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: Michael Burry who wrote (11058)	8/7/2000 8:56:35 PM
From: Archie Meeties	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78514

I'm sure the story for the base metals is more complex than I can do it justice, but I like it for the same reason energy caught my eye last year - cheap shares and a favorable supply/demand story. I've excluded two base metals because the demand side seems unclear and there's a big overhang in supply - Lead and Tin. Those that interest me; Nickel, Zinc, Copper. Of course any interest in base metals pre-supposes that we are heading into somewhat of a soft landing. The biggest growth in base metal demand is coming from Asia. If our economy continues to support their growth this is the best possible worlds for a bullish trend in metals. (It is also a bullish case for global inflation, BTW - much of the new demand for oil also comes from Asia). A sharp recession would slow those economies down enough that any supply/demand imbalance could be easily reversed. Currently there exists supply demand imbalances in all three, with the greatest ratio of deficit/inventory in Zinc. If anyone goes over the numbers again and finds some problems, I'd want to hear about it. The question, of course, is; how much and how fast can additional supply be brought to market if higher prices are seen by the industry? Looking at the speed of inventory loss from zinc and copper, and looking at the number of mines either idle or able to rapidly expand capacity - I'd say "not enough, not fast enough" about Zn and Copper. This is also an excellent opportunity to take advantage of some currency strength and buy shares of Canadian or Australian miners. I giving T.BWR, N, and Falconbridge a close look right now, haven't taken a position in any. But I notice that Copper wants to move up and zinc, which is normally dead in the summer, is also sporting some horns. Let me know if you want to take this further - there's some complexity to the mining bisness that needs to be addressed head on before I move in. One concern I have is that higher fuel costs will hurt margins. I'm trying to get specific information from co's about fuel hedging, % of operating costs, etc. It's a double edge sword - there was a large copper miner in Montana that had to shut down because the high cost of fuel would make the mine unprofitable.

To: Michael Burry who wrote (11058)	8/7/2000 9:49:22 PM
From: sjemmeri	Respond to of 78514

Thanks for the new policy on timely updates at valuestocks.net. And great start at MSN. Catalyst Elizabeth Pearce 100,358.75 Journal Entry: 8/7/2000 Scorekeeper Paul Rabbitt 100,414.38 Journal Entry: 8/4/2000 Options Tactician Terry Bedford 100,675.00 Journal Entry: 8/2/2000 Value Doc Dr. Michael Burry 101,297.50 Journal Entry: 8/7/2000 Growth Explorer Jim Collins 100,599.13 Journal Entry: 8/4/2000 Agent MULDer Robert Walberg 99,138.75

To: Michael Burry who wrote (11058)	8/9/2000 11:18:38 AM
From: Madharry	Respond to of 78514

UPdate: LDP doing great. 2 of its non-public holdings were picked up by Broadcom and Siebel systems respectably. Continues to sell for the market value of its public holdings and VINA ipo expected within a week. MRVC, ALSC, CEGE all rebounding

To: Michael Burry who wrote (11058)	8/14/2000 2:27:24 PM
From: Wallace Rivers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78514

SYMC longs - the stock has gotten clobbered since the Axent (proposed) acquisition. Most frustrating given the company's excellent financial performance of late. The company has no friends on the Street, only analysts who pay lip service IMHO. What should be done - stock buy back (they have a ton of cash), walk away from the deal, something else?

To: Michael Burry who wrote (11058)	8/21/2000 1:28:16 PM
From: Jurgis Bekepuris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78514

Michael, James and gang, OK, let's talk about telecom service providers. I just looked at a number of stocks (T, WCOM, BTY, VZ) and they are floundering near 52 week lows. I know that Mike flipped T on his "new lows" rule and I flipped WCOM on DT acquisition speculation. However, I want to raise more general questions: 1. Is this "a good business"? For ages, T had a great unassailable cash cow. I would even claim, it was a Buffetty business. It's definitely not Buffetty anymore, but is it at least "a good business"? Positives: Current infrastructure that has to be replicated by any new players. Maybe current customers. Maybe current wireless licenses. Same for current cable infrastructure (T). Negatives: Cap ex for infrastructure? Old, difficult to maintain infrastructure? Cutthroat competition cutting return-on-infrastructure? No growth prospects? 2. How to value these companies? Most of them are going through acquisitions, divestitures, tracking-stocks, joint ventures, partial investments, etc. PE, PSR are mostly unapplicable. Mike's analysis on T was great, but it may become obsolete very quickly. Also looking at historical data T is at a good price point, but is it really? I also liked WCOM's results, but is it going to survive without buying some ridiculously valued wireless company? Is there a sufficient margin-of-understanding to just buy them at price X, without going into nitty-gritty financial details? 3. Currently stocks are trading on merger, divestiture, etc. rumours. That is one possibility to profit. Another one is a long term hold ala cable companies a few years ago. However, I did not understand why cable companies were undervalued then, and I am pretty much in the same situation with telcos now. Buffett would advise to stay out - or to stay in a "circle of competence". For long-term holders TTH may be an attractive option. Any ideas, comments? Jurgis