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: Spekulatius who wrote (45791)	12/3/2011 4:26:08 PM
From: robert b furman	Respond to of 78748

Hi CB, I always think of buying a stock as a right to the future cash flow of the business. When markets collapse or decline, everybody loses equity (unless of course they are short). If I own a stock in a company - I'm always sure they will survive and make a product that will have future demand. Implosion / collapses are just a time where I should 've had fresh cash or buying power to take advantage of the discount. It always happens. Bob

To: Spekulatius who wrote (45791)	12/3/2011 10:17:22 PM
From: Wallace Rivers	Respond to of 78748

You are correct, "no tree grows to the sky..." Of course '01-'08 were agonizing. I know they were for me, huge percentage losses. I would guess that was the case for most on the thread. I'm old enough to remember from personal experience a certain "event" in '87, and '08 was more painful, it seemed like it would never end. As to the roller coaster and crash discussion, I will tell you I had a good friend who time and time again asked me what he should do as the market kept going lower. Wrongly, in the short term, I told him to hang in there. He finally had enough and bailed in mid February '08, less than a month before the low. I wasn't faultless by any means in the '08 meltdown, but I do remember saying "no mas" in an opposite sense, picking up the likes of KMB KO SYY a couple weeks after my friend sold. Those quality names were just too cheap, KO was yielding over 4%. The other two had juicy yields, as well. All three were large caps with strong financials and many decades of operating history.