|
Following up on HOS, their semi-competitor GLF released earnings last night and met expectations on revenue and had a smaller loss than anticipated. They also sold one of their ships at 110% of book value (GLF traded at <30% of book value as of last night). Another positive takeaway is that, in the opinion of their management, Gulf of Mexico dayrates have stabilized. One bad note is that their utilization rates declined by quite a lot in the Gulf and in Brazil (where Hornbeck is focused, along with Mexico). The decline in utilization isn't necessarily going to be reflective of Hornbeck, because Hornbeck's assets are slightly higher quality (and could have theoretically taken market share away from Gulfmark). We'll see next week, though.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
MDC Partners (MDCA) just fired their retarded CEO (well he "retired with no compensation") and ordered him to pay back a bunch of illegal expenses, the stock is down to 18 or so from 28 earlier this year before the scandal broke. Nothing in their peripherals seems that different aside from this one fact that he was essentially embezzling personally...any reason to think this won't hop back up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Alright guys, I just got on the SAFM train. How can I tell the CFO to borrow a cool half a billion and give it to the shareholders? I would even settle for them borrowing like $250 million for dividends/buybacks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Not quite a train at this point, just kinda chilling at the station with the conductors taking a nap. It does warm my heart that every day that goes by that chicken hasn't plummeted, they're adding 3+ cents a share in cash to the coffers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Not quite a train at this point, just kinda chilling at the station with the conductors taking a nap. Oh well, at least I have chicken.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
crazypeltast52 posted:Oh well, at least I have chicken. Doesn't matter have chicken. Hahahahaha holy poo poo thank you amazon! This keeps up I'm gonna be posting some gamesguy-type screens soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Baddog posted:Hahahahaha holy poo poo thank you amazon! This keeps up I'm gonna be posting some gamesguy-type screens soon. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Not quite a train at this point, just kinda chilling at the station with the conductors taking a nap. Ugh, don't talk to me about trains... Also, how Amazon is worth 250 billion dollars with a 0.4% profit margin that they likely won't sustain is completely beyond me. Its like investors are expecting half of their expenses to magically disappear overnight and turn into free cash flow to justify their current 750 forward P/E. There is a lot of exuberance with a lot of growth stocks lately and think they are going to get hammered once reality hits in the forthcoming bear market. This earnings season is killing me, not necessarily because of the stocks I own (within expectations), but the ones I didn't buy when I had a bunch of money at the beginning of the year. Was considering buying GOOGL, SBUX and V, but instead went for UNP thinking I could profit from the oil sands to the west coast. loving coal....
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Baddog posted:Doesn't matter have chicken.  I'm three for three on earnings today with amzn, sbux, and v.  If they open at this level tomorrow it'll more than make up for the hammering I took on tsla with the unexpected downgrade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:
AWS is so good and cheap, and there are still a ton of companies who haven't switched to using it. They could charge double the price and it would still be a deal. Hell, they *give* away half the services. I still think that amazon is now a web services company who also happen to have an online store, not the other way around. So the stock is still a value.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Baddog posted:AWS is so good and cheap, and there are still a ton of companies who haven't switched to using it. They could charge double the price and it would still be a deal. Hell, they *give* away half the services. I still think that amazon is now a web services company who also happen to have an online store, not the other way around. So the stock is still a value. To bring their profitability per share in line with that of Google, Amazon would have to quadruple their AWS revenues and not incur a cent of new expenses while doing so. While I am sure they can eventually hit that revenue number, the fact that the $2.5 billion increase in revenues over the last quarter only resulted in a $96 million profit tells me that the expense portion of that isn't going to hit the mark anytime soon. Given Jeff Bezos's philosophy of running companies, I don't think you will ever see much free cash flow while he is around. Also, the fact that they are now moving their focus out of low margin retailing to higher margin computing services and still can't make a goddamn profit should raise some flags for their ever optimistic shareholders. From a trading perspective I guess it works, but from a fundamental analysis of the company I just don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Baddog posted:AWS is so good and cheap, and there are still a ton of companies who haven't switched to using it. They could charge double the price and it would still be a deal. Hell, they *give* away half the services. I still think that amazon is now a web services company who also happen to have an online store, not the other way around. So the stock is still a value. They have a ton of warehouses + employees + logistics equipment, also check out their FBA service, I'm not so sure this is true yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
