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 (46402)	2/1/2012 2:05:56 PM
From: NikhilJog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78545

Clown - I am sorry - but " all fund managers" are not doing that. And I happen to personally know one of the two names you just mentioned. I cannot say which. I don;t want to throw names and sound cocky, however, i met a one on one with a certain fund manager few weeks ago( not one of the two you mentioned here) who manages north of USD 30B. And even he is using the same valuation methods and philosophy that i follow. There is always lot of learn for me, however for you, i would suggest not don't discount something when it seems that you don;t completely have an understanding about it. I am also not looking to put my philosophy on my resume. My ideas will speak for themselves. Your comments are only focused on the "catalyst" part, which is all event and not the "value" part that i talk about. Even buffett had the same philosophy as mine in the early years and i can tell you number of successful fund managers who do the same. Although there are lot of morons running money out there, so i can completely understand what you are saying. I agree that neglected investments are great plays, however, they need to be "value" names. Just bcs they are neglected does not mean they have value. Moreover, " Cheap" is a very relative term, so u don;t want to throw it around. And for my "OK" record - I appreciate your comments, however, the best managers have done annual 15% - 20% over a 10-15yr period. So you can judge my record on your own which is on my blog. However, you are correct that there is always some bias in it and i will be careful about that going forward. I still have a lot to prove.. Don;t take what I have written personally. I always appreciate a good discussion and being proven wrong. Thank you.

To: Spekulatius who wrote (46402)	2/1/2012 2:19:54 PM
From: E_K_S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78545

Clownbuck - You stated:"...My best investment have been those where i found stocks to be neglected rather than controversial. ...". I might also add, my best ones were also those where other investors threw in the towel, were at or near multi year lows and the trading volume dried up after some previous event (like earnings warnings or company specific issue). Halliburton comes to mind where I bought a bunch of shares after their asbestos lawsuit issues. A lot of investors declared them dead and/or bankrupt but the company still had a lot of value, especially some of their subsidiary companies outside the reach of the circling lawyers. So yes, neglected and boring stocks sometimes make the best value buys. On the flip side, those "story" stocks always seem to lose money for me. I stay in them too long, or the story never develops as originally told. EKS P.S. still holding MGDDY? I am looking to a $16.00/share target price. The recent new car sale statistics continue to look promising.