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: Harshu Vyas who wrote (74069)	10/27/2023 10:23:16 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78515

You're confusing value (a numerical thing) with technological leadership (a business fundamentals thing). Value must include the valuation of the stock. It's low. That's why it's called a value stock. It doesn't have much to do with the position of the company in it's industry, it is primarily an equity valuation item (PE is low, price to sales/book is low), and not a business fundamentals item. A crummy company can have a high equity valuation. It's not a value stock, it's an expensive stock with a lousy market position or in a lousy business area. A great company can have a low equity valuation - SIMO comes to mind, or GRVY for sure. GRVY is kicking ass, and it's PE is 1x or 2x. No one will find a better tech value stock than GRVY, perhaps ever (but that's not to say that GRVY's stock price will ever go up, there's something weird about this one!!). GRVY is deep deep value with high high growth. It makes no sense, but there ya go. If GRVY just sits there at $60, it might have $60 cash per share a year from now, and no debt. Like I said, makes no sense..... Technological leadership is a position /ranking within the tech competition. It compares a company's business to its peer group. It has nothing to do with the equity valuation. A tech company "falling behind" doesn't make it a value stock, it does make it (usually, in tech) a poor investment, because tech companies which fall behind usually don't recover - it is due to loss of technological leadership, not anything involving value equity comparison metrics.

To: Harshu Vyas who wrote (74069)	11/15/2023 2:46:49 PM
From: Sean Collett	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78515

Speaking of IBM, Sun Tzu on the Art of Investing forum, just posted about them changing their 401K policy. Starting Jan 1st they will be switching from a 401K to a Retirement Benefit Account (RBA) where IBM will no longer provide contributions. Employees can continue to put money into the 401K, but IBM is not matching anymore. The RBA is employer managed and looks like they don't have to set any money aside for this. IBM will guarantee a 6% interest rate on RBA returns until 2026 and then from 2027-2033 it will be tied to the 10-year US treasury with a floor of 3%. In 2034 is where it gets interesting as the returns will be whatever the US 10-year is. So if FED returns to ZIRP or something happens to IBM (credit downgrade or bankruptcy) then good luck to employees. If this takes hold though this could drive a shift in the stock market as well given how much 401K activity is tied up there. Will also be interesting to see how this starts to appear on the balance sheet. Will need to look more into this but wanted to share in the event anyone else had insight. Interesting move and could provide some further criteria into searching for value companies down the line. -Sean