"I didn't bother reading the entire post ...."
Hmmm.
"because I could already see after one paragraph it was heading to places that I don't want to waste time on."
Ah, the "w" word. I concede that I have probably "wasted" a good deal of time pursuing intellectual blind alleys. On the other hand, open-mindedness is always a "waste" of time for the close-minded.
>>As I understand it, your position is:
Graham and Dodd = Value Investing = Discounted Present Value of
Future Free Cash
Flow (DCF), period, end of story, now and forever.<<
"My position is approximately that. However, there are many methods within that definition that can be used to determine a "good"
business value. There are numerous possible models and approaches.
Some look at earnings streams, some at assets, some at free cash
flows, some at ROE etc... But at core they all are trying to buy
more in "business value" than they are paying."
I think this is an implicit admission that I am not mischaracterizing where you are coming from. Apparently, you continue to mischaracterize where I'm coming from -- and you even refuse to read writings that might make it too clear to dismiss out of hand.
>>Ergo, the implied argument has run, anything other than DCF that
appears under the
heading "Graham and Dodd", "Value Investing" or variants, is
misrepresentation, or, in
more recent versions, "preposterous", "not worth discussing", or
the like.<<
"Anything that does not fall into the category of trying to buy
more in "business value" than you are paying for is not worthy of
discussion by ME!
Another "w" word. If Birinyi's writings are not "worthy of discussion" by you, then let it go!
"I consider inclusion of greater fool theory and
similar such methodolgy as part value investing to be
preposterous."
Ah, the "p" word, again. But, I have posted twice that Birinyi's apparent approach is technical. Yet, you keep mischaracterizing what I'm saying about Birinyi. I think that's significant.
Btw, he started as a fundamental analyst. For all we know he may be screening stocks for both technical and fundamental characteristics. He certainly discusses fundamentals in his column. A little more research, and a little less vitriol, might be in order.
What makes this particularly ironic is that the last time we talked at length on the phone, both of us made positive noises about Laszlo Birinyi. I don't want to be more specific becuse I don't want to be guilty of mischaracterizing your exact words or some subtle distinction you had in mind and intended to express. But, overall, the tone was positive.
"You should certainly use whatever method you like. Just don't
discuss it with me. I think it's nonsense even if it works for
others. I am buying and selling businesses, period."
Now, the "n" word. I have a hypothesis: If you'll refrain from these irrational and abusive tirades, the "discussion" might just peter out. Why don't we both test this hypothesis?
Birinyi's method's may provide indirect evidence of what those closest to the situation think about a company's true business value. They might not. My mind is open pending further research. Yours is closed from the start. So, stop discussing, already!
I find him interesting. Perhaps others do too. Those that don't are welcome to post materials they do find interesting, like Hussman, the Austrian School, whatever.
Admittedly, if some spammer shows up touting a penny stock whose principals have just gotten out of jail for securities fraud, and declares it to be "a true value", or the like, I get pretty hot under the collar about it myself. And, I confess that my eyes glaze over about any discussion of "Bollinger Bands", channels, etc.
But, dismissing out of hand any discussion of what Birinyi has to say as a "waste", not "worthy of discussion", "preposterous", "nonsense", something Value investors are better off not reading even if it works, etc., is, at best, unscientific, and, at worst ... well, I've said enough for now -- Meerkat is trying to reach me on the phone.
porc --''''> |
