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: bruwin who wrote (77919)	8/19/2025 12:15:16 PM
From: E_K_S	Respond to of 78507

From that list I own: OVV, LYB, DOW, GLW, IBM, T, MMM, KMI, WMB Bought HPE instead of HPQ as they service the Enterprise customer. Both have similar Market Caps but HPE slightly higher PE at 12 and pays a lower div at 2.4%. The debt profile for HPQ is werid w/ a negative Debt/equity. For HPQ to have a negative debt-to-equity ratio, it means that its Shareholder Equity is negative. Shareholder equity is the residual value of assets minus liabilities. When a company's total liabilities exceed its total assets, its shareholder equity becomes negative. This is generally considered a sign of high financial risk. sold out of PFE early last year after long term hold (over 10 years) and focused on JNJ, GILD, MRK (JNJ the best VALUE IMO # 11 in portfolio & represents 1.75% of portfolio) NOTE: Southwestern Energy did merge with Chesapeake Energy Corporation. This merger closed on October 1, 2024, and the combined company was rebranded as Expand Energy Corporation, trading under the new NASDAQ ticker symbol EXE. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Huge winners for me from the list are OVV (previously Encana), LYB, IBM, T, MMM, KMI, WMB. bought OVV in 2020 at $8/share; holding in portfolio w/ +383% gain bought IBM in 2020, adds in 2023 & 2024 avg cost $120); holding in portfolio w/ +100% gain (IBM #5 position represents 3.5% of portfolio) bought WMB 2009, adds in 2010 & 2020; holding in portfolio w/ +400% gain (WMB #9 position represents 2.77% of portfolio) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Portfolio Holdings CVX 9.28% of portfolio and #1 position AMNF 7.82% of portfolio and #2 position I keep most of my gains inside the portfolio and manage my capital gain tax accordingly

To: bruwin who wrote (77919)	8/19/2025 1:17:35 PM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78507

This ROIC and EV/EBIT list for possible buys is crazy to me. Imo, something is not right there in the way the current numbers are used. First, I like my method better. Ok, I'm nobody, and Greenblatt's the professor and billionaire. Aren't we essentially looking for the same thing here though? High returns on equity and paying a low price for that. Ok my use of ROE doesn't take account of debt (EV), and I still use low p/e as a sign of stock price (value). I'm looking at Yahoo numbers for some of the listed stocks. GM has desirable high returns on equity? I don't see that. Ford? Really? Who believes that using a high roe or roic for Ford (if it even had it) for a reason to buy this obvious cylical business is a good idea? I'm a long-term holder of refiner VLO. Another obvious cyclical. If I'm going to buy on my high roe, low p/e model, the roe has got to at least look like it's sustainable for a while (based on it being high in previous years) Secondly, imo, a reason for having a package of 20+ of these types of stocks, is that this is just what I don't want: "Understand the "Why": The final column in the table is key. A low EV/EBIT almost always comes with a catch. Is the company cyclical? In a dying industry? Facing litigation? The market is efficient; a low price usually means high risk. Your job is to determine if that risk is overblown." I am betting of course that there's something strange or unusual or wrong with any company that showing high roe and low p/e and the market doesn't care. The purpose of the package is to reduce risk that the market is right. Maybe right in a couple, but not all. Further, if I went on to research each company for the "why", there's enough negative reasons resulting, that I'd just pass over many of these stocks that will turn out to be superior investments. Anyway, just my opinion. Stocks in that list could be very good buys. (And I own several.) I just don't see that they're buys because they fit the Greenblatt model as described in his book.