Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Buying during after hours directly after bad news is usually not a great move. I estimate more often than not, after hours price action lags rather than leads. Particularly during sensational timeframe (eg the day of earnings release).

 

Yes, if there is a substantial change in the story (not just an earnings miss when overall numbers are still good etc.) than AH tend to lack. It figure that  funds managers don’t well AH they are going to meet in the morning and decide to sell. I think it’s faster than 3 days in many cases, but something it takes weeks to dissipate.

 

I bought a tiny bit of MSFT.

 

Bit the bullet so to speak. Time will tell if it is closer to buying PG in the middle of the century or KO in the 90s

 

I have MSFT on my watch list as well, but I don’t think I would take a bite above ~$180 (~30x earnings).

Posted

In vino veritas.

 

Yes, I agree on some semblance of a valuation threshold. But how many times have we said and heard “ah if only”. 35 vs 30 times earnings is not going to make or break the outcome. And it wasn’t a huge purchase - like Greg said I buy often but in small quantities.

Posted

Oh you have no idea about small but often. For some of the "corona will pass" trades, I've got a 6 month(from March) expected time frame for the shenanigans and market gyrations to play out. And subsequently a similar purchase horizon until full positions are accumulated, with the max size for any one position being about 7.5%. Lots and lots of buying! Only one exception was SPG and and MSGN. Both(SPG at $50 and MSGN at $13) I figured if $50/$13 aint good, neither will be anything below that. But a bunch of others... a million purchases.

Posted

In vino veritas.

 

Yes, I agree on some semblance of a valuation threshold. But how many times have we said and heard “ah if only”. 35 vs 30 times earnings is not going to make or break the outcome. And it wasn’t a huge purchase - like Greg said I buy often but in small quantities.

 

Valuation doesn’t make a lot of difference when your thesis is right, but it sure makes a lot of difference when the thesis is wrong.

 

To buy a little by at least when you like the business but consider the valuation stretched, with the intent to buy more if valuation becomes more favorable is a reasonable approach. It does goes counter the currently prevailing wisdom to never average down though.

Posted

In vino veritas.

 

Yes, I agree on some semblance of a valuation threshold. But how many times have we said and heard “ah if only”. 35 vs 30 times earnings is not going to make or break the outcome. And it wasn’t a huge purchase - like Greg said I buy often but in small quantities.

 

Valuation doesn’t make a lot of difference when your thesis is right, but it sure makes a lot of difference when the thesis is wrong.

 

To buy a little by at least when you like the business but consider the valuation stretched, with the intent to buy more if valuation becomes more favorable is a reasonable approach. It does goes counter the currently prevailing wisdom to never average down though.

It's hard for me to add to MSFT when I have a cost base around $24. I was buying around 7-8x earnings back then. 35 seems like a kings ransom.

Posted

It's hard for me to add to MSFT when I have a cost base around $24. I was buying around 7-8x earnings back then. 35 seems like a kings ransom.

 

You, value investor, you...  >:(  8)

Posted

In vino veritas.

 

Yes, I agree on some semblance of a valuation threshold. But how many times have we said and heard “ah if only”. 35 vs 30 times earnings is not going to make or break the outcome. And it wasn’t a huge purchase - like Greg said I buy often but in small quantities.

 

Valuation doesn’t make a lot of difference when your thesis is right, but it sure makes a lot of difference when the thesis is wrong.

 

To buy a little by at least when you like the business but consider the valuation stretched, with the intent to buy more if valuation becomes more favorable is a reasonable approach. It does goes counter the currently prevailing wisdom to never average down though.

It's hard for me to add to MSFT when I have a cost base around $24. I was buying around 7-8x earnings back then. 35 seems like a kings ransom.

 

I also owned some MSFT at $24 and sold at $40. That’s deep value investing....

 

Today’s MSFT equivalent could well be INTC, if management can turn it around. You would get the rising earnings and rising multiple Goldilocks. The rising multiple was responsible for half the returns with MSFT (eyeballing this roughly).

Posted

In vino veritas.

 

Yes, I agree on some semblance of a valuation threshold. But how many times have we said and heard “ah if only”. 35 vs 30 times earnings is not going to make or break the outcome. And it wasn’t a huge purchase - like Greg said I buy often but in small quantities.

