SI
SI
discoversearch

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: TimbaBear who wrote (15957)12/27/2002 12:25:00 AM
From: Don Earl  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 78628
 
Timba,

I did go over parts of the plan, and can't find any fault with the Forbes view point. I can also (if I squint) see your view that if warrants are issued they might (if I squint) have some value.

I'm sure there are as many different views on what constitutes a value play as there are value investors. IMO, there has to be something substantial to provide some measure of protection to the downside, and if the downside is breached, whatever that "substantial something" is, it will eventually cause a correction which results in profits or at least something close to break even.

I've seen you do some very solid fundamental analysis on various issues. In the case of Armstrong, there are just plain too many pieces of the puzzle missing to arrive at any kind of value, and any attempt to do so requires making unsubstantiated assumptions of the purely speculative variety. From where I'm sitting it looks too speculative to build a case for it being a good value. Not to mention that I view officers who bankrupt public companies as pond scum and the Armstrong scam stinks of payoffs and kickbacks.

It's a mystery to me how fund managers can dump hundreds of millions of dollars of other peoples money into these companies, and then not lift a finger to see that shareholders committees are formed to protect the investment from corrupt officers.