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: pcyhuang who wrote (25564)	12/18/2006 2:57:39 AM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78704

Sorry. I can't get that list of those value investors without registering at the site, and I'm not prepared to do that. I have learned to my dismay that anyone can and will call anything a value stock. As regards CWTR, it's my opinion that if someone includes CWTR in a subset of stocks they call "value stocks", that gives me a very good clue as to the the size and scope of that person's subset. Way large compared to standard subset definitions of value stocks. Certainly beyond what I could include. And I'm one who this year could go so far as to include a stock like Google in my value subset because of its high profit margins to stock price. I believe CWTR could be bought for a number of reasons: Because it's going up. Because it's temporarily down. Because it's the greatest retail phenomenon of the decade. Because ten other guys who are value investors have bought it. Because the future looks great. Because pcyhuang says he is a buyer. To say it's a buy though because it's a value stock, that I do not at all see.

To: pcyhuang who wrote (25564)	12/18/2006 8:07:06 AM
From: Mark Marcellus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78704

May I suggest that you visit the forum on Contrarian Investing and check out its records of recommendations and see how "contrarian investing" is properly defined: I don't need to visit that forum to know how Contrarian investing is defined - I think I've already got a pretty good idea of that. For example, I know that PEG ratios and the breaking of uptrend lines on high volume, the two factors you cited on CWTR, have absolutely nothing to do with Contrarian investing. Nor does attempting to mimic what other investors, (value or other) buy count as Contrarian investing - in fact I would say that's the opposite of Contrarianism. There are lots of people calling themselves contrarian these days, and they remind me of the teen age girls who go to the mall to buy clothes that will give them a cool look, and who all come to school the next day wearing outfits that all look the same. Have you read Humphrey Neill's book? Do you even know who he is? After reading Dremen's book (I assume that you've at least done that) how can you cite the breaking of an uptrend line as evidence that the stock is a contrarian investment? I'm sorry because I don't mean to pick on you, but I happen to think using words and terminology properly is important - if you are going to appropriate terminology that isn't yours and misuse it, you're going to have to put up with the occasional rant from cranks like me. For all I know, "pcyhuang investing" is the greatest thing since sliced bread and will make a lot of people a lot of money, but from all you have posted here, I see no evidence that it remotely resembles either "Contrarian" or "Value" investing as defined by those who coined the terms.