I keep looking at TDW partly because of the posts about it in this thread and also because it looks very cheap at the moment. But I keep wondering, how can buying it be justified considering the price of oil right now? Since they are an offshore drilling support services company, and offshore drilling depends on high oil prices to be worthwhile, aren't they out of luck in the current environment? What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:I keep looking at TDW partly because of the posts about it in this thread and also because it looks very cheap at the moment. But I keep wondering, how can buying it be justified considering the price of oil right now? Since they are an offshore drilling support services company, and offshore drilling depends on high oil prices to be worthwhile, aren't they out of luck in the current environment? What am I missing? IMO too many people in this thread are trying to be some kind of active value investor instead of trading. From a technical perspective I wouldn't touch oil or oil services with a ten foot pole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Gamesguy posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
Gamesguy posted:IMO too many people in this thread are trying to be some kind of active value investor instead of trading. What's the difference between value investing and trading? I don't prescribe to most of the high risk, short term gambling that everyone seems to love in this thread, but that doesn't mean I am not trading stocks. Everyone's investment philosophy is different. At the very least I like reading and discussing different investment and valuation opinions in this thread. In my opinion this is one of the only places in the forums where people have an understanding of business analysis. The long term thread just cares about low fee ETFs in tax advantaged accounts and D&D thinks all public companies should be nationalized...
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:What's the difference between value investing and trading? I think he's getting at the difference between technical analysis versus value investing. But, even if not, to be a value investor necessarily requires much more patience than active trading. Market perceptions of undervalued companies or industry groups change on a slow scale. This can be frustrating for swing traders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:What's the difference between value investing and trading? It's like Agronox said, value investing requires a lot of patience. Everybody else has access to the same tools and numbers as you and it usually takes years before the market changes its opinion on a stock. You're often looking at time horizons of a good 5-10 years, which doesn't fit at all with this weird hybrid of value investing and swing trading some people here try to do. Value investing really belongs with long term investing, but as you mentioned the long term investing thread is full of people who dismiss stock picking and talk about Vanguard mutual funds all day. Personally I don't think value investing works, but even its most devoted adherent will tell you that you can't swing trade based on fundamentals. Not to pick on anybody but the coal guy a page back is a good example. He bought a stock based on his belief that it's undervalued and then immediately wanted to sell after it rallied 12% in one day(which faded over the next two days). But the stock didn't rally 12% because the market suddenly came to the realization that coal was undervalued, it was just a short term technical bounce due to the stock being extremely oversold. Gamesguy fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
I guess I just don't understand that comment. The price being driven down due to overselling is the definition of being undervalued. Why would it matter if I thought the fundamentals of the company were stronger than what the rest of the market did vs. the recognition that the market is overselling? The end result is the exact same, regardless of how I came to the initial conclusion to buy. Additionally, one inherently drives or is highly correlated with the other realization so it's a moot point anyways. It's also important to note that the benefit did erode, but has not been erased from that investment. Either way, you and I disagree completely on a fundamental level anyways, it sounds. I do think value investing does work. Maybe not value trading---which is why I'm not playing with more than a couple grand in this thread and my related purchases. Dead Pressed fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Dead Pressed posted:I guess I just don't understand that comment. I think youre missing out on the internet social dynamics that adjust the value of this thread vs. the long term investing thread as measured by the inate value of the money that can be earned from each in any discreet time block.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Still hoping this little convo will turn back around to talk about TDW and why people are buying it..god bless
