Value Investing | Stock Discussion Forums

web analytics

Advertise on SI

web analytics

Strategies & Market Trends | Value Investing

Previous 10 | Next 10

To: Cressidaadr who wrote (24234)	7/6/2006 12:21:57 AM
From: Paul Senior	of 51741

SCX appears maybe mildly undervalued. I see it as a possible revision-to mean play as I look at current p/sales and p/book because those numbers look lower now than over past seven years. The current numbers seem similar to '03, also when the stock seems like it was same price as now. As the business got a little better the stock moved up. Maybe that'll happen again. I don't see it as a value stock that's so much more appealing than many other stocks that show up here. Is it because "tangible BV is $165 million" and market cap is "$90 million"? Stated book value hasn't improved in nine years (Was $25.99/sh.,moved up some, and now at $24.86/sh.) I use book value in a couple of ways: one is to see how the stock price and book value dance. For SCX, for the past seven years, the stock price approached book value maybe one time. Maybe it'll do so again. There doesn't seem to be a catalyst to make it happen though. Management doesn't seem so motivated. Secondly, I like to use book value to measure value (where the business allows that, e.g. not consulting, IT, etc.). This decade, the very best that SCX could earn on its equity (or assets, because there's no long-term debt) has been about 6.1%. This when it even could claim profitable years. To me, I won't pay anywhere near book value for 6.1%. If 6.1% is the best roe they can deliver, their stock SHOULD sell for below book value. Every cigar butt imo has value, and at some price below book value, the stock is a value. I have my methods for calculating; I presume others have there's. At somewhere around current .55 p/bk, the stock might be a small bet. Prospects going forward don't seem so great; there's no catalyst. So I look backwards. As a revision-to-mean play and a with dividend while waiting, that could work. Otoh, low trading volume, management that won't or can't do better than bond returns with the assets they manage, it could be a value trap.

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

To: Dave who wrote (24240)	7/6/2006 12:31:16 AM
From: bruwin	of 51741

Well, well, well ... Dave !!! What a welcome dissertation, considering the past Board reactions to my posts !! Of course, whether or not you read this is another question, seeing as my "name" resides on your personal Ignore List !! Yes, you’re 100% correct in your comments. Rather than to try and base one’s stock selections on a popular definition and "conform" to those tenets, I believe one should rather identify those criteria, similar to what you indicate, because those aspects reflect the current, ongoing ABILITY to MAKE PROFITS. Your reference to "Operating Margin", IMHO, is a VERY important one. As you quite rightly state, I couldn’t care if the company sold soft drinks, car parts, novelty goods etc.. etc.., just as long as it made MONEY !! In my opinion, making ongoing Capital Gain is very closely related to "VALUE" !! As an aside ... a recent Client of mine asked me to assist him in a problem he was having entering, into the web site, one of the stock screens I supply. To test the system, I entered this screen, which incorporates the criteria I look for, but emphasises "GROWTH RATES". After searching every sector of the USA Market in a matter of seconds (free of charge), excluding Finance, it came up with the following 11 companies. In brackets is the percentage Capital Gain one would have achieved in the last 12 months .... BJS(37%), BOOM(75%), CRDN(150%), CRED(45%), ENDP(23%), GRMN(150%), GRP(60%), MCO(22%), SAY(40%), SLB(62%) and TGE(64%). That's an average of 66% per annum. I wonder how many well-paid Fund Managers, with their multi-stock portfolios, earned even 50% of 66% for their Clients, over the same period, after deducting their "Management Fees" for all their "hard" work ? Of course, Fund Managers cannot operate as individuals can, considering the funds at their disposal, plus other restrictions. This is why I encourage individuals to obtain the necessary know-how to analyse stocks for themselves and be the "masters" of their own investment destiny. P.S. I wonder if I'll ever find out who the other "17" SI members are who have me on THEIR Ignore List ??!! {;-)

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (3)

To: bruwin who wrote (24242)	7/6/2006 1:35:45 AM
From: Carl Worth	of 51741

your screen found these stocks in hindsight? obviously you didn't find these stocks one year ago, since you have never mentioned a single one of them until today...i can screen for stocks i should have bought a year ago too, so far i haven't figured out where that has much value though a bunch of them are energy stocks, you say you don't buy resource stocks because they are subject to the price of the resource, but now you highlight oil stocks? LOL...wow there's some genius, oil went from 40 bucks to 75 bucks a barrel and some energy stocks did well, tell us where oil and oil stocks will be a year from now, then you have something...next year if financial stocks are big winners due to the fed ending its rate hikes, will your "rules" change again? pick a date, and post a portfolio of 5 stocks (or 10 or 12, whatever) that you would buy THAT day at the CURRENT price on THAT day, not a bunch of could's and if's and might's, to later say you bought only the ones that went up, and you bought something like AOB at the low of the year otherwise, what you say is meaningless

