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: sjemmeri who wrote (17190)	6/10/2003 4:11:43 PM
From: Lance Bredvold	Respond to of 78748

I began avoiding Texas based companies and people after the S&L crisis of the 80's. Have not completely gotten away from them, but found the heuristic valuable again last year. Particularly dangerous are companies based in Dallas IMO. If any froth is to be found, it will be there. Big-shotism. I also try to stay away from companies which leverage human skills rather than land or capital. Particularly creative skills like advertising or software development. Engineering firms like Fluor, Stone and Webster, et al don't usually do very well for very long because if profits become available, they go into compensation of employees until the next bust when once again, the company is up against the ropes and cutting people. Oil can fall into both categories though I do maintain some Apache Oil so that I have exposure to the most conservative (I hope) of oil based stocks. Management came from Minnesota. L.

To: sjemmeri who wrote (17190)	6/10/2003 4:31:14 PM
From: Paul Senior	Respond to of 78748

I tent to want to avoid Florida based. Especially so for any small companies that are domiciled in cities in Fla. that start with "Fort". -g-

To: sjemmeri who wrote (17190)	6/10/2003 4:40:03 PM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 78748

Of course, any company that fires its accountants or where the accountants resign, is a company to avoid. Or where the CFO is fired or resigns. (Aside: anyone here considering stepping into FRE now?) Paul Senior Just general "rules". Sometimes successfully ignored, sometimes not.

To: sjemmeri who wrote (17190)	6/11/2003 8:10:39 AM
From: TimbaBear	Respond to of 78748

I seem to share the "avoid" categories with several others. I avoid those segments where I can't quantify risk exposure due to underwriting policy: banks, finance companies, mortgage companies, insurance companies. I limit myself to companies who report using US-GAAP. I avoid all companies whose ESO expense is "high" (personal valuation threshold that changes slightly from company to company). I prefer companies who pay a dividend. "Prefer" in this context means the non-dividend paying company must be an extra-ordinary value situation. There are probably others, but I'm jet-lagged today and am a bit fuzzy-headed. TimbaBear

To: sjemmeri who wrote (17190)	6/11/2003 9:19:51 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78748

Avoid - biotech (don't understand it and don't care to), precious metals (too much like a casino) and tobacco (only area I avoid on principle). It's interesting to see how many people avoid sectors that make up much of my portfolio. But differences make a market.

To: sjemmeri who wrote (17190)	6/12/2003 4:21:38 AM
From: Bob Rudd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78748

Avoids: Biotech direct investments - Use HQH CEF - diversification & expertise at a discount. Litigation risk: Companies with potential killer exposures like asbestos, tobacco that are unpredictable and unquantifiable Regulatory risk: Gov't controls profitability - I now know that the gov't is ready willing and able to bankrupt an industry with price controls - they did it with nursing homes. I'm leary they may do it to Drug industry. Heavy insider selling: Almost always indicates big problems if insider selling jumps way above 'normal' levels. There's got to be a helluva I like about a co and it's valuation to offset this - MAXS would be one where I ignore this 'avoid' None of the above 'avoids' is absolute...individual factors may offset these 'avoid' risks.