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Gamesguy posted:It's like Agronox said, value investing requires a lot of patience. Everybody else has access to the same tools and numbers as you and it usually takes years before the market changes its opinion on a stock. You're often looking at time horizons of a good 5-10 years, which doesn't fit at all with this weird hybrid of value investing and swing trading some people here try to do. At its core value investing is just identifying companies which are undervalued for one reason or another and waiting until the market price reflects your belief, hopefully driven by research and/or analysis. Of course it works, there's nothing magical sbout that. What you're right about though is that if you are going to be successful you need patience and are almost definitely going to be worse off if you are trading in and out of positions based on short term swings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Still hoping this little convo will turn back around to talk about TDW and why people are buying it..god bless I'm paraphrasing from memory so don't hold me to this. But basically: a bunch of oil platforms out in the Gulf are there. The money spent to build them is a sunk cost. Whether or not they pump shitloads of oil for a huge profit or pump a trickle of oil for a huge loss, they can't just shut down and disappear. People have to be on the rigs and maintain them and even if the oil isn't earning enough to recoup the cost that was spent for setting up a platform, that cost is sunk and it'd be stupid to just not pump and sell the oil and try to recover as much of the cost as possible. And that means that companies with contracts to service those platforms will continue to be paid by the giant oil companies that own and operate the platforms. They may cut back production but they can't shut it down completely. Knowing this, oil companies sign long-term contracts with servicing outfits to provide predictability in servicing costs and allow their contractors to make necessary capital expenditures to, for example, maintain and upgrade their fleets and provide superior services etc. etc. So TDW has been investing in ships, some of which maybe it doesn't need right now, but its earnings are not perfectly correlated to the price of oil. These service companies' stock, on the other hand, moves along with oil. The theory then, is that "the market" just stupidly sells off anything in the oil sector when oil is down, irrespective of the nuances and details of the various companies' actual revenue models. So if you accept the idea that TDW is actually in decent financial shape (look at their balance sheets for a few quarters to decide this, maybe) and you also accept the idea that TDW's revenue sources are at least in part guaranteed irrespective of the price of oil, then you might decide that based on fundamentals, TDW is cheap. Of course, as is often quoted: the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. In other words, the market may not bid up TDW at some point in the near or intermediate future, even though it continues to be a healthy and solvent company with a reasonably good revenue stream. And this is why (to segue into the other conversational thread going on,) buying individual stocks is gambling. Fundamentals don't always result in gains, because the market can be irrational forever if it wants. And technicals don't always result in gains, because all those charts and graphs and momentums and all that poo poo is, in the end, driven by the buying and selling actions of human beings, and humans can and do frequently behave like idiots, both individually and as groups, and worse, we frequently invent completely new and unprecedented modalities of idiocy. Including suddenly no longer following a pattern of buying and selling that has been consistently followed for weeks, months, years, or decades. This is not a criticism of buying and selling stocks. I happen to like gambling and I think gambling on stocks is much more interesting than gambling on, say, roulette, mostly because "the house always wins" doesn't translate to a corollary of "and therefore the punter always loses" when we talk about stocks, vs. when we talk about roulette. The long-term investing and retirement thread is focused on helping people to plan for long-term expenses and (especially) retirement. You don't invest for retirement with your "fun money" because if you gamble and lose, you're hosed in your old age. The advice in that thread is absolutely gold and highly appropriate for the kinds of questions and situations typically arising there. In this thread, we talk about gambling strategies. If you talk to someone at the roulette table and they tell you they have "a strategy" you can snicker about them later because there is no strategy that can beat the house's edge. But for stocks, the house doesn't necessarily or by-definition have an edge, or at least, not an edge so large that literally everyone else has a negative expected value no matter what they do. So it's more like poker than roulette; in poker, the house takes a rake, but you can be enough better than your opponents that you scrape out a +EV despite the rake. And poker is a zero-sum game... whereas an equities market can have flows of money in (and out) at various times, resulting in (at least in the short term), a non-zero-sum game where everyone (or at least a majority) can "win" without every win having to mean someone else lost exactly as much. Gamesguy posted:Not to pick on anybody but the coal guy a page back is a good example. He bought a stock based on his belief that it's undervalued and then immediately wanted to sell after it rallied 12% in one day(which faded over the next two days). But the stock didn't rally 12% because the market suddenly came to the realization that coal was undervalued, it was just a short term technical bounce due to the stock being extremely oversold. This is a really interesting comment to me. I'll skip the bit about whether "value investing works" because I think that's a