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: Carl Worth who wrote (24243)	7/6/2006 4:58:59 AM
From: bruwin	of 51741

Firstly, let me say that I'm most surprised to see that you're not one of the "18" that have me on their "Ignore List". For someone who thinks so little of what I have to say, why do you bother with the likes of me ??!! Secondly, you're obviously missing the point behind my post. What I was trying to convey was the FACT that companies that exhibit or reflect certain criteria within their Income Statements and Balance Sheets tend to be the ones that make profits and are thereby sought after by informed investors, which in turn, causes their stock price to rise. Those criteria that my stock screen targeted obviously didn't appear there overnight. Therefore one would have been directed to them quite a while back. Yes, I don't advocate Resource stocks for reasons I've explained before. Needless to say, the stock screening process is but the first step in choosing stocks to invest in. There are other factors which one should also consider before making one's final selection. Anyway, don't worry yourself about my "trivia", I'm sure you have far more important things to do with your time, such as doing all that "LOL-ing" that you appear addicted to. ... and before you say you're only doing it in the interests of the SI Board in general, or whatever, I'm sure that other Members are more than capable of drawing their own conclusions without your "erudite" input.

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: bruwin who wrote (24244)	7/6/2006 5:46:48 AM
From: Carl Worth	of 51741

yes i'm sure others can see right through your nonsense as well you said your screen emphasized "growth rates," but what it appears to find is past strong growth...of course we have no idea what criteria you are using, or what results you might have actually gotten, since it's just another of your nebulous black-box type posts...no doubt that finding stocks that were fast growers in the past year may clue you in to companies that may continue to post strong growth, but to then give trailing 12 month stock gains for those stocks as if you participated in those gains is laughable, and just another of your distortions showing how your "system" is supposedly so superior...and now you say well of course you would screen further before actually buying these stocks, and apparently exclude the resource stocks, so why post the gain for stocks you wouldn't even buy? that's the thing, without real buys and sells, everything is just hypothetical, and in hindsight, we can all make trillions of dollars...what value is that to anyone? once again, post 5 stocks you would buy now, at current prices, you won't do this because you might be wrong, and that won't serve your ego...the rest of us post ideas when we buy them, for all to see, not every stock we buy, but certainly enough that if we were to then claim we had no losing trades, and made 40% a year EVERY year, we would at least have something to show as evidence (not hindsight, misinformation and outright nonsense, but real facts)...of course none of us claim such absurd success rates, since we live in the real world, where some of our trades turn out to be losers, and we all have years like 2002 where being in the black at all is an accomplishment yes i love to laugh, i love to make others laugh, and i laugh at myself far more often than at others...you in particular however are very amusing, as you post silliness that i find quite humorous i choose not to put you on ignore (so far at least), though frankly i don't know why either...heck, maybe someday you will get down off your high horse and share your brilliant stock ideas with us at the time you buy them (if you ever even buy these stocks that do so well in hindsight)...i sure wouldn't want to miss out on that...LOL

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (2)

To: Paul Senior who wrote (24248)	7/6/2006 2:23:35 PM
From: Paul Senior	of 51741

VCI, which creates those newspaper advertising inserts, is part of a duopoly in the business. Their competitor has been very aggressive in seeking business, and this has hurt VCI. Profit margins and roa, which have been good in past, have come down. I don't know what the correct strategy would be for VCI --- for me, I'd guess I'd want to somewhat counterpunch with beefed up sales and marketing, and continue or start to manage the company as a cash cow. Management though has made a decision to diversify by "lessening its reliance on inserts". This to me is not a VCI shareholder friendly option. I'd rather they give us shareholders money in form of dividend and let us diversify or not by re-allocating these monies. I've no assurance that VCI has any management history of, or skills in, a secondary business or in integrating such a business or that they can earn an adequate return on the premium price they've paid. VCI stock's down, rightly so, and at a multiyear low. The insert business isn't going away though, and VCI may yet do okay again. I've been wrong on the stock buying under $30/sh. -- and it's drifted and fallen to under $20. For me, my shares are very few, and I'm willing to add (and did) a bit more at current price on the assumption that maybe the carnage is near an end. marketwatch.com

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

To: Paul Senior who wrote (24248)	7/6/2006 2:25:26 PM
From: Keith J	of 51741

Paul, CHS is close to getting interesting to me, though their SSS numbers haven't been stellar the last few months. ANN seems less expensive in several metrics (particularly P/S), and seems to have regained some momentum in SSS. And the limited time I spend in the malls, ANN stores seems to have more traffic than CHS stores. I've never understood how CHS is so much more profitable than ANN. Watching both, but don't own either currently. Also interesting to note, I think the impact of higher energy costs are finally being felt at some retail stores and restaurants (i.e., CAKE), as well as movie theaters and baseball games. KJ

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

Previous 10 | Next 10

Copyright/IP Policy

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.