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: James F. Hopkins who wrote (4412)	7/12/1998 6:02:00 AM
From: Jim Battaglia	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78751

A very good post James! You are so very right in what you have said. Let me asked you an additional question? Have you used or thought about the "Beat The Dow" with the top 15 highest yielding S&P stocks (minus) the utilities? I like your idea of the second 25 of the top 50 S&P stocks. Now if we can get a Management company to set up a mutual fund with just those stocks would it be as hot as the BTD in back testing? Would you think investing in the ""Nifty Fifty" mutual funds be easier? Ummm the Nifty Twenty Five!!! Interesting. Thanks Jim investnbest.netmegs.com Invest-n-Best Resource Center

To: James F. Hopkins who wrote (4412)	7/12/1998 1:32:00 PM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78751

Yeah, very good post James -g-. Nice to see your occasional hit-and-run post here that repeats your opinion that value investing doesn't work, and that we need to do this new thing you've come up with. Juices up the thread on a quiet Sunday. Nice to see also that you're packing your post with some stocks and prices, and that you've got some help in cleaning up your English and spelling. Of course you provide absolutely no evidence that value investing is crippled. I don't see why balancing your MOMO stocks every three months is optimum or why transaction costs are not important. I don't see that culling losers from gainers is better than picking the losers. (I would guess the tendency for value investors would be to go with the stocks that haven't yet moved as much.) I don't see where anyone has tried this method successfully, or even that you yourself use it. Nor is it clear how best to reallocate (by $, by percent increase/decrease in price, some sector balance,50 stocks only). And risk/reward tradeoffs are not considered. (As in 'margin of safety' that is often associated with value investing) Nor are any tax implications considered. (Although I assume your method is for IRAs/401s/etc.) Basically you are saying buy a sample of big stocks that everyone is buying (indexing on) that are going up. If they don't go up, don't buy 'em. Sounds to me just like what Will Rodgers once said--I think before the market crashed. Anyway you get credit from me (FWIW) for creative ideas, but as far as this actually being a better way to invest than value investing... I don't see it.

To: James F. Hopkins who wrote (4412)	7/12/1998 2:02:00 PM
From: Stewart Whitman	Respond to of 78751

> The Top 15 in the S&P 100 make up over 50% of it. The Top 5 in the > Nazdaq 100 make up 50% of it. What are the normal or historical numbers? It seems to make sense to me that P/E expansion due to a "good" economic environment should lead to the a skew in these weightings and that they might not be as a result of indexing. Stew