conversation that always devolves into semantics about what exactly "value investing" is, but I emphatically agree with what you're saying here and I think it's incredibly important to learn. You tell yourself a story before you take a position. Then after some time, the position pays off or doesn't. Was your story correct? It's profoundly difficult for human beings, whose brains, through several million years of evolution, have become incredible pattern-recognition machines, to divorce "it happened as I predicted" from "it happened for the reasons I predicted." If you made money, you might be tempted (as I think Dead Pressed is saying, if I understood him correctly) to think it doesn't matter. But I think if you're going to be a "value investor" it does matter, because you are telling yourself you're doing more than just throwing darts at a dartboard. If all you did was get lucky, then you must face the fact that your luck is no different from the monkey's, and therefore you have no edge and might as well just buy the broadest index fund and let it ride, cutting your transaction costs, and spending your attention and time in other pursuits. If I made money through luck, but my thesis was wrong, then I do not have a thesis I can reapply again with any hope of doing better than random chance would do. In fact if my thesis was wrong I should expect to do worse than random chance, because the market should be expected to usually not randomly coincide with an incorrect thesis. Or to get back on point: BTU went up in such a short timeframe that it's almost definitely not due to the market's recognition that BTU has a tremendous future and that it was undervalued last week. So then, you just randomly got lucky with a highly volatile stock, and your best bet at repeating that performance is to use the short-term technical analysis tools that Gamesquy would advocate. The story you told yourself about BTU was irrelevant, and if you keep telling yourself that kind of story in order to decide what to buy in order to make gains in a few days, you're really just randomly picking stocks. In a bull market just randomly picking stocks will tend to make you money, but if all you want to do is ride the bull, you can cut volatility and still ride the bull by buying an index fund. Why wouldn't you do that? ...I'm still not an experienced or especially well-read investor so I'd invite anyone to jump in and make corrections wherever appropriate if you think I got any of this stuff wrong. I'm more just sort of regurgitating my own understanding of things right now so I'd really welcome that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
A good post
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Hey Gamesguy, post some recommendations after you buy them but before they profit and we will love you. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
For me it depends on how you define value investing as "working", for example I lost last week on apple earnings even though the fundamentals are amazing, if I keep my shares I'm confident I would have made my losses back and made more likely in a year's time or less or at least when things pick up in another year when the 7 cycle starts, but I sold it and made a lot of money off amazon. There's a discussion a couple of pages back arguing it's better to be lucky than right, and while my story definitely supported a personal theory of cutting my loses for things that would make money faster it could have gone the other way aw well. I think some of the stocks recently discussed reflect that, I've made money looking at some of Arkane's picks but I personally think that SAFM is a dog, I believe HOS and TDW will likely pop on earnings given how battered they were by the recent Iran news but I also believe cheap oil will continue to drag on their stock price. However if I had held on to VSLR it would have done very well with the buyout. I feel the market is ridiculously driven by hype, i.e. how etsy popped 20% on a minor comment during google earnings, now I believe value investing is still important to identify dogs, i.e. I wouldn't gamble on etsy and I'm cautious on Tesla. For those of you who have done pretty well doing their own picks, do you find it hard to think of one day going back to index investing and going back to hoping for 7-8% a year? I'm ahead about 50% this year and it seems kind of crazy in comparision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
Alkaiser posted:For those of you who have done pretty well doing their own picks, do you find it hard to think of one day going back to index investing and going back to hoping for 7-8% a year? I'm ahead about 50% this year and it seems kind of crazy in comparision. Well, the question I have to ask is how long have you been doing this? Does it stretch back to the last bear market?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Well, the question I have to ask is how long have you been doing this? Does it stretch back to the last bear market? About half a year, and I can appreciate the argument about a real bear market, it seems to me that should my positions take a huge drop, it's whether I'm willing to have stop losses at appropriate places and or the willpower to cut my losses. It's not like with index investing I couldn't necessarily see a 20% drop in one day with a crash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Alkaiser posted:About half a year, and I can appreciate the argument about a real bear market, it seems to me that should my positions take a huge drop, it's whether I'm willing to have stop losses at appropriate places and or the willpower to cut my losses. It's not like with index investing I couldn't necessarily see a 20% drop in one day with a crash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:The S&P 500 has never seen anything close to a 20% single day drop with the exception of Black Monday: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_daily_changes_in_the_S%26P_500 And it doesn't get 50% gains per year either
