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 : Graham and Doddsville -- Value Investing In The New Era -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (740)	9/2/1998 11:24:00 PM
From: cfimx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1722

>>, is that most of us do not have the gifts to play for the Yankess of the late 60's and early 70's, much less the greatest teams of all times. << in investing it is not the "gifts." Isn't it most of us don't have the discipline, temprement, and rational thinking to be an all star. After all, it isn't as if we haven't been "taught" the right way. I take exception that you need to be a "one of a kind," or possess certain "gifts" to be HIGHLY successful at investing. So we should leave it to the masters of the universe to run OUR money?

To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (740)	9/3/1998 7:55:00 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Respond to of 1722

Porc, >>Perhaps the point that Cohen was making, and that Wien took seriously, was that the 27 Yankees would not be able to beat the 98 Yankees. So, if the 27 Yankees are now leaving the field, perhaps its because they're at the age of retirement. But, what Graham understood, and many commentators who have been very successful themselves do not seem to appreciate, is that most of us do not have the gifts to play for the Yankess of the late 60's and early 70's, much less the greatest teams of all times. Thus, most of us are likely to be better off following a mechanical buying system, rather than waiting for everyone else to be in a state of despair, and assuming that we will be immune to the pessimism that is affecting everyone else.<< I have no problem with changing ideas. I think both Abby and Byron have a lot of useful information and ideas to share. I agree with many of the changes in the environment they have voiced and you have echoed or concluded also. My point was only that the "Main or Real" debate on the values is not between those 2 analysts from Wall St. It is between a bunch of billionaires that think the market was and maybe still is ridiculously over priced (at least many blue chips) and Wall St. analysts who think that stocks are undervalued at present. Bill Wolman had a very interesting quote the other day. "Wall St. is paid to make up reasons for people to buy stocks. But there is nothing wrong with the alternatives at times." I agree with the "make up reasons" part. Almost everyone I know who is competent that has no vested interest in where stock prices go, thought stocks were very overvalued prior to the bust and in most cases still do. There must be something to these vested interest and non-vested interest conclusions. I also completely agree that everyone is not the 27 Yankees. I just suspect that the greatest players in the history of the world must have a view that should be part of the debate. Especially when they have already demonstrated that they can succeed in any environment, over many changes, over many decades. As opposed to the last couple of years. Remember Abby was grossly wrong on junk bonds in the 80's, Asia recently, and stocks in 87. Those other guys were right. I also agree that most people should follow a mechanical method or give their money to someone who can do better. Like Warren! Lastly, Abby and Byron may be right. It is just not their debate alone.