Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Vet67to82 (< 20)

Please Delete (p2)



April 08, 2011 – Comments (18) | RELATED TICKERS: STX , MU , NCR

 I left Motley Fool, but I am still blogging elsewhere.  Those sites I am posting to are re-distributing, and COPYRIGHTING my work, re-posting  my blogs to Twitter ( not a member and not planning to be a member ) and Facebook ( not a member and not planning to be a member ) and lots of other sites ...  apparently causing people to still come looking here.   Guess that's up to otley Fool. 

 Why?    Posts like this:

 Seagate Tech (STX) FairValue

Fundamental analysis first and foremost, including market info and direction, the sector, the industry and then individual companies. Weekly stock screens followed by my charting: end-of-day and intraday, STX is undervalued based on Fair Valuations (FV) as well as its short term and 1 year targets.

In the many differing ways to calculate whether to buy (undervalued) or sell (overvalued) a stock, one needs a basis to determine FAIR VALUE (FV) of the stock or security.

The Graham number estimates the maximum price an investor should pay for a stock after a formula developed by Mr. Benjamin Graham. The formula calculates Fair Value using current Earnings per Share (EPS) (trailing twelve months or ttm) and book value (BV) per share.

 Assumptions in the Graham number calculation:

(a) the P/E should be no greater than 15
(b) the price per book value should be no greater than 1.5
(c) the product of a and b should be no greater than 22.5

So, the Formula looks lke this:

FairValue (FV) = SQRT( 22.5 x BV x EPS )

 SQRT = square root

Checking the FairValue using the Benjamin Graham calculation, Seagate Tech STX ( $13.49 ) has a BV of $6.23 and a Tangible Book Value per Share (TBVpS) of $6.13 with EPS (ttm) of $2.37.

The FairValue calculation, when I added STX (3/4/2011) as one of my picks,  says Seagate Tech,  at $12.44, has a FV of $18.23 and is undervalued by $5.79 or 46.54 percent.


Grinning, in about 1 month, my purchase of STX has just hit my short term target of $16.09, returning  +30 percent ... AND ... STILL hasn't gotten to FAIR Value (FV) of $18.23 and or my long term targets.  AND analysts .. ha, ha ... are today raising targets to mine or greater.   DUH! 

Homework may seem dull, boring, and time consuming; but,  ... after all it is OUR money ... and who'll take better care of our money than us?  When we do our own HOMEWORK ... it's not I hope, or I think, or I want ... .... it's I KNOW!   Homework renders Knowledge and Confidence ... and that's priceless!

More to follow

Tags : FV   EPS   BV   STX   CSCO   COMP   DJIA   SPX   SPY   FAS   FAZ   DIA   A   AA   ALL   AXP   BA   BAC   C   CAT   CHK   CVS   CVX   DD   DIS   GE   HD   HES   HPQ   IBM   INTC   JCP   JNJ   JPM   KFT   KO   MCD   MMM   MRK   MSFT   PFE   PG   T   TRV   UTX   VZ   WMT   XOM   ING   GLD   SLV   PAAS   UXG   DHT   DRYS   EGLE   GASS   OSG   AAPL   ALKS   AMLN   GOOG   HOG   MCP   MEE   NCR  


18 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 08, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Valyooo (33.61) wrote:

Oh wow congradulations, you can do simple math using an outdated formula that everybody else in the world knows about and that you didn't create

Report this comment
#2) On April 08, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

Too bad you are missing out on all my other picks, and real world money buys   ... like TDC ... UP plus 187 percent! 

Report this comment
#3) On April 08, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Valyooo (33.61) wrote:

So people are copyrighting you because you can plus numbers into a formula and pretend like you did "homework" ?

Report this comment
#4) On April 08, 2011 at 1:03 PM, ChrisGraley (28.67) wrote:

If A and B are true there is no need for C.

15 * 1.5 = 22.5

The equation is still correct, and the number 22.5 does come from those 2 limits, but there is no need to mention C if A and B are not violated.


