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: Jurgis Bekepuris who wrote (8731)	10/22/1999 3:25:00 PM
From: jeffbas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78652

Jurgis, I have taken so many round trips that I am dizzy. I would say that scaling out is even more important than scaling in. If you have done your homework and know what you are buying there isn't much reason not to start with a full position. Admittedly homework takes time and you might want to scale in as you do more homework, talk with mgmt, and grow more comfortable. On the sell side the stock no longer meets your buy criteria so there is no reason to hold any except you think it may not have reached your sell target, or may get even more overpriced. That's inherently a much tougher call and scaling out is something I am coming to believe is the best strategy. Of course, I like a cash tender offer best of all <ggg>.

To: Jurgis Bekepuris who wrote (8731)	10/23/1999 3:57:00 PM
From: Sam Citron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78652

I am usually uncomfortable with classical value plays i.e. shoddy companies under X value. I believe that the definition of value must include metrics for identification of bargains, but must also include qualitative parameters to screen out such dogs. Factors like quality of management can be difficult to ascertain or measure, but one must make an attempt to do so all the same. I admit it is often a hall of mirrors like the beauty contest alluded to by Keynes when he used it as a metaphor for the institutional investment process in which the judges do not have the luxury of choosing who they think is the most beautiful girl, but must choose the girl they think will appeal to the other judges. Sometimes I think the analysts belong in an institution. ;-) I frankly admit that my own investment style is ecclectic enough to include TA as a timing tool, not because there is anything magical about support and resistance zones, but simply because most investors are all too human, with egos and emotions more prevalent than intellects in their decision making styles, and the past is frequently one of the better guides to an uncertain future. Certainly the history of financial manias and phobias give ample evidence that we are all creatures of mass psychology. I suspect that even the most ardent contrarian takes some comfort in the company of a like minded individual, if only to assure him that he is not certifiably insane. October is certainly a good month for bottom fishing, although I don't pretend to understand why. MAT has been on my radar screen for some time. Difficult to value the Barbie franchise. The numbers look good but investors look at the Learning Company fiasco and have to question whether management "gets it". This is the most important issue to me: does management have the smarts to navigate through a dynamic environment in which Hasbro, E-toys and Nintendo-like clones are changing the toy business forever. I'm not saying MAT is a Woolworth, but I want evidence that they have an intelligent strategy before I buy the stock, though it may seem cheap indeed. If you have something to say along these lines regarding MAT, I am all ears. Cheers, Sam