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: Madharry who wrote (66712)	3/1/2021 5:54:35 AM
From: petal	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 78765

I was trying to make it simple for petal re baba. Re. BABA Still not simple enough I'm afraid; IME, it's not a value stock. In this case, partly because I don't understand their business and hence would be unwilling to pay even a small premium. Same with AMZN, actually. Neither are any of the other FAANGs presently value stocks by any stretch of the imagination, to me. (Even though some of them have fine cash flows and their underlying businesses are doing great.) But I seem to be in the minority here and appreciate the fact that all of y'all have way more exp points than me, and am, as always, very humble to the fact that I am most likely missing something important. That said, I agree BABA looks cheap compared to other glamour stocks. However, 1) I feel it's somewhat warranted given 1a) higher political risk (which will remain prevalent) and 1b) less visibility partly because of 1a) and partly because of increased geographical/social/interpersonal/cultural distance; also the inherent problem of trusting Chinese numbers... 2) Paraphrasing Jeremy Grantham, saying that something is cheap compared to some other ridiculously overpriced metric, does not make it cheap. That way you can make gold (as well as pretty much anything else) look very underpriced rel. to bitcoin), or pretty much any dot.com stock compared to Yahoo! in 1999, e.g., etc. etc. BABA is dirt cheap based on valuation alone. Rarebird: this statement I simply don't understand. How is BABA cheap from a conservative valuation standpoint (say Graham/Klarman)? I haven't looked closely (maybe nice FCF, for example?) but P/E > 25 and P/BV > 4 sure cheap hella expensive by any historical standard. (JMO) What say you petal et al? Re. EBIX This one however seem relatively cheap! Will look closer. Thx (However, I'm not wild about purchasing any stock that is remotely 'tech' right now... and they seem to be pretty exposed to insurance, which, judging from the price action of UWMC, seems a little shaky as well (not exactly sure why, other than possible anticipated general market downturn)