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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zebra4o1 who wrote (41773)	9/17/2005 11:04:33 AM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

I believe he has been out of it for awhile ... I read a comment a month or two ago where he advised waiting for it to get cheaper. Fleck likes it too, he's waiting until after the fed meeting to maybe buy it.

To: zebra4o1 who wrote (41773)	9/19/2005 9:11:16 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Respond to of 110194

Grant's love of NLY is hard to figure out. i agree. i mean, even i could tell they were going to have a tough time being leveraged to the yield curve in a flattening curve environment. the head of NLY has made appearances and given speeches at several Grant's conferences, i believe, and obviously he has Grant's ear. Grant has also been a gold bug since whenever but has in recent years mainly been positive about NEM, whose investment merits i have a difficult time seeing. the case for NEM seems mainly to be a sum-of-parts analysis, with bullish outcome dependent on a rising gold price. if one applied the same sort of valuation analysis to the Canadian oil sands they'd be valued at least an order of magnitude higher. the reason the oil sands (and most other oil and gas stocks, for that matter) are not valued straight up based on their economic reserves at today's market price is that it is always assumed prices will go DOWN in the future. by contrast, NEM's reserves seem to be valued as if the only possible trajectory for gold is UP (hence the blather about the "optionality" embedded in gold stocks; where is the "optionality" embedded in oil stocks? and why should there be optionality in one commodity stock and not another? it is just BS as far as i'm concerned, and imo mainly reflects the large speculative fervor in the gold sector). maybe it goes up, and you do OK, but what if it doesn't? where's the margin of safety? that is what value investing is about imo.