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: jeffbas who wrote (16663)	3/21/2003 11:21:27 AM
From: Bob Rudd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78613

Jeffrey: <<When I consider buying a stock my number one decision is whether I want to entrust my money to management, since that is exactly what I am doing. I believe in the old saying that "if you lie down with dogs, you tend to get fleas".>>Well said, although after what's occurred with HRC, 'If you lie down with WOLVES, you tend to get eaten' would seem more appropriate. I continued to hold HRC even after I KNEW Scrushy was a wolf-sized weasal and now will take a big hit for that mistake. Auditor: Ernst says it's not their fault cause what HRC did is tough to detect - But Lynn Turner's comment on the 3yr $1.4B overstatement makes more sense: "If you can't find that size of an error, what's the point of having an audit?" I think he's on to something. Replace the big time audits with one guy chosen at random from a pool of non-related auditors and supplement it with lie detector tests for CEO's and CFO's with questions co-designed by Buffett and Turner. [Anyone who hasn't read Buffett's suggestions for questions audit committees should ask auditors in current BRKa shareholder letter should.] It would cost a lot less, take less time, and almost certainly be more effective.

To: jeffbas who wrote (16663)	3/21/2003 6:05:54 PM
From: Sergio H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78613

Jeff, I understood your comments. You're very conserned with qualtiy of value. Perhaps you don't understand my viewpoint. The ALU people aren't up for any awards for executives of the year, but they haven't been convicted or even charged with any crime and in reality, there is little probabiltiy that anyone will ever be charged with arson in the ALU fires. In the U.S., eighty percent of arson investigations are never concluded or solved. In my investments I am not looking for good samaritans or boy scouts. I am looking for value and a catalyst that will bring out that value. Thanks for the exchange.