 

Valuation doesn’t make a lot of difference when your thesis is right, but it sure makes a lot of difference when the thesis is wrong.

 

To buy a little by at least when you like the business but consider the valuation stretched, with the intent to buy more if valuation becomes more favorable is a reasonable approach. It does goes counter the currently prevailing wisdom to never average down though.

It's hard for me to add to MSFT when I have a cost base around $24. I was buying around 7-8x earnings back then. 35 seems like a kings ransom.

 

I also owned some MSFT at $24 and sold at $40. That’s deep value investing....

 

Today’s MSFT equivalent could well be INTC, if management can turn it around. You would get the rising earnings and rising multiple Goldilocks. The rising multiple was responsible for half the returns with MSFT (eyeballing this roughly).

 

I've added some INTC here. Intel has a lot going for it other than just being at the bleeding edge of Moore's law (but it should still work out a strategy of catching up there as well...).

Posted

In vino veritas.

 

Yes, I agree on some semblance of a valuation threshold. But how many times have we said and heard “ah if only”. 35 vs 30 times earnings is not going to make or break the outcome. And it wasn’t a huge purchase - like Greg said I buy often but in small quantities.

 

Valuation doesn’t make a lot of difference when your thesis is right, but it sure makes a lot of difference when the thesis is wrong.

 

To buy a little by at least when you like the business but consider the valuation stretched, with the intent to buy more if valuation becomes more favorable is a reasonable approach. It does goes counter the currently prevailing wisdom to never average down though.

It's hard for me to add to MSFT when I have a cost base around $24. I was buying around 7-8x earnings back then. 35 seems like a kings ransom.

 

I also owned some MSFT at $24 and sold at $40. That’s deep value investing....

 

Today’s MSFT equivalent could well be INTC, if management can turn it around. You would get the rising earnings and rising multiple Goldilocks. The rising multiple was responsible for half the returns with MSFT (eyeballing this roughly).

Yea I sold a bit MSFT at 40 and some at 80. But it was a LARGE stake to begin with. It was kind of a relief valve after getting hate mail and taking grenades in the trenches for a few years on that.

 

But I don't think that the MSFT situation is similar to INTC. When I bought MSFT it was during the everything is gonna be Apple thing. For some reason nobody noticed that the company was making anything besides Windows and that MSFT was really an enterprise software company. Apple was doing well, but at MSFT windows was pretty stable like -3% and still barfing a river of cash. On the other hand Office, Windows Server and SQL Server were growing gangbusters like 20% a year and they've been doing that for a while. SQL Server was doing to Oracle what Office did to Lotus Notes and they were in full cloud mode too.

 

Intel looks pretty cheap I have to admit. But they also have some troubles which MSFT didn't really have. The business is fundamentally different as well. The switching costs are much, much higher for enterprise tech compared to chips. INTC has to constantly spend real and meaningful money on CapEx to stay on course. They also make things and have  unit costs so not as much operational leverage as software. Also due to the industry I can't see INTC booking 20% growth year after year. They're more constrained.

Posted

In brief, I thinks its focus is in the right place(IT infrastructure), COVID may create M&A opportunities globally which is something they highlighted in the prospectus, and most importantly, you cant really lose money if you can get the IPO allocation.

Posted

In brief, I thinks its focus is in the right place(IT infrastructure), COVID may create M&A opportunities globally which is something they highlighted in the prospectus, and most importantly, you cant really lose money if you can get the IPO allocation.

 

Gregmal,

 

Why don't you just tell it like it is.  You bought it for the potential "Tech Lock and Pop" effect. 

Posted

In brief, I thinks its focus is in the right place(IT infrastructure), COVID may create M&A opportunities globally which is something they highlighted in the prospectus, and most importantly, you cant really lose money if you can get the IPO allocation.

 

Gregmal,

 

Why don't you just tell it like it is.  You bought it for the potential "Tech Lock and Pop" effect.

 

LOL. Offering me a tech SPAQ IPO right now is like offering Johnny Depp some.... well, you know what Im getting at. Have another lined up for Friday.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...