Twister, yes those were Graham's last reported methods that I could find. However, he had two categories of investor, defensive and enterprising. Also, dividend yields, which he appreciated, are now much less than they were in 1976. He liked consistency in dividends and earnings in some of his writings. I'm looking here at page 209 of the Intelligent Investor. My belief is that in l997 or 1998, when Philip Morris (a Sanborn buy)was posted here on the thread, it was a value stock that Ben Graham would approve of - it would meet his criteria in the Intelligent Investor which IMO he would have modified slightly (like lowering the dividend %) to meet the times. MO may meet it now, I've not checked. Boeing too, when it was posted here might qualify (although it has no dividend) based on low price to past average earnings
As I mentioned in the last post, I have a real problem with what fund managers SAY and what they actually do. Your question about how Graham would respond to someone who has no use for price/book or div. yields or pe ratios - if Sanborn actually meant what he said - that would shock Ben IMO. Or maybe not, since the once great Sanborn was "up only 10% vs. 14% for the average stock fund" when the Barron's article I am referring to came out.
I say bully for you if you've found the ratios Sanborn uses and are applying them successfully. However, our discussion about Sanborn and other value investors is no evidence that Graham's methods are invalid OR outdated for the individual investor.
You have criticized posts here about stocks wherein the posters do not prove that they are value stocks. I look forward to seeing posts from you which will define those 1998-style value stocks you have bought -- ones which are not dependent on pe ratios,div. yields, price/book or the cyclical nature of the businesses. |
