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 : Fundamental Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sergio H who wrote (2125)	8/3/2012 7:45:27 AM
From: bruwin	Respond to of 4721

PM. With regard to my following comments/opinion regarding PM’s presence in the Portfolio, let me say, at the outset, that they have nothing to do with the fact that I proposed PM. If PM does not receive sufficient votes, or if the majority consensus is that it should not be included, then so be it. However, I would like to make the following point with regard to any stock that has been proposed for the Portfolio … What we are attempting to do here, IMO, is to put forward 10 stocks that we believe will outperform Buffett’s stocks in terms of price gain coupled with dividend payout. Whether or not we like or dislike the ethics, etc.., of the company shouldn’t really be an issue because, for one thing, we are not PHYSICALLY BUYING any shares in the company. So in that regard we are not supporting PM, financially, in their manufacture and promotion of cigarettes and tobacco products. We are looking for companies whose business performance, over the longer term, will enhance our chances to beat Buffett. Rest assured, I’m just as negative about cigarettes and smoking as the next man. My own home is a “smoke free zone”. And in an “Off Topic” (OT) aside, those who dislike smoking, because of the belief that it’s the tobacco plant, itself, that causes the problem, may be interested to read the contents contained in the following two links. I’m sure many of us have heard someone say that they have a relative or friend who smoked for many, many years and continued to do so until they died peacefully in their sleep, at the ripe old age of 80 or 90, so it couldn’t have been tobacco that killed them. From the contents of the attached links, I’m more of the opinion that one plays Russian roulette when one smokes, because it could be that the tobacco for their brand, that’s grown in one part of the world, may not be “contaminated” by radionuclides as could the case for tobacco grown elsewhere, due to the nature and contents of the fertilizer used. And it’s very likely that it’s those radionuclides that eventually kill you and not the nicotine ….. nytimes.com altered-states.net