I'm a long-term Graham and Buffet-type investor. I buy and hold undervalued stocks until they have reached their "fair value" and then I sell. So, no, I don't short stocks.
As a matter of fact, I believe shorting stocks is un-American. I don't believe in betting against companies and the U.S. companies. Benjamin Graham called such people speculators, and I agree with this.
As far as being a paid basher, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm here because I have a right to be here, and because RIG came across my stock screen. However, after looking over the company's numbers over the last five years, I find the company isn't for me. Is there anything else you need to know?
I like companies with seemingly "predictable" financials going forward, based on how the company has performed in the past.
I understand the past is not a predictor of future performance, but it gives you an idea of how a company may perform.
Wow! She is either a closet right-winger or they offered her a hoard of cash. Or, both.
Apple's cash hoard represents 71% of the company's total assets on the balance sheet. Surely, this can't be a good thing? Unless, say, the company was a bank, right?
The only "income" you'll get from Berkshire-Hathaway is if you sell your shares. But then that's not income, that's share price appreciation. I'm referring to income in the literal sense, like what you'd get from a bond or a dividend-paying stock.
I don't know what to say but: *yawn*.
You certainly have your panties up in a bunch over nothing, really.
I'll leave you to argue with yourself
No, I wasn't implying that Mr. Buffet is a hypocrite or anything. Just the notion that on an absolute basis, neither gold nor Berkshire shares produce any income.
Also, as a value investor and student of Graham and Buffet, I'm well aware of the latter's investment philosophy. But thanks for sharing, nonetheless. :)
It's funny you should say that, because I was rather thinking the same thing.
It just goes to show that even the Oracle of Omaha isn't always above reproach.
Actually, I should have been a bit more clear on what I meant by income. I was referring to dividends.
In other words, stocks that pay dividends are producing income, as soon as you get the dividend check in your hot little hand. So, in this sense, Berkshire-Hathaway shares like gold doesn't produce any income. At this point, Berkshire-Hathaway is all about price appreciation.
I find it curious that Buffet doesn't like gold as an investment because it is non-income producing. Well, the same is true for Berkshire-Hathaway shares - they don't produce any income.
I'm not suggestion one buy gold either way, I just find his comment rather curious.
It's funny you should mention that.
I just used Yahoo! Finance's historical database to download all of this fund's adjusted closing prices (i.e., adjusted for splits and dividends). I then compared this fund's annualized performance to that of the S&P 500 Index and even the Russell 2000 Small Cap Index for the same historical period (8/20/2009 to 9/27/13).
By my calculations, here are my results:
Motley Fool Independence Fund (before fees and expenses):
Annualized Standard Deviation=16.89%
S&P 500 Index (before fees and expenses):
Annualized Standard Deviation=17.20%
Russell 2000 Small Cap Index (before fees and expenses):
Annualized Standard Deviation=23.97%
Clearly, one is better off ju8st investing in a low expense S&P 500 Index fund.
I think Head Fools Tom and David have lost some of their credibility.
I was never in this stock.
As a matter of principle, I just don't want to see the Chinese buying this country's largest pork producer.
The Chinese are offering to buy Smithfield Foods for $34 per share. However, Smithfield's enterprise value - which includes the value of all of the company's outstanding shares, long-term and short-term debt, and all of the cash on its balance sheet works out to about $50.56 a share.
Why the low ball buyout figure?
Also, since the Chinese are buying SMithfield, I will no longer buy Smithfield Foods products.