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

To: Michael Burry who wrote (799)	12/27/1998 1:10:00 AM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4691

Mike. My opinion is this: In this market, Mr. Buffett is doing great. No matter what he says about stocks being overvalued or he can't find bargains. His net worth has got to be at new all time highs. He has positioned himself well. There's no need for HIM to buy now. Or maybe ever again. But... Buffett followers - those who don't own his stocks or his company-- Not swinging for many years now 1, 2,3,4?-- they are standing around with bats on their shoulders. I think people like CW are saying it's all irrelevant because the pitcher is throwing to a different base altogher. What I'm saying (I think) is that reliance on Buffett methods and also being so determined to "avoid permanent loss of capital" are keeping people out of the market --while Buffett himself is in it and prospering from it. That's weird.

To: Michael Burry who wrote (799)	12/27/1998 1:12:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4691

Michael, you said CW says but there's a new era. If you mean by that what some say is that the old rules in investing don't apply any more, I don't agree. The old rules still apply and in my mind they will always apply. Find good companies within good industries with good growth prospects. That is the essence of investing. But if you mean that there is a fundamental shift in our economy, then I heartily agree. Let's compare and contrast three approaches for the moment: value investing, Buffett investing, and growth investing. Value investing is the most constrained of the three because it needs to find companies that are mispriced for whatever reason. But its primary characteristic is that once a company is properly priced there is little reason to hold it. So, my question is this -- isn't it fair to characterize the value investor in similar terms as a market maker? Buffett investing is value oriented to some extent, but much less constrained than value investing. It seems to be more concerned with the predictability of future cash flows, and its insistence on large capitalization stocks makes finding "undervalued" stocks virtually impossible (if you believe in any incarnation of the EMH). The universe of these stocks is necessarily limited to relatively slow-growing companies in well-defined markets. Companies like KO are typical. But I ask myself this question: how much growth does the soft drink industry have? As an industry, can it really grow that much faster than population growth? But make no mistake about it, Buffett is looking for growth that he can understand and analyze. But there is another universe out there. This universe consists of highly innovative companies producing goods and services that have the quality of literally transforming society. The way we work, the way we play, the way we shop, and the length and quality of our lives are being transformed by these firms. The promise and the risk that these companies hold for investors are the very qualities that preclude them from consideration by Buffett-type investors. Many of them are unproven, with untested managements, and anything but predictable earnings. But there were those of us who saw that promise in companies like MSFT and CPQ in the early to mid 1980's, and DELL and CSCO and AOL in the 90's. My entire contention is that Buffett is ill-equipped to evaluate those kinds off opportunities. And just because he is at a loss as to how to evaluate these companies should you assume a similar impediment? If the risk inherent in these companies is something you cannot comfortably bear, I can well-understand it. But to shy away simply because they violate Buffett's rules is a self-imposed limitation I cannot understand. TTFN, CTC