Wayne Crimi: aarggh. Well I asked for it -gg-. You are going to suck all the energy out of me that was missed by Paul Levy. --gg--. What I like about you guys is your rigid unwavering devotion to your beliefs, even if they are unencumbered by fact or other alternatives. And the really good part is... they apparently work for you!
You have sliced and diced the data every possible way to come up with the statement "Stock prices are higher now that at any time in history no matter how you slice it."?? This is a fact or opinion?? How's about if I cut it as small cap value stocks circa 1963? Microcaps in 1969 perhaps? Airline stocks in 1950's??? Gold stock prices are higher now than ever before? You've checked all of these slicing possibilities and more??
You can't imagine competent value analysts being enthusiastic?? Try this ('course I'm not qualified by anybody as competent - or a value analyst, but still): We are in a two-tier market like the '60's. But instead of the nifty fifty we've got the nifty S&P. Money is being poured into these S&P stocks, and maybe is pulling money out of stocks that are iffy - that is, where companies have something not so right with them -- characteristics of value companies! A reasonable possibility IMO; after all we are dealing with human nature where now we want those Dells and other popular stocks not the dogs of value land (as if any great body of people actually ever did want value stocks). So value investors in this environment should be expecting many opportunities to find and invest in upcoming value stocks. I find 'em (but then again I not qualified etc.etc.) Nice article in today's Morningstar.net though about a value investor who does seem qualified, and she's finding a few things to talk about.
Also a very germane article in theStreet.com today. One columnist interviews an analyst who apparently knows everything there is to know about Chase (the bank). Says they are overexposed to Asia and they are in denial about it -- hoping it blows over. The stock could crater -stay away. (I'm reconstructing all this from memory, but I think I got the gist right.) But then Cramer comes on with an article saying, yes the guy is right, nobody is better at the analysis... but so what? The stock is a bargain at the current price, the guy has been critical for years, and HE NEVER MADE YOU ANY MONEY. Is that you? Except you got it better. If you shake people out of buying and you're right and the market craters, you're a hero. And if you do scare people and the market rises or they don't buy these good companies that are available, you still win ...you've got Berkshire and others going along for the ride. Even if the market drops, you're partners with the gov't on these stocks bought at 1988 prices--you win again!
My intent is to do what works. Buffett's holy two rules are useless in my opinion. Because there is only one person - Buffett - who has never lost money on a stock deal (as far as I can tell). There's maybe another guy on this thread, possibly 2; and I will even put you in that category just so I don't have to have my face rubbed in it -g-. EVERYONE ELSE has LOSERS if they are Value Players. It's in the nature of the game. That's why Graham was diversified. Therefore, a more practical two rules would be: Everyone sustains some losses in the stock market. Expect that and learn to live with it. (i.e. plan to minimize and recover and recoup).
And uhhhh, I'm losing it here...need to refocus on purpose of this thread which is to find value plays. I interpret that to mean: talk about stocks - value stocks- that will make us money. Anything else is merely commentary at best and not serving the purpose of the readers... so I think I have to stop now...
And I have just enough energy left for a double martini, so I will go out and get myself a frozen yogurt -g- (tby.. still a little too overpriced for me -g-). Paul Senior |
