Palantir
-
Posts
2,628 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Palantir
-
-
I've been buying alot of one stock...
Some kind of fruit company?
-
And if the market surges 5% over the next few mos, y'all be like "I was early bitchez".
#permabears
-
Mr Market is a moody, whiny little baby.
-
^I can't speak for the board, but Michael Burry recommends his protege, Bo Shan who runs Gobi Capital.
-
I think DSWL is a good deal, I own it 2 :). Not only is it trading at cash, but paying a solid dividend and business is profitable.
I'm curious about how you were able to get comfortable with them, as others have noted, given that they are based in China. What specific markers do you look for indicating quality?
In a sense, I suppose investing in Chinese microcaps is a true contrarian bet. 8)
-
Or maybe the forum was giving a subtle hint regarding your stock ideas. ;)
I jest.
-
Deswell Industries is trading at the value of cash. DSWL
-
So which one of you is Mr Allan? His portfolio reflects this board's favorite stocks.
-
Anybody in here work in real estate/underwriting? If so, I have some questions....basically I'm looking at a role at a finance firm that makes rehab loans/hard money to investors flipping distressed RE.
-
No. If it's deflation it's bad, if it's inflation it's good. It's just that a certain community of people is so obsessed with inflation that they can't grasp the idea that a contracting money supply is extremely damaging to the economy. "Ben Bernanke is printing money and debasing our savings and creating hyperinflation!!!! :'( :'( :'(". Byah byah byah.
But oh well.
-
I think there was a great investment case for gold (despite what Charlie Munger likes to lecture us) based on deleveraging in Western markets. However, that was a few years ago. Do you foresee deleveraging to continue in the near future? If the Fed really does reduce the bond buying program, then it will have deflationary effects on the money supply which will hurt gold badly, as well as the actual economy. That worries me.
I believe the article I have attached was posted on this forum.
Asset_Class_Returns_in_Deleveraging_-_Bridgewater_Daily_Observations.pdf
-
Also another reason is that in many cases, a moat is only developed once an organization has sufficient critical mass, network effects, and economies of scale, something that only comes with size. In their early years, many of these "moat" firms may well have a "commoditized" business but are led by a brilliant founder who's able to construct an long lasting institution. After the achievement, we can say the firm has a moat, but it is not readily detectable early on.
-
Time to bump this thread. If market plummets over the next month, what are you guys hoping comes on sale?
I'd like to add to my position in Red Hat, PH, MSFT, and maybe a couple of large caps like Oracle.
-
A) I have no idea how to value Berkshire. Fact.
B) I know that it is more valuable than book value. Fact.
A) I do not know how to measure LeBron James' skill level. Fact.
B) I know LeBron James is a better basketball player than I am. Fact.
A) I don't know how awesome it would be to date Kate Upton. Fact.
B) I know it will be pretty awesome. Fact.
I could go on....
-
Because all you need to know that the value is higher than what you're paying for.....but you may not have an accurate estimate of that number. I definitely cannot value BRK, but I (and my pal Warren) think BV is less than what it is worth.
I would actually go far as to say that I don't believe in the concept of intrinsic value. I just think in terms of cash flow or BV return. If I pay X I get Y% return.
-
There's a bunch of other areas that have easier returns for now as well, but a magician doesn't tell all their secrets.
Spoken like a bawss. +1
-
Did CM comment on succession planning or what they plan on doing with their portfolio? AKA are they just going to invest and grow it or return to shareholders?
-
Not just BRK, but there are cases in which you can find a great company with great management that is undervalued for reasons you disagree with, and you may not need to know the intrinsic value very accurately in order to see it as a great investment.
I do not believe all the value investors on this forum that have gone into AAPL lately know Apple's IV.
I'm probably going to wait to sell BRK, maybe if/when it crosses 1.5BV I'll start thinking about it.
-
They may have bad management, questionable business models, poor growth prospects etc etc.
True they could have these qualities. But is there then no price whatsoever that would tempt you to invest in them?
I did not say there was no price whatsoever. I just mentioned a pitfall as you had noted, "What are some pitfalls?".
-
Pitfalls are simply that they are not great businesses. They may have bad management, questionable business models, poor growth prospects etc etc.
I'm not making a case against investing in this sector. But I think the opportunity is overblown about a romanticized idea of investing in securities no one knows about. I'm also skeptical that returns are really that high once you take into account the ridiculous volatility some of them have. I'm looking at a sub-2M company, and it moves like 10-20% at any given day.
I think one can do well investing in these, but I question the notion that it is a "shortcut" to putting up great returns.
-
Palantir, why did you buy a security without knowing its value? Why are you asking other people to value it for you?
You did not need to know BRK's value when it was trading at BV to know it was trading well below IV and a great buy.
This.
-
I used to date a girl who would get turned on by finance talk. She herself was in finance, but knew little about investing. But she could listen to me all day and it would be sexy for her.
Hey girl, wanna dig "deep" into this 10K on my couch?
-
I do not believe that small stocks necessarily offer better opportunities than larger ones. I have seen some large stocks absolutely egregiously priced. (GOOG last summer). Rather I think that some of the best opps are in the mega cap sector. Many of these firms are great businesses that generate a lot of cash and have major switching costs. Even if they do not grow much, they can put out a huge dividend.
I think for the OP, the "great company, ok value" is a good way to invest in this market. In my opinion, you can "juice" this by selling puts on companies that are only moderately undervalued. So stocks that are not so fully valued that they are unattractive, but overvalued by a small amount so they are not "buys" either. You should set it up so that even if the put gets triggered the Strike+option cost <= your target buy.
Eg, stock is worth 130, target buy is 100, trading at 115. Try to find put that if triggered will let you buy at an effective cost of 100. Say X=105, Premium= 4.90.
-
I find "scuttlebutt", if I'm using the term correctly, the most useful. I base a lot of my investing on qualitative things that aren't found in the annual reports. I think in terms of questions like. "How often do you buy things from Parker-Hannifin?". "Do you see firms switching away server software from Red Hat to Oracle?". "Ever switched search engine away from Google?". I like to base decisions on info from people who are familiar with the product space.
Perhaps that's not a great idea, then again, I am not really a traditional value investor who digs deep into 10K's of out of favor stocks, but more of a Lynch style "moat" investor. Let's see how it works out...
As predicted, market move was frothy
in General Discussion
Posted
So....y'all were saying what?