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 : 50% Gains Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Micawber who wrote (75886)	4/8/2009 11:51:21 AM
From: Jurgis Bekepuris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 118717

I share his observation re investing in debt (or preferreds) vs. stocks at current low prices: "My only worry is that if we buy a whole bunch of fixed-income paper that’s going to end up averaging 20% per annum for a period of time, I ask myself, what does that mean for the common? Equities could go up 5 to 10 times in 5 to 10 years." And so far, like he said, balance is the only solution.

To: Micawber who wrote (75886)	4/8/2009 1:19:41 PM
From: Paul Senior	Respond to of 118717

Thanks for the link, Micawber. Imo, superb. Significant and helpful. Lot there to consider. Immediately I see a compelling case for FCX. Compels me anyway: I'll buy.

To: Micawber who wrote (75886)	4/8/2009 2:04:47 PM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 118717

LUK is in my opinion one to watch...

To: Micawber who wrote (75886)	4/9/2009 12:08:13 PM
From: Jurgis Bekepuris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 118717

It's a great read. However, I have conflicting reaction to Bruce's thoughts. He is definitely very smart and successful investor - I won't argue about it. And yet, the best ideas that he presents: Hertz, URI, Pfizer - is that really the best one can do while working 12 hour work days at Fairholme? He repeatedly says that he tries to kill companies and then he chooses Hertz and URI which both have negative tangible assets putting them one foot in a grave. Sure, if neither of them BKs, he may win big, but is this really consistent of "not losing money" for your investors mantra? Are they safe in any meaning of the word? He argues that they are, based on deep calculations of free cash flow based on his own definition of FCF. I am sceptical. Then we have Pfizer. First he argued that the company is great because it had a lot of cash and was not planning to make acquisitions. Now he supports the purchase of Wyeth. Furthermore, his thesis is that Pfizer will do great by just competing in generic area. I am not an expert in this, so maybe he is on to something, but I am also sceptical about it. His argument that "people spend less time choosing generic than the chocolate they buy" sounds very much like patent-protected pharma marketing FUD: buy our patented pill, the generic is garbage. It may work though if executed properly. It is a time in the market when like he says "the index may almost work", i.e. you may have great results by just buying the index, since things have been beaten down so much. So obviously he and his fund can add only two things: safety and overperformance. It seems to me that he is chasing overperformance in lieu of safety. Time will show if he was right to do it. Disclosure: I own WYE stock.