SI
SI
discoversearch

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: anializer who wrote (34665)6/1/2009 4:39:25 PM
From: Wallace Rivers  Respond to of 78659
 
Maybe fave is not the right word. ABT is followed by several on the thread, and owned by several, me included. Probably doesn't fit the classic value metrics, but is down toward the low end of its 52W price, offers a better than average yield, and is one of the big dogs in its industry.



To: anializer who wrote (34665)6/1/2009 5:24:21 PM
From: Paul Senior  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 78659
 
If a key criterion for purchase is always going to be discount to tangible book value, then of course, there will be some wonderful companies that will never be bought at any price. PG with negative tangible bv or EMR with negligible tangible. ABT, imo.

And otoh, just because a company sells below tangible book value, that might provide only a problematic margin of safety. So for example, there are some people who worry that an excess number of ships are being floated and that many of the current ships could be or should be valued at scrap, which could be below calculated tangible bv.
=============
Not that everybody would agree that my examples are wonderful companies, but they are pretty good. And it's okay too imo if some sector or businesses are skipped such that a person's portfolio picks up other stocks that have that margin of safety of being bought below tangible book value.

-g- Of course for me, I'm not one to want to skip a sector or an opportunity if I can understand it.