Report this comment
#5) On April 08, 2011 at 1:08 PM, ChrisGraley (28.67) wrote:

I'm interested why you are coming back to this site to complain about someone copyrighting your work on other sites, when you demonstrate your work being a copy of Benjamin Graham's?


Report this comment
#6) On April 08, 2011 at 1:23 PM, kdakota630 (29.12) wrote:

So... since you wrote "more to follow" with more tags, are we to assume you're planning on blogging here more?

And if so, that's despite apparently wanting to be deleted from here?

I'm confused.

I'm fine either way.  Despite being on your "Clown List" I really couldn't care less either way.  If you're back, great.  If not, that's great too.

Report this comment
#7) On April 08, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

Duh!  Valyooo, a prudent investor uses MULTIPLE formulas in their OWN spreadsheets, and data bases,  to double check, and triple check that their calculations are correct, and to look for over/under valued confirmations, non-confirms, or divergences. 

Re-creating the wheel every time is NOT productive, or efficient.  Every formula has it's uses until it no longer produces correct information.  This is just one formula in a battery of hundreds. Bollenger Bands work ... but your comment implies we shouldn't use them ... because we didn't create them?

 I didn't create statistical analysis either but I use it.  ... and Calculus, and Differential Calculus, ... and Quantum Mechanics ...

 Grinning,  I am not sharing "MY" formulas that led to calculations on my short term targets, intermediate term targets, and 1 year targets ... targets that the Graham number doesn't produce but that I clearly refered to in the first paragraph as a necessary part of the BUY/SELL analysis process.. 



Report this comment
#8) On April 08, 2011 at 1:37 PM, L0RDZ (89.97) wrote:

If you want MF to delete you ask me I can  tell you first hand what to do  :)



Report this comment
#9) On April 08, 2011 at 1:39 PM, L0RDZ (89.97) wrote:

I personally use the hamster in the spinning wheel to give me calculations  2+2 is on my mind....

sometimes the hamster gets wacked and is tumbling instead of running on the wheel..




Report this comment
#10) On April 08, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

Actually, ChrisGraley, I point out (a), (b), and (c) because if you didn't have a spreadsheet column, or database entry for the results, you can still screen your own spreadsheets with a formula to identify stocks overvalued ( > c ) or under valued ( < c ).    

I also point out (a), (b), and (c) because  I've had to repeatedly go back and explain MATH, Chemistry, and Physics calculations and steps that I completed in my head and didn't think it would be necessary to write down as the steps, that should have been obvious, apparently aren't ... to some people. 


Report this comment
#11) On April 08, 2011 at 2:22 PM, ChrisGraley (28.67) wrote:

If A < = to 15 and B <= 1.5 you don't need to multiply to get C to know if it's undervalued or overvalued. 

You don't need the spreadsheet at all, other than to get a proper price.

Obey those 2 rules and you get an undervalued stock (just make sure there isn't a very good reason why it's undervalued)

It's one reason why I always reccommend Graham's books to people. He is very good in narrowing a very detailed analysis into a very simple equation.

Report this comment
#12) On April 08, 2011 at 2:24 PM, ajm101 (< 20) wrote:

+1, please delete this account.

Report this comment
#13) On April 08, 2011 at 6:12 PM, eldemonio (98.09) wrote:

You're a blogging superstar!  Maybe you could come back and enlighten the rest of the community with your mathmatical wizardry.  Please?  Quantum Mechanics to pick stocks?  Wow.  That is amazing! 

I'm not as good as you, but I like to do my fundamental analysis first.  Look at the market info and direction, the sector, the industry and then individual companies. I then do weekly stock screens followed by my charting: end-of-day and intraday, I also try to spread my investments over at least 5 sectors. I got to spend some online time with John Bollinger of the "Bollinger Bands." His expertise is amazing. Fantastic info ... made a big difference in my charting skills, techniques, and thinking. I received my high school and college education in biology, chemistry, physics and lots of math. What I really appreciate about my education is the oh so many word problems. Like a detective, you get some of the info you need, some info you don't need, and something is always missing ... leaving you with the possibility to arrive at the one and only correct answer. Driving my Mom crazy, I enlisted during Vietnam, US Army, combat infantry, with Airborne and Ranger training. I am 100% in support of every US soldier.

