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: Mark Marcellus who wrote (18511)	1/21/2004 11:19:04 PM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78958

Okay, but do we then get to this conclusion: There's no difference between growth and value styles or approaches. Growth is a component of value. FFIV is proposed as a stock for this thread's consideration. If you don't see it as a value stock, consider it as a growth stock. That is, it's a value stock with perhaps a very large growth component. This stock therefore meets the requirement of the thread. If a stock like FFIV meets requirements, then such a stock should be expected to be seen here by thread readers. If a stock like FFIV fits, then I have to really stretch to find a stock that doesn't fit. Conclusion: Any and all stocks could be posted here and still be called appropriate to a value thread. Paul Senior Although as I re-read the post, FFIV is mentioned as owned by several mutual funds and as a possible take-over play, not as specifically as a 'growth' stock. --------- Oh I realize it doesn't make any difference to most people what stocks get posted. -g- People are looking for ideas, or to post their suggestions and maybe get feedback. This thread doesn't get busy enough where it's difficult for readers to just scroll through posts that they have no interest in. And I suspect details about FFIV and this conversation are just such posts to be skipped over. lol.

To: Mark Marcellus who wrote (18511)	1/21/2004 11:26:28 PM
From: Steve168	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78958

Mark, I recall one book said the major difference between Buffett and Graham is that Buffett changed Graham's net-net value approach, and counted "growth" as part of the "value". Graham never liked "growth". I tend to like Buffett's approach, since you will not be able to buy a single stock in 1998-2001 since the market was grossly overvalued. There were below-cash net-net plays in late 2002 to early 2003, but now they are all gone and you will probably have to wait for a year or two to buy those "trouble-free" net-net stocks. Graham's reasoning is "growth" is always priced in the market. All the analyst forecast stuff are simply pricing in those anticipated growth. It makes sense. My answer is to be a superior investor, one can develop expertise in some industry/sectors so that s/he can see what average Wall Street analysts don't see, and have a more accurate forecast/estimate than them. Based on that s/he can predict the company is going to beat or miss the estimates, thus has a much better chance to profit, than taking the face value of analyst estimates.

To: Mark Marcellus who wrote (18511)	1/22/2004 1:29:48 PM
From: MCsweet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78958

Growth vs. value, I agree with Paul on this one. In some sense one can say that all investing is "value investing" because everyone tries to buy stocks that are "undervalued." In my mind this definition of value is pretty useless --- it doesn't differentiate a value stock from any other kind of stock except perhaps that you think the value stock is going to go up more. I am not looking for stocks with large PEs, Price/Books, Price/Sales, and good growth prospects --- what I call growth stocks. I have been a failure in investing in these types of stocks and don't have a huge interest in seeing them. Also, statistically it has been proven that these stocks underperform value stocks over time. Hence, a growth stock recommendation here or there is fine (or a follow up on a former value stock), but in general I think they'd be better located on another board. In other words, I find the standard (and possibly ignorant?) distinction of growth and value to be a handy distinction and think this board should remain primarily devoted to value. MC