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: Graham Osborn who wrote (57410)	6/14/2016 8:48:00 AM
From: Micah Lance	Respond to of 78740

Sorry, I should clarify my original post. I find the recent insider buying particularly interesting considering Dr. Burry owned the stock and Andrew Left has stated he thinks it's heading for bankruptcy. I respect both opinions, so I was curious who would be correct in the end and the insider buying caused me to wonder if major news is going to be announced soon. I agree with everything said. I think in the 90s and earlier, risk arbitrage was something that could be useful to value investors based on some situations I have read about, however with the advent of high frequency trading I don't think those same opportunities exist today.

To: Graham Osborn who wrote (57410)	6/17/2016 9:38:26 AM
From: richardred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78740

Just pondering some thoughts on your post >Insider buys are one of those highly touted indicators I have come to regard as probably as harmful as it is helpful. For one thing, insiders buy for all sorts of reasons and these are not always easy to sort out. I agree with . >Really only the time I look at it is if there is a long-term trend (like most other things I look at): insider with a significant ownership stake and large, incremental buys over a course of months or years What's important to me is when an insider buys in the open market with their own money. I agree, looking at past patterns is also important. An exercise of stock options at 0 or a big discount is not as important IMO. Especially when it sold straight afterward. That's basically just a form of executive compensation in disguise. >Buying on M&A speculation is not value investing I also would agree on points. A case by case basis IMO. It's the timing of the purchase that's important. Today's Arden purchase is such a point. A troubled company which was undervalued by historical standards. I think many companies become valued because there was a slow down in their growth due to various reasons. IMO the market isn't willing to maintain a historical PE for slower growth and takes away from PE for mistakes. There by creating value short term or long term, if there is no recovery in past patterns. My meaning, a once growth stock becomes a value stock . At a certain economic point many companies may need acquisitions to growth for scale or diversification. However in a slow growth economy, like were seeing now. IMO It makes sense to try an turn around undervalued asset of a competitor instead of buying back stock. IMO in general, depending which stock group. IMO traditionally many hunting companies like to hunt for high growth companies and will pay way over book value to scale it.