James,
I don't have a very high opinion of Barron's so I don't subscribe to their publications. Using the fact that they write about this issue does not automatically mean instant credibility of their statements, at least to me. Still, even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn, so maybe the article has merit. I won't be able to decide that for myself until I see it.
"....A Graham analysis would have to reflect the fact that there is a crime in progress here...."
An objective Graham analysis would indeed take into account the employment of excess capital, and its efficiency and return. As nearly as I've been able to discover, whether or not a crime has been committed has yet to be determined. Unless, of course, you mean "crime" in a moral sense rather than a legal one, which then moves the standards to a more subjective nature.
I appear to be standing alone on the issue of whether or not MFW constitutes a good investment. Or, rather, on the issue that it still does. That fact is not lost to me, and with the acumen and experience demonstrated over the years here by the various posters who have weighed in against this because of Perelman, I'd be a fool not to give strong weight to this concensus.
But the contrarian in me says: "hmmmmm"
I will be watching the situation closely, and the Barron's story will show up on Reuters or somewhere else and I'll be sure to read it.
I appreciate all the concern, and have felt this to be a stimulating discussion.
I'm not afraid of having been wrong on this investment, but will not change my mind on it until I am convinced that the strength of the fundamentals has been or will likely be overwhelmed by other factors. What it will take to convince me, I'm not sure. But I know I haven't seen it yet.
Timba |
