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: petal who wrote (65057)	10/4/2020 3:10:00 PM
From: Paul Senior	2 Recommendations Recommended By Jurgis Bekepuris sjemmeri Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78783

Money managers of funds have an incentive to do well in that the better they do to increase their funds' performance, one can presume that more money they will attract to the fund, and maybe that leads to higher salaries or incentives for the managers. Yes, Burry. There is that argument (made by Bill Miller) that analysts really don't look much at the financials, don't do much research -- they're busy with clients, meetings, etc. And so someone who does look, has an advantage (sometimes), he says. Not sure I believe that. Also as in small businesses/obscure stocks not being looked at by analysts because they're too small --- I don't really buy that either. There are people - stock hunters/analysts all over scouring the world for any opportunistic buys.

To: petal who wrote (65057)	10/4/2020 3:43:30 PM
From: Paul Senior	3 Recommendations Recommended By E_K_S Jurgis Bekepuris Lance Bredvold Respond to of 78783

"There aren’t very many people prepared to go through a large number of annual reports in detail on a consistent basis, I wouldn't think." You would have to have a way of screening and selecting before you began the in-depth study. There'd be a risk that you would pass over some stock you shouldn't have. Or a risk that you spent so much time researching a particular stock that you convince yourself that just because you've spent the time, you're now in to it and you should go for a buy. I find that being in a stock for a number of years, gives me time to understand the company better - its business, its management, how it trades, etc. Sometimes that helps.

To: petal who wrote (65057)	10/5/2020 2:34:26 PM
From: Jurgis Bekepuris	1 Recommendation Recommended By petal Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78783

< then professional analysts and the fund managers should be able to demonstrate that consistently > Well you know the reasons why they don’t… Not enough time, I think that you are very naive that you have more time than professional analysts who work on this whole day and additionally may have teams preparing data for them. Forget sell-side analysts. For practically any stock (well, maybe except some Swedish micro caps, but even then I'm not sure) there's someone on Internet who have done way more in-depth DD than what you or I or anyone on SI has done. Do they outperform? I don't really know, but I haven't seen a proof that they do. At least I've seen crushingly in-depth reports on stocks that underperform with pretty similar frequency as I've seen in-depth reports on stocks that outperform. I'm not fully on Paul Senior's side in this discussion. I'm on the side that 99%+ of people should invest in indexes. Including people who come to SI or CoBF. But if you don't want to listen to this, then it's your choice. You can do deep DD, shallow DD, concentrate, diversify, buy value, buy growth, etc. Any of these might work for you or not. Mostly, I'd suggest to do what you think is fun, interesting, and possibly learning experience. Since this might give enough benefit even if you don't outperform indexes (which is IMO the likely outcome). Peace.