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: Wallace Rivers who wrote (11310)	10/18/2000 10:03:22 AM
From: jeffbas	Respond to of 78613

I agree 100% on the election. In my opinion, Bush came through the debates looking as an acceptable choice - which was what he absolutely had to do. The young folks will be so pissed off at seeing their retirement money go up in smoke that Gore is a likely "beneficiary" of their anger. Greenspan should have stopped the rate increases a time or two ago. In fact, I read somewhere that he opposed the last one, but was outvoted.

To: Wallace Rivers who wrote (11310)	10/18/2000 11:00:46 AM
From: Daniel Chisholm	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78613

I would be especially wary of "relative" value. That only makes sense if the thing you are comparing it to has a rational foundation. It would seem to me that if we are in fact in the "recovery stage" of an irrationally overpriced market, then we might not yet be able to trust stock prices relative to their past prices or relative to the current stock prices of their peers or comparables. "Relative" investing may have worked very well in the bull market we've had, but I would suggest that beginning to think "absolutely" here would perhaps lend a bit of safety to one's analysis. After all, isn't "rational absolute" analysis what Graham (tangible balance sheet liquidation value vs. market cap) and Buffett (long term actual operating free cash flows vs market cap) are all about? - Daniel