Reginald -- On looking over your posts, on this thread and elsewhere, I have concluded that you have a great deal that is very important, and very useful, to say. At the same time, alas, I cannot understand what it is.
Most SI regulars are not professional financial analysts. At the same time, we (if I may speak for others) are eager for input from the professionals -- as long as they write in accessible language.
Please forgive me for saying so, but your prose is knotty, opaque, and even (occasionally) ungrammatical. In short, I find it almost impossible to follow. But I would VERY MUCH LIKE to follow it, because you so clearly have some very valuable insights to contribute. Can you possibly simplify some of your posts, for the benefit of us non-professionals?
By the way, I have checked your web site (New Media Financial), but can't get beyond the first page (no links?). Fortunately, some of your posts do provide links to specific subjects you have discussed on your web site, notably "True Value." Here, again, I am in a quandary: according to you, "true value = net operating profits adjusted for cash after taxes minus capital times the cost of capital; all adjusted for the quality of cash flows." Fine. But how does one (especially a mathematically underendowed one) calculate all this? Your discussion does not illuminate this question.
Finally: Andrew has started the ball rolling on an evaluation of a single stock -- Intel -- in terms of its free cash flow. Could you please give us your evaluation of Intel, using your method? And explain (accessibly, please!) how you reached your conclusions? I know you have probably already done this on another thread, but hunting up the relevant posts might prove a big bother.
Thanks -- and please don't take offense!
jbe |
