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: Sergio H who wrote (49632)	10/4/2012 3:17:29 AM
From: Paul Senior	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78731

I say "me", "for me", "to me" because I'm quite aware other people may have a totally different opinion about the stock(s) I am talking about or have no interest at all in the particular stock or stock, and I want to recognize that and qualify my post. So I try never to say, "the stock's a buy". Rather, "it's a buy for me" or "it's a pass for me". Recognizing, for other people, they may have a totally different view of the stock or time frame for holding the stock -- and their view might be the correct one or the better one for them. You got to do some research. I been here posting on GTI here for more than a decade. I'm not going to keep repeating and repeating why I like it. I posted on why I like Celanese. I'm not here to write reports and do your homework and analysis. Geez, with all the stocks I talk about, how much writing per stock do you expect? I gave you links to every stock I mentioned. About PMGLF, Did you not see the SA article "Red Tag Deals-Petrominerales"? How much more information do you need after that to determine if you will go further with an analysis or stop? Stocks that hit new lows are not value stocks. Value stocks as defined by Graham are stocks that are selling for values that are not recognized by the market. If you want to go with Graham analyses stick to Graham anaylyses. You keep saying that ("Stocks that hit new lows are not value stocks.") in posts to me. As if I only or primarily buy stocks off the new lows list and have no other reasons for buying them. That is not correct. I buy stocks when I can find them at low prices and when the standard value metrics reflect something I like (low p/e, low p/sales, low p/stated bv). Sometimes on the new lows list I find stocks that qualify. As far as I know and understand, this qualifies as late (1976) Graham -- holding a package of stocks meeting one or two metrics. =================================== This is a value thread. One of several on SI. I'm the only person so far to have provided a link to the just ended Value Investing Congress. The stocks mentioned in the Congress were provided by people who are famous value investors. I spent some time and effort reviewing each stock. I posted what I liked, and some of what I didn't like about some of those stocks. That's all. (I figured you ROC holders would be happy to see that a value investor pro is making a case for it.) I mentioned CFW.to and that it was my favorite (in the sense I owned shares and have been buying more recently). Whether anyone agrees with me or likes or dislikes the stock, the point is that if I didn't post about the Congress and maybe if I didn't mention CFW.to, would anybody here on the thread then even be aware now of CFW or have access to the other stocks mentioned to even consider if CFW or the others might be worth looking closer at? I'm trying to add value. What value are you adding by hectoring me?