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Alkaiser posted:I feel the market is ridiculously driven by hype, i.e. how etsy popped 20% on a minor comment during google earnings, now I believe value investing is still important to identify dogs, i.e. I wouldn't gamble on etsy and I'm cautious on Tesla. I remember an investing philosophy from one of my finance classes a while back that emphasized exactly this. It said that if you spent your time identifying dogs rather than winners, you have a better chance at success in a long term, diversified portfolio . The theory was based upon the risk inherent with picking the winner. You can gamble on lets say TSLA, and if it wins you can make significant returns. However if you lose, you potentially lose all your money. Too many people play this game with their portfolios and unfortunately a lot of people tend to lose on it. They only see the gains, rather than the associated risk with stock investment. The above theory essentially states that I as an investor am incapable of making good decisions on risky stocks, so you stay away from them. You will obviously miss on the big winners and have a muted return, but the theory is that in the long term that averages out to be better than the inevitability that you will lose big more than you win big. This also ties into something that I am always saying again: investing in an index carries the risk of that index. Why is this important? Because many people always benchmark against the S&P 500 as an indicator of success. This is very misleading. The real benchmark should be an index of equally risky investments versus your portfolio. If you are investing in a lot of risky small cap coal stocks like folks in this thread, the comparison versus the S&P 500 is useless. You are taking on a boatload of risk with that portfolio and as such will be held to a much higher standard of success when it comes to the return. Likewise if you invest in a bunch of utility and mature blue chips, you really can't hold yourself to the higher level of return due to the muted risk. To that end, I think there is a place for individual stocks for people's portfolios when you take it from the perspective of creating your own custom, diversified, and risk-adjusted portfolio. That being said, most people don't do this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Alkaiser posted:About half a year, and I can appreciate the argument about a real bear market, it seems to me that should my positions take a huge drop, it's whether I'm willing to have stop losses at appropriate places and or the willpower to cut my losses. It's not like with index investing I couldn't necessarily see a 20% drop in one day with a crash. I guess all I'm saying is that everyone looks like a genius in a bull market, and this is one of the longest ones without a major correction in a generation. (And it's not the stop losses that get you. It's your getting stopped out at [some reasonable loss percentage], then coming back into the market too early and getting those stops hit again.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Yeah we've had a loooong runup bull market. The "norm" isn't necessarily a huge long runup or a huge crash... it's those periods where maybe over the course of five years we're overall up, but there are extended stretches of several months where we're down scattered throughout that period. At any given point, it's very hard to know whether the bears are done for the next three years, or they're going to rule, or it's just going to see-saw. In that environment, you can either get out and just sit on cash, or you can take on risk and accept that you're capable of losing just as much or more as you're capable of winning. If you're making 50% up in six months, then you're capable of losing 50% in six months. It's too easy to just think "well in a down market I'll just be in cash and/or shorting stocks and/or just be in an S&P500 index" but most of the time, you can't identify with any certainty that the next 6-month period is going to be a down market.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
R.A. Dickey posted:At its core value investing is just identifying companies which are undervalued for one reason or another and waiting until the market price reflects your belief, hopefully driven by research and/or analysis. Of course it works, there's nothing magical sbout that. What you're right about though is that if you are going to be successful you need patience and are almost definitely going to be worse off if you are trading in and out of positions based on short term swings. I think modern western markets are too efficient for value investing to outperform. You could probably still do it in the more inefficient emerging markets(like China), but even Ben Graham said he doesn't think value investing works any more. Both the value index and managed value funds have historically underperformed.  Mills posted:Hey Gamesguy, post some recommendations after you buy them but before they profit and we will love you. I'm moderately net long atm, picked most of them up near the close on Friday(AAPL, AMGN, F, MA, NVDA, NFLX, PCLN, es). Short IYT and ym. Alkaiser posted:For those of you who have done pretty well doing their own picks, do you find it hard to think of one day going back to index investing and going back to hoping for 7-8% a year? I'm ahead about 50% this year and it seems kind of crazy in comparision. For my retirement accounts I have like 2/3 indice ETFs and 1/3 dividend stocks(telecom and utilities). I don't trade them at all. Gamesguy fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jul 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
