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: Paul Senior who wrote (5237)	11/6/1998 2:51:00 PM
From: Michael Burry	Respond to of 78530

I haven't gotten that bug. I bailed on the market just when it really started to take off. So now I see just about everything I wanted about twice when I first loaded up, and up about 30-50% from when I sold it all. Makes it hard to buy. But I did add to Midway today, doubling my position again. Of all the stocks that I follow, it's the only one I feel comfortable buying, since I know exactly why it is down, and it hasn't participated at all in this greater fool's run-up. Just about everything else even the Deswell's and NH's could easily retrace their gains in short order with any market downdraft, and stay there for a while. I feel this market is as risky as it's ever been. Mike

To: Paul Senior who wrote (5237)	11/8/1998 12:04:00 AM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78530

Does anyone have an opinion on MGIC (symbol: MTG). Stock is up from its 1998 lows (what isn't?) but trading down quite bit from its high. It has a pe of 13. My tables on MGIC go back to 1992. Looks like every year there's been an increase in revenue and a corresponding 6 years of increasing earnings. Isn't this a business that MGIC has pretty much either a lock on or dominates? And a business - insurance - that is required for most people who are buying homes? I would think that MGIC would trade at a higher multiple than 13X. However, it traded on average roughly between 12-14 back in '92 through '93, according to my table. And its price to book (now about 2.9) was between 2.3-2.5 in '92-94. So maybe the stock isn't undervalued. But yet those earnings/revs are moving up... and so has the stock price - from under 10 in '92 to over 70 this year. My questions would be: is this company fairly valued now or is it still too expensive- by a value investor's criteria? Or are we talking about a growth stock here? And if so, is it a reasonable buy now given past growth and based on criteria a growth investor would use? Or maybe it is a GARP stock? (I do not own this stock; if you were to buy it what would be your ruling reasons?) Paul