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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (39377)	12/15/1998 3:37:00 AM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

I like your model better than anything I have seen. I like the discipline that offers capital appreciation, aggressive, and yet has a strong emphasis on income and capital preservation. I have always felt that money management and asset allocation were very key. I like this framework so that I can model how much of my capital is in what strategy. I can make sure that the percentages allocated to each strategy are appropriate with a simple check of the percentages. Then I can turn my real focus to the individual securities.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (39377)	12/15/1998 4:06:00 AM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

MB I have a couple minority views that I have been saving up. Lots of things get painted with either black or white, but of course almost nothing is all one or the other. One of my earlier minority views is that Cramer was not all bad; that he makes me think from time to time, is clearly bright, and plugged in. So here goes: 1. Index funds ("brain dead") I think the original intent of index funds is wonderful. Sort of the anti-Fidelity and others that offer very high fees in mutual funds. To me if one opts to go mutual funds, I strongly recommend Vanguard (Vanguard has low fees on actively managed funds as well as index funds), but at the very least pay a lot of attention to fees. If an asset historically goes up 10% over time , a 1 1/2% haircut each year is very significant. Even more so on bond funds and money market funds where the historic returns are less. Index funds were a good idea originally for this reason. Now, there is too much money pursuing this strategy which makes the market less efficient (but that creates more opportunities for us stockpickers :-)). Anyway to be succinct: "Costs matter". 2. Peter Lynch. Fidelity is mostly a negative, imo. I have reason to believe that Lynch personally might be a little rough around the edges. And his books might make it seem to easy to neophytes when he seems to say, "Don't worry, just go to the mall". But at least he is saying in language that all of us can access that "Hey look at the company, stupid. Is it growing? Would you want to shop there? Will it catch on?" I find elements of common sense that are valuable. Now you may have to read an entire book to get a page of wisdom. 3. Analysts. I think the point is a little overdone that analysts are all evil. It is indeed a fact that Wall Street is set up with lots of inherent conflicts of interest. It is hard to get pure representation whether you are a buyer or a seller. And analysts are often in the position of having to only make buy representations because their firms want to sell stock either through a retail brokerage operation or through an underwriting operation. However, I think it is possible to say "Ok, I understand this conflict, now what is this analyst saying; is it of any value?" Also I don't believe that just because everyone has potential moral hazards, that necessarily everyone stoops to them. My overgeneralized view of mutual fund managers is that they are just in it for the fees. However, I would use you, MB, as a counter to that generalization. You obviously care about your shareholder, even shareholders generally, excessive fees, and have strong moral feelings about companies and countries that you would not invest in such as Indonesia and tobacco companies. Just because one could be selfish, doesn't guarantee that one won't rise above.