| To: Bob Rudd who wrote (7189) | 5/18/1999 12:05:00 AM | | From: Michael Burry | | | |
FWIW, I think everyone knows the Gorilla Game and everyone's been investing this way because it's been successful, and this begets that. It's a chicken and egg thing. I don't see the value in it.
Call me anachronistic - I'm still trying to outsmart the market rather than follow it.
Mike |
| | Value Investing | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Michael Burry who wrote (7190) | 5/18/1999 12:40:00 AM | | From: Bob Rudd | | | |
I really doubt everyone knows the Gorilla Game and from some of the comments you've made techstocks.com
I tend to doubt you consider most investors that well-read either.
If someone plans to invest in value tech stocks, they had better understand the dynamics of lock-in and standards. If a guy understands this, as I'm sure you do, and still chooses to bet against the standard, that's cool. But if a guy hasn't read Gorilla and doesn't understand the power of standards, he's definitely buying cows in the moonlight with stuff like AAPL.
This turnaround so far is amazing...maybe Jobs can keep it up, but it looks like a real longshot.
"The race isn't always to the swiftest, but that's the way to bet" Damon Runyon. |
| | Value Investing | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3) |
|
| To: Bob Rudd who wrote (7191) | 5/18/1999 3:48:00 AM | | From: James Clarke | | | |
<<"The race isn't always to the swiftest, but that's the way to bet" Damon Runyon.>>
Depends what the odds are, now, doesn't it? That's what's so elegantly beautiful about investment analysis. Everybody knows Microsoft is the swiftest (and everybody may even be right about that) but this is your 4:3 odds horse. (I might argue a lot of these are 1:2 horses now...even if they win, you probably still lose money.) What odds is Mike getting on Apple?
I would suggest finding Charlie Munger's comments comparing stock investing to pari-mutual betting on horses. It got me thinking.
|
| | Value Investing | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Bob Rudd who wrote (7191) | 5/18/1999 7:22:00 AM | | From: Ed Pirtle | | | |
I understand the Gorilla theory, but I think you sell short the installed base's dedication. I just retired a Macintosh IIci that I bought in '90. I am sure that my vote hasn't been counted in recent years. Each platform has its advantages; I own Dell, Compaq and Apple machines. Keep in mind that Apple's present visible strength increase is in first-time computer purchasers; I expect there to be some residuals from this.
:)
Ed |
| | Value Investing | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Daniel Chisholm who wrote (7187) | 5/18/1999 8:50:00 AM | | From: cfimx | | | |
>>I suppose the prudent course would be to not overpay?<<
CSE has a right to expect full value for their shares. ANY seller would agree. When YOU sell some stock, that's what you want.
It MIGHT have been a good deal for nh to offer stock if its shares were trading at full value (or above) as well. IF nh wasn't, and all I read around here was that nh was WAY undervalued, then it would have been value destroying for nh to issue stock for cse. As it stands, it looks like nh IS selling SOME equity to finance a part of the deal. That may account for a portion of the drop yesterday, if it indeed closed down. |
| | Value Investing | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Michael Burry who wrote (7188) | 5/18/1999 9:01:00 AM | | From: Madharry | | | | |
oddly enough, I quickly looked at oracle yesterday, based on sales i gave internet revenues a 10x multiple and non internet revenues a 3x multiple and came up with a price of $25. So I see it as fairly valued by this criteria. |
| | Value Investing | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Michael Burry who wrote (7188) | 5/18/1999 9:06:00 AM | | From: cfimx | | | |
>>It goes in the long-term hold, Buffett-like stock for me. Pairs to my AAPL and my APCC as Buffett-like tech stock long-term holds. <<
stocks with temporarily high roe's do not a buffet stock make. There is something vexatious about seeing his thinking reduced to this kind of simplistic comparison. It's just too easy to wave his name around a stock as if it was the national flag. Well it shouldn't be that easy. aapl, for example, is about as FAR from Omaha as you can get. We are talking Antartica here. It's a stock YOU bought. THAT doesn't make it a Buffet stock. |
| | Value Investing | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Grant who wrote (7185) | 5/18/1999 9:09:00 AM | | From: Mike 2.0 | | | |
Re: 21', Given a downsloping demand curve and an upaloping supply curve for a product, the imposition of an exercise tax on this product will:...
LOL...apparently the product in question is gym equipment...
Tell your friend to put his beer down and hit the books himself... |
| | Value Investing | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: cfimx who wrote (7196) | 5/18/1999 10:27:00 AM | | From: Michael Burry | | | |
Twister,
Give me a break. If you really knew what a Buffett-like stock was,
I'd expect to see your real name and a record to prove it. Buffett-like investing as defined by people like you has been reduced to a set model by people such as yourself. To me, a lot of the thought and intelligence has been taken out of it.
I wrote about this on my web site under "Buffett Revisited." To me, his spirit of investing with intelligence has been lost in a sea of those simply trying to be pure imitators.
When he bought GEICO, AMEX, the Buffalo News, any number of his investments he was being as much contrarian as anything. He saw value in a a market dominance or a brand that others didn't. And the 10-year record of high ROE with earnings not skipping a beat wasn't necessarily there to prove it when he bought. But there was nonetheless a margin of safety.
IMO, the biggest impediment to investing in the spirit of Buffett is the idea that somehow we can be a 100% imitator of him and see the same success. That anyone could be a perfect imitator of his approach strikes me as ridiculous. Try compounding the 10% difference between even your best imitator and Buffett over 30 years.
I don't have it down yet. But in terms of investing in the spirit of Buffett (rather than in his mirror image), neither does anyone else here that I can see. I'm young. I'm reading a lot and continuously reviewing and updating my approach as new revelations occur. Remember I said "Buffett-like stock for me," not you. If it was that easy for you to see, I'd be disappointed. I'm certainly glad I can't find anyone to agree with me on this. If anything, it indicates I'm headed in the right direction.
Mike |
| | Value Investing | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