I find the very idea of a value index to be pretty questionable. The entire point of value investing is identifying stocks that the consensus has undervalued. By the time a major index has identified these stocks and said "these are undervalued," everyone is aware of their designation as a "value stock" and already bid them up to a point where they're no longer undervalued. Managed funds have historically underperformed (by a LOT), so managed value funds should be expected to underperform right along with them. Finally, "growth stocks" does not have the same risk profile as "value stocks," so we cannot compare them on a chart and claim one outperformed the other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Gamesguy posted:I think modern western markets are too efficient for value investing to outperform. You could probably still do it in the more inefficient emerging markets(like China), but even Ben Graham said he doesn't think value investing works any more. I don't want to get too far into the weeds here, but I disagree on the market efficiency point. The market (throwing out algos for a minute) is still made up of people, and people are wrong all the time. Popular opinion can be wrong. Some companies get negative media coverage, some have business models that are misunderstood, some are just boring or unpopular. All of these things can cause something to be undervalued and it has nothing to do with the efficient markets hypothesis. As for value funds, two that come to mind immediately are Baupost and Fairholme, both have crushed their benchmark since inception and both use pretty traditional "value investing" methods.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I find the very idea of a value index to be pretty questionable. http://us.spindices.com/indices/equity/sp-500-value Managed value funds have the absolute worst performance out of all managed funds, where as managed growth funds have on average occasionally managed to beat the benchmark.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Gamesguy posted:The value index is pretty straight forward. It uses basic valuation metrics to identify "undervalued" stocks. Thanks. quote:We measure value stocks using three factors: the ratios of book value, earnings, and sales to price. S&P Style Indices divide the complete market capitalization of each parent index into growth and value segments. Constituents are drawn from the S&P 500 This might be a reasonable approximation of what "the market" means by the term "value," which brings me to the frustrating semantics argument. I think most people who come into a thread and say that they take a value approach to investing are using way, way more than just those three ratios to evaluate a stock. In particular, we've seen a few long analyses by Arkane and others that go into a lot more detail about why a given stock may represent a value... and the ratios are usually only minor data points. I mean. Yes, it's much harder to justify buying a stock that doesn't have a favorable p/e, etc. But there's not much point to trying to pick individual stocks based on only those three metrics, vs. just buying a "value" index fund. quote:Managed value funds have the absolute worst performance out of all managed funds, where as managed growth funds have on average occasionally managed to beat the benchmark. That's interesting, I didn't know that. I wonder how well passively-managed value funds do, compared to all other passively-managed funds. Where could I look up something like that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Gamesguy posted:I think modern western markets are too efficient for value investing to outperform. You could probably still do it in the more inefficient emerging markets(like China), but even Ben Graham said he doesn't think value investing works any more. Benjamin Graham has been dead for forty years! I sort of agree with you though. Back in his time, and early on in Buffet's, they could find dollar bills trading at eighty cents; because of leveraged buyouts and generally better market information this sort of thing doesn't really exist anymore (with rare exceptions; there were some companies whose market cap was lower than their net cash position after the 2000 internet bust, and it might've happened in 2008 too). So yeah, the "easy money" value plays aren't there anymore. But I think the bigger problem with value investing today is that the current bull market has been really weird. The rising tide has lifted most boats. In the last bull market, even as it started to get toppy in 2006-2007 it wasn't as broad based and you could still find comparative bargains in certain sectors. But now it's really hard to find decent value stocks. There are contrarian plays, like the oil servicers that are popular in this thread, but unless you have inside knowledge about the scrap or sale value of offshore rigs it's hard to call it "value." Another strange thing about this bull market is that on valuation, it's some of the big tech names that you'd think of as growth(-ish) companies who've been cheaply valued. AAPL, MSFT, INTC, until maybe last week GOOG.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
What earnings reports are you guys looking for this week?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 13:34
|
|
