, many years.
Nothing wrong with his method. Great for him his fund investors. You say you are wondering if he is on to something? Do you think this man has a method that you will actually be able to use?
One of us is just not understanding. Maybe it's me. I seem to infer that you are knocking the Graham methodology. To me, your posts are saying that Graham methods are not as good or successful or something compared to Buffett or Sandborn or ? To me, I agree Buffett, Sandborn -- they could run rings around Graham (really, Graham was not THAT successful financially in his lifetime), but my point is so what? These people you mention can't be emulated. Buffett is the one and only, and Sandborn has too much money or resources behind him. There needs to be IMO a value investing methodology that works for people who want to buy stocks for their own portfolios. What is it that I am missing in what you are saying? |
