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: BGraham who wrote (4720)	8/19/1998 11:35:00 PM
From: James Clarke	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 78618

I agree with everything you say about INCO, but I still wouldn't buy it. What we are looking at is a very very (VERY) cheap stock without a catalyst. If you know something about nickel prices and trends that I don't, by all means, buy the stock. But when I see a stock that trades at a lower price than it did 30 years ago, I have to think there is something more going on here than commodity prices. Like I said before, if you want to play commodities, take a look at Phelps Dodge, which is a very well managed company. I guarantee you, if Nickel goes up, so will Phelps Dodge. And PD pays a generous dividend (which is not as rock solid as people think, but even if cut will still be above Nickel's miserly .9% yield). But at the same time, my Graham angel is whispering to me that Nickel at 9 could double and still be cheap. Your instinct is absolutely right that you are looking at perhaps the most unpopular stock on the US market. VALUE investors are the ones selling now, and these are the Graham value investors. The value investors who get scared sold it at 15. Trust me, I know - my firm took this from 23 to 16 and then bailed. Looked really stupid at the time, but brilliant now. I'm almost talking myself into buying it now. Probably worth a lot of research. Do I lose credibility as a value investor by virtually talking myself into something? Jim

To: BGraham who wrote (4720)	8/19/1998 11:40:00 PM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78618

Gordon P. Button: Okay, okay. If it meets Dr. Graham's criteria as you say, then it's a value stock. You got me. I feel -- now that's just a feeling not a fact-- that you're holding me to THE absolute letter of the Graham law -g-. But crimini, there are so many other companies out there that have other better value attributes... like sales/earnings growth, dividend, insider buying, trading ranges above and below book value (and I don't mean just a couple of times every 15 years). I point on your name and you are posting only on mining companies/mineral companies/Canadian resource companies???? To me, it's not just about 'a' value stock. It's about a diversified portfolio of value stocks. Perhaps that might be one of the Graham tenets to which you are not adhering -g-?? But if you are very knowledgeable about such mining/mineral stocks, then of course, I defer to your expertise (no sarcasm intended)-- there's no way I would want to bet on my opinion vs. a really knowledgeable investor. (But, on the other hand, you won't convince me to buy N now either.) And so if and when N doubles from current price... you are welcome to come back and tell me what a jerk I was for downplaying it. I just hope I will have had CYM, TIE, others, and that they performed well also. Good luck to us all. Paul Senior. (Note, my intent is not to disparage N and pump the stocks I own. I just don't think N is worth making a long term multi-year investment in, and I think that's what it's going to take to realize a profit. (Short term I think N is down. They all seem to be going down.) JMO, and as I say, I've been wrong many, MANY, times -g- Paul Senior)