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: MCsweet who wrote (22898)	12/30/2005 4:19:03 PM
From: bruwin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78740

Well MC, I hear what you say and respect your opinion, But ... I think I must have missed something along the way, because it seems to me that a lot hinges around your’s and my definition of what "Value" is, how it’s defined, and what the prime intention was in setting up this "Value Investing" Board in the first place. I get the impression, from what you say, that what you and others on this Board are looking for, are currently undervalued stocks that have a currently unrecognised inherent value which, if bought now, will reward the investor at a later date. Maybe YOU can clear this up for me, once and for all, and state, clearly and concisely, what YOU regard as the central theme and motivation of this "Value Investing" Board. I thought I might find clarification in the Board’s originator, Mike Burry’s, initial "manifesto" in which he said, "What we are looking for are value plays. Obscene value plays. In the Graham tradition." Now I have my own copy of 'Security Analysis, Principles and Technique' (4th. Ed.) by Graham, Dodd and Cottle. I searched, in vain, for a reference to "obscene value plays". If you believe there’s a reference in that book that matches YOUR understanding (and definition) of what a "value stock" is, I’d certainly appreciate it if you could direct me to it. The one thing of relevance that I did find in Burry’s "manifesto", to what I attempt to do on this board, was his invitation that "Schooling in the art of fundamental analysis is also appropriate here". It seems that he was uniquely aware that no investor can know all there is about every aspect of stock analysis. I certainly include myself in this category and am always prepared to discuss and constructively debate this aspect. In this regard, I’ll be posting my personal comments and observations about that much used ratio, Price/Sales. According to my definition of what constitutes "Value", HANS is currently, and most certainly, a Value stock. In my opinion, as long as its Financial Fundamentals continue to reflect that state of affairs, it will be reflected in its stock price. Now ... until such time as you, or anyone else, can convince me, via a logical and irrefutable argument, as to why I should not post on this Board, I will continue to make my presence felt. To quote Paul Senior, "anybody can diddy-bop into the thread .... it's an un-moderated thread", (Underlining my own). Based on the nature of the feedback I’ve received, both publicly and privately, I believe I have something positive to contribute. In this regard, here’s an (almost) exact extract of a private message I received from a regular Board member .... "I think your investments on Value Thread are terrific. Congratulations... I knew some of those that you had recommended but did not know how ---- you were." Needless to say, I’ll leave identification up to the individual. In closing, I can only repeat what I said once before, ... if someone doesn’t like, or agree, with what I have to say, then they have the option to ignore it and not read it.