SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Buffettology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Robert Douglas who wrote (652)12/8/1998 1:06:00 PM
From: Shane M  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 4691
 
All,

Wanted to post the that the SI Bull to Bear Ratio is higher than I've ever seen it. I think most people would view this as a contrarian indicator.

techstocks.com

Shane



To: Robert Douglas who wrote (652)12/8/1998 1:51:00 PM
From: Jurgis Bekepuris  Respond to of 4691
 
Robert,

I agree with you that there is a demand for aircraft,
and that this demand is growing at long term X%. However,
if you applied the same logic to other growth-cyclical
sectors, e.g. semi-equips, you'd get severely punished
if you bought around one of the tops. BA may be in
the bottom of the cycle now, but you have to recognize
that, and not try to make it into pure customer-franchise
Buffett stock. In other words, the demand for planes will
vary much more than demand for Coke or Gillette blades.

Also, don't discard the heavy capital requirements
to build new planes, rockets, etc. Coke does not have to
invent a new titanium-fly-by-wire-nuclear-fission-powered
Stealth-space-shuttle every year. Three words: free cash flows.

Did you see the Barron's article titled "Internet Bargain"?


No, I did not see it. However, I have discussed this
idea to death two years ago after
an article with exactly the same motivation in
some rag. Has anything changed since then? FedEx is still
in the quagmire of building its fleet and bleeding cash.
Margins are thin, ROE low, and stock only jumps XX% after
Barron's hype. Is it a franchise? Yes. Is it a good investment?
Once again, long term you have to pray for no inflation.

To summarize: BA is a buy at some point just
because of the excitement of owning 0.00001% of the Space
Shuttle. But the board should be canned NOW. FDX is
a wash - I have no opinion and I don't want to dig deeper.

Good luck

Jurgis



To: Robert Douglas who wrote (652)12/8/1998 7:11:00 PM
From: James Clarke  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 4691
 
Robert, I like your BA analysis. If you really believe (I do) that you've got 10% long term unit growth. And if you believe (I do) that there are two companies that can make airplanes, and there isn't going to be another one for a long time, then Boeing may be even better than a Buffett stock, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE DEMAND IS CYCLICAL. Cyclicality gives a smart investor buying opportunities. And selling opportunities for that matter. It is unlikely you are going to get a shot to buy at a reasonable price a stock that grows at 10% every quarter, every year. But put some cyclicality into that, and you get a fear and greed cycle in the stock which you can take advantage of if you really believe the growth premise. Nike is in the same category I believe - Mr. Market has given investors spectacular investment opportunities in that one when the cycle was down. Intel has been another one, though I fear their franchise may be breaking down. The key is being able to forecast mid-cycle earnings power and value them off that. This is extremely difficult. With enough work, is it possible? I don't know yet - ask me in ten years when I can evaluate my Nike pick and my Boeing pick.

I am making a careful distinction between three types of businesses.
1) Very predictable growers (KO, G, MSFT?, AIG)
2) Cyclical growers (INTC, BA, DOV, CAT?, DE?)
3) Cyclical losers (steels, autos) - for these you can't be confident that the next peak will be significantly higher than the previous one.

As an investor, applying Buffett's lessons to the 2's might be appropriate in a market like this where anything with unpredicable earnings QUARTER TO QUARTER gets murdered periodically. I think this concept may be worth a lot of pondering.

Jim