HenriNostradamus (65.76)

6 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 12, 2009 at 12:23 PM, anticitrade (99.50) wrote:

I agree with 4 and 10.  And definately disagree with "The stock you select in this way will always be a winner."

1.  I think it is impossible to know more than 1 or 2 companies well enough to determine if you "trust" their management.

2.  Winning historical performance may indicated it is now overpriced. 

3.  To invest on a technical analysis assumes both that historical trends occur in a identifiable way, and that you are better at identifying these trends than the average technical investor.

4.  I agree completely.

5.  Again, it is impossible to really understand what more than 1 or 2 companies are really doing.

6.  See 5.

7.  Maybe true in some instances.  But leading companies become leading companies usually through good decision making.

8.  What is too much debt?

9.  See 5. 

10.  I can agree with this.

The problem I have with this list is it basically says:  of the 1 or 2 companies you really know, invest in the one that has performed well in the market but isnt a leader.

Report this comment

#2) On October 12, 2009 at 12:52 PM, FleaBagger (99.14) wrote:

anticitrade - why would it take more than a couple of minutes to determine if a company's management is long the stock? (I.e. why is it impossible to understand that aspect of 10, 20, or even 100's of companies, as opposed to just 2, as you implied?)

Report this comment

#3) On October 12, 2009 at 1:31 PM, anticitrade (99.50) wrote:

I was thinking "Long" as in "Long term" not long as in share owner.  However, I can defend my stupidity by saying:  Almost all management will be long their own stock because it makes up such a large portion of their compensation.  The difficulty is determining if their timeframe for selling their stock is consistent with yours (which is probably impossible). 

Also, after re-reading my comment I realize I sound pretty negative.  I should add an "IMHO" and a "Good Luck!" to that comment.

Report this comment

#4) On October 12, 2009 at 1:36 PM, portefeuille (99.96) wrote:

now that this issue has been cleared I more or less completely agree with comment #2. Do people really believe that a set of "simple" rules exist that tells you "when to buy a stock" and gives you an advantage when you follow that advice?

Report this comment

#5) On October 12, 2009 at 1:36 PM, portefeuille (99.96) wrote:

exist

exists

Report this comment

#6) On October 14, 2009 at 12:45 PM, HenriNostradamus (65.76) wrote:

Henri Nostradamus:

Yes - Indeed not all the points on this list are easy to follow up. But you can work on it. What is wrong in investing in only a few stocks? I use to visit a company before I start investing in it . Just walk through the front door of their HQ and ask the manager to come down because a potential investor is knocking on the door. If they don't have time...drop the stock. If they take you serious (no matter what the size of your investment is) then this a first positive point for this company. And you know what? The bigger the company is, the more important you are for them (think about this). Anyway - I visited more than 200 companies over the years in this way. Management was always very friendly and made time for me. Sometimes they took me with them to show some of their plans and future developments. I once even was invited to test a new product (prototype).

The info you get at such meetings is gold:

1 - You get an impression of the way management handles things

2 - Sometimes they give you info that is not known to others (ideas, plans, possibilities etc.)

3 - It is easier to get access to conference calls if they know your face.

My advice - start visiting companies und use what you find out in your investing strategy. It pays out nicely.

HN

Report this comment

Blog Archive

2009