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: Elroy who wrote (73881)	10/5/2023 3:47:39 PM
From: Harshu Vyas	Respond to of 78711

We all invest TODAY and want stocks to go up TOMORROW. The idea that the stock will decline over the next six months (for example) and then go up a lot after that isn't a persuasive argument to buy a stock. This is actually a very valid point and one I wish I had learnt earlier. It's mentioned in the book "The Art of Execution" where there's examples of fund managers who get it "wrong" making profits and those with exceptional calls actually losing money. Nobody invests for the stock to halve and then 10x after - mental resilience is important but not every investment has to be "tough" to go through with. It's also incredibly tough to execute such a strategy without the benefit of hindsight. You only invest in the first place because a company is undervalued today. Timing is very important and anybody that doesn't believe it is simply delusional.

To: Elroy who wrote (73881)	10/5/2023 3:50:49 PM
From: Sean Collett	1 Recommendation Recommended By E_K_S Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78711

I disagree on the usefulness of the question because that is a key thing to have in mind when selecting a stock in my opinion. Is it going to take me 2 years to see the asset hit intrinsic value or is it going to take 5 years? Graham was looking for 50% in 2-years. << The idea that the stock will decline over the next six months (for example) and then go up a lot after that isn't a persuasive argument to buy a stock.>> Doesn't seem to stop Warren and people love him here. If the fundamentals make sense then perhaps you don't care about the decline knowing the price will correct itself in due time. Understand your point though in that you were just looking for feedback. -Sean

To: Elroy who wrote (73881)	10/5/2023 4:26:12 PM
From: Paul Senior	2 Recommendations Recommended By Sean Collett Spekulatius Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78711

what is your targeted timeline? No, this is not a useful question. We all invest TODAY and want stocks to go up TOMORROW. The idea that the stock will decline over the next six months (for example) and then go up a lot after that isn't a persuasive argument to buy a stock.And if the view is correct that it will go up a lot after the decline is accurate and reasonable, then it wouldn't decline in the first place. I have a different opinion. To me, when people post about a stock here, an implied question that I do have is, "How long are you planning to be in the stock"? How many times have we heard people say "I'm buying a stock, because management's getting their act together and the stock will rise in a couple of quarters." Then a short time later selling, "Oh, I changed my mind. Oh I found something better." These stock buyers have no idea how long they will actually expect to be in the stock they mention. Especially if it's turned against them or maybe not moved much at all (dead money). How about takeover candidates? They often decline after an announcement but work out well if/when the takeover is complete. The stock maybe doesn't go up a lot, but that's offset by making a heavier bet on the presumption that it WILL go up eventually (to the takeover price).

To: Elroy who wrote (73881)	11/8/2023 10:29:57 PM
From: E_K_S	1 Recommendation Recommended By richardred Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78711

B&G Foods Sells Green Giant U.S. Shelf-Stable Product Line to Seneca Foods Corporation PARSIPPANY, N.J., November 08, 2023--( BUSINESS WIRE)--B&G Foods, Inc. (NYSE: BGS) announced today that it has sold its Green Giant U.S. shelf-stable vegetable product line to Seneca Foods Corporation. In connection with the sale, B&G Foods, which will retain ownership of the Green Giant trademarks, will license the Green Giant brand name to Seneca Foods. The sale does not include Green Giant frozen, Green Giant Canada or the Le Sueur brand. "Our decision to sell the U.S. shelf-stable product line of the Green Giant brand is part of our ongoing effort to divest product lines that are non-core to B&G Foods’ long-term strategy and reduce long-term debt," said Casey Keller, President and Chief Executive Officer of B&G Foods. "We believe that Seneca Foods, the long-time, primary co-manufacturer for the Green Giant U.S. shelf-stable product line, is the right owner for the U.S. shelf-stable product line. We continue to believe in the power of the iconic Green Giant brand and the sale will allow our Green Giant team to focus on Green Giant frozen, Green Giant Canada and the Le Sueur brand." Interesting. Looks like they are keep certain pieces of that division, specifically their trademark which they will license to Seneca Foods. Proceeds will be used to pay down debt. I suspect there was a huge Goodwill impairment booked, so by keeping the 'trademark' and licensing rights, they can generate a small revenue stream w/o having to write down the Goodwill all at once. They reported earnings w/ a huge loss so I suspect some of that Goodwill was written down.