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: E_K_S who wrote (55434)	6/8/2015 6:22:39 PM
From: Graham Osborn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78666

Hi EKS, re GHM: Sales by Glajch, 200M target - Not entirely sure I blame him as his cost basis was >$30 for at least 30% of those shares. About 12% of his stake. If he quits, I'll eat that statement. By and large I think management has gone out of their way to be candid. As to the 200M 2016 target I don't think anyone actually believes it management included. Cyclicity - You bet, but growth cyclical. Last 12 years rev: 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 102,218 104,973 103,186 74,235 62,189 101,111 86,428 65,822 55,208 41,333 55,208 41,333 PE10: The real question is where we are in the cycle. Last time we were this low was when the blood was getting sucked out of all value stocks back in 1998 (I've read this thread around that time, and it was not pretty - Mike Burry almost quit). So maybe you are right, here we are, and it loses another 30% over the next 2 years. In that case it will be a short-term-hold-and-buy-lower-in-a-few-years type situation. I haven't seen many cyclicals with this kind of margin of safety. Take TRN: Oil service sector concentration - I see the US refiners as being able to pick up the slack both US and abroad for E&P's. These guys are essentially a service company IMO - making pretty much the same boring parts on contract for whoever calls needing a condenser. If that was E&Ps during the oil boom, that's effect - not cause. Thanks for the feedback, Graham