Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam Citron who wrote (8723)	10/22/1999 3:01:00 PM
From: Jurgis Bekepuris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78652

>50% would be in classic value plays >and 50% in classic growth I am uncomfortable with this approach for two reasons. First, I am usually uncomfortable with classical value plays: i.e. shoddy companies under X value. Exception: high-yield REITs where you get that 10% dividend while waiting. Second, I am uncomfortable with nosebleed valuations of the classic growth (e.g. current SUNW, LU, CSCO). It's totally unclear where we go from these levels. It may be up, but I lack any conviction. So I am going with "growth/quality at a decent price". What is that? Nobody knows. I recently bought MAT, SGP, and a tech company which are on different ends of "growth/quality at a decent price" spectrum. My restriction always was and is available cash. Sometimes that's a good restriction (not buying MAT @ 20), sometimes bad (not buying ADBE @ 20). But main rule that I noticed is: If there's nothing to buy, don't buy anything. Don't lower quality, don't pay higher prices, and don't try to justify them. High quality companies at reasonable prices will appear soon. One thing that I have not figure out yet is the sell decision. I haven't made a "hold forever" decision on anything except BRK. My longest term holding is PEP, which has done nothing for 2 years that I am holding it. It is much more difficult to continue holding after a substantial runup, because of the high valuation and "round-trip" fear. Perhaps a stepwise reduction of position is an answer. I don't subscribe to the school of selling at a loss, unless there's a good position switch or the original idea does not hold anymore. Jurgis