Report this comment
#14) On April 08, 2011 at 7:15 PM, ChrisGraley (28.67) wrote:

I apologize to the Marines ahead of time but...

A little boy was standing in front of a mirror in the restroom at John F. Kennedy Airport, when in walked a Marine staff sergeant, dressed in his dress blues. The little boy turned to the Marine and said, "Wow! Are you a Marine?"

The Marine replied, "Why, yes I am, young man. Would you like to wear my hat?"

"Boy, would I!," said the little boy. He took the hat and placed it on his head and turned to admire himself in the mirror.

As he was looking in the mirror, he heard the door open and through a ray of bright light, a man entered the room. But, this was not just a man -- he was more than a man. He was an Airborne Ranger.

The little boy turned and went over to the soldier. As he approached him, he could see the reflection in his boots. His eyes widened as he stared up at the soldier's chest full of medals and combat ribbons. He tried to speak, but he couldn't. Finally, he took a deep breath, and managed to say, "Excuse me, Sir. Are you an Airborne Ranger?"

The Ranger replied with a thunderous voice, "Why yes, I am!! Would you like to shine my boots?"


The little boy smiled, and said, "Oh, no sir!! I'm not a Marine. I'm just wearing his hat!"



Report this comment
#15) On April 09, 2011 at 12:39 PM, PDTBiotech (85.04) wrote:

Yay, that guy who threw a fit when it was pointed out that he was rec'ing his own posts and MF didn't have any system built in to prevent it is back!  Awaiting Clown List II.

Report this comment
#16) On April 13, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

PDTBiotech ... NOT knowing Motley Fool changed its REC policies, I explained in RVAspeculator"s post:  Recs now mean nothing! Change this back Motley Fool!

 that I had group (hundreds of members) e-mails wherein I suggested readers and commenter's check my PICKS HERE,  as well as other websites ... as websites have DIFFERENT Picks concepts ... such as MarketWatches' 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, and three months maximum.  Once people make a MW pick, it can't be closed except by MW at the end of the selected timeframe.  I also gave an example of a post:

"  ... I post to SEVERAL other sites, as well as withing GROUPS in other sites  ... and I think members there MIGHT want to join Motley Fool so ... I give them the link to MY  blogs here ...   please note the LAST part: 

 " ... also, check out the Motley Fool CUR quote and comment page. There's only seven of us now.



 After the the RECS debate, I told readers and commenters to NOT  come to MFool for my picks and posts,  however ...  telling people to NOT do something is likely going to inspire them to do exactly the opposite.  So, if those individuals reading your "comments", disliked MFools remarks, and knowing RECs to my posts aggravate MFools,   it is likely "they" REC'd my posts in retalliation.   So, making comments that others may take exception to, or sides on, not only reflect poorly on you .. but also reflect poorly on Motley Fool for allowing you to do so.    



Report this comment
#17) On April 13, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

One of my 30 plus different Groups has 1500 + members ... if I asked them pop in here, read, and to rec my posts here  ... just ONE time ... not multiple recs ... do the math! 

  The ONLY reason I don't have the recs I COULD have is that I am NOT asking anyone to REC my posts ... and I am certainly NOT refering them to Motley FOOL. 


Report this comment
#18) On April 13, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

POWERS of Observation  ... Hmmmm!

RVAspeculator"s post:  Recs now mean nothing! Change this back Motley Fool!

#46) On May 04, 2010 at 5:37 PM, TMFCHarris (99.35) wrote:


Sorry for not replying earlier to the accusations against you. We did check to see if there was something fishy going on with your recs (the same way we did with AndrewGreenBull and others) and saw that there wasn't. I'm sorry I responded to the specific rec issue without clearing your name as well.


Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners