Hey Bear, no need to be frustrated. I have no position in any of those stocks and no inclination to own them. So frankly I don’t have the time to investigate them. But a broader discussion on market ratios and trends will of course have more participants than narrower conversations focused exclusively on one company.
For instance, I shared a few notes on Square a few days ago and didn’t get any responses. That’s okay! I’m not frustrated or disappointed.
What I now find a little amusing is that you’re the one who brought Square to the board and you still didn’t respond! But, again, it’s totally okay. I figure we all have different time available to contribute on the boards and that will vary depending on where we are in life, time of year, etc. This time of year especially is busy for some of us!
Some threads happen to spark more conversation than others and sometimes there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it. That’s just the nature of these things.
I think it is the time of year Bear, over all not much shakin’ on any of the boards I routinely visit, and this board as been slow the last few weeks.
For anyone still in Casey’s General store they reported yesterday and it was not a very encouraging quarter, but one bright spot was the continued push to open new stores. I thought the company would sell off this morning for sure, but instead it is up along with the general market. So I may be taking some profit.
mike
As to your comments re: moat, you definitely gave me pause. I don’t know that I buy Bert’s theory either, but I do think it’s a growing TAM, and a rising tide does seem to lift all boats. Plus Square has kind of a first mover type thing going in its particular segment of the market. But the proof is really in the pudding, and I like the adjusted revenue growth they’re showing (more than 50% last quarter).
I guess I would just rather see this board filled with company-specific discussions than macro.
if it matters, it might not be all bad - it isn’t just “macro” at all - it is about the appropriate multiple or EV/EBITDA or revenue/cap ratio or whatever figure you want to assign to whatever business you follow. For example, all the restaurant stocks I follow are up 10% to 20% since the election, and you have to decide if, for example, a 20x multiple for Cheesecake Factory is appropriate or if 25x is more likely despite the story behind the company being the exact same thing it was before the election.
Granted, most of these stocks on this board sidestep a lot of this cause they are experiencing rapid top line growth (though not always any earnings or free cash flow, and eventually you have to have those), but even fast growers will be impacted by how people perceive changing valuations. This isn’t something I generally worry about this is not a normal period.
Fwiw, I spend 99% of my day on company specifics (Peter Lynch; “The GNP six months out is just malarkey. How is the sneaker industry doing? That’s real economics”.) But maybe from time to time it does help to think about how you want to value companies, and interest rates and PE ratios and all that do provide clues. That’s why Saul’s knowledge base is so cool - his approach is laid out clearly and concisely.
but agree, you discuss ‘macro’ only a few seconds and that’s it…like you, I thought AMBA was tethered to GoPro. I don’t follow any homebuilders (free cash flow?). On SNCR, every time they do something major, don’t you need to investigate it closely? But on your specific question, can you call investor relations and ask them that every point? Maybe it has something to do with the closing of the acquisitions (obviously I know zip about it).
The answer is: They aren’t recognizing ANY 2017 revenue from Activation (after having at least 274M there in 2016). They’ve sold “a piece” of that business for 146M. I don’t think anyone on the call thought to ask how big this piece was. They plan to sell the rest too…no one asked how much they expected to get for it. I would still think they’ll see SOME revenue for it in 2017 before they sell the rest. Very odd, in my book.
Seems like they’ve traded one business for another, but paid a lot to do so, and took out a $0.9B loan to do so.
The only thing I know for sure is that the valuation is very cheap as these companies go, with a forward P/S of 2.4 (compare to 6, 7, or 8 for PAYC, SHOP, etc), and a PE currently under 18.
Are you reading the group “unthreaded”? Then you have to sift through all the junk. If you switch to “threaded” mode you can easily skip threads you have no interest in.
As far as analysis of single stocks, I bet AMBA and SNCR have already been analyzed to death in the past 18 months.
I understand how you feel. I suspect a lot of people lost interest in the board as it became inundated with politics, macro trends, technical analysis, irrelevant IBD statements, etc. None of which are relevant to Saul’s investing style. Sad to see.
At least the SNCR & BOFI threads are somewhat relevant, though in both cases it seems to me the majority of the discussion is focused around issues irrelevant to a “Saul-like investing style”.
I’d love to get back to more in-depth analysis of companies based around Saul’s perspective of investing (which very much mirrors my own).
I understand people want to talk about those topics and that is fantastic … but putting those threads on this board distracts from the amazing possibilities of shared learning surrounding Saul’s investing style.
I suspect a lot of people lost interest in the board as it became inundated with politics, macro trends, technical analysis, irrelevant IBD statements, etc.
I really don’t feel the board has been “inundated” with off topic discussions, there are some, yes, but they’re pretty easy to ignore.
I think the lowered activity on the board is because the results for the stocks discussed here have not been “up to historical Saul standards” for the past year. I understand that different stocks go in or out of favor and everyone has less successful, if not downright bad, years at times.
It doesn’t bother me, I still enjoy and learn a lot from this board and will continue to frequent it. I do miss posts from Neil and Chris who used to post quite frequently on this board when I first started reading. They always had some great insights.
Stop looking for immediate gratification people. In 1999 Amazon was laughed at and called whoafully overvalued and would never earn a profit. Much like AOL was before it. Nearly every year since then AMZN has had the same ridicule. The only way to really hold a stock like that long term is to back away and not always obsess over the details. Just from time to time.
This said, there does come a time when euphoria over reaches or disruption occurs and you must pay heed. But overall, I have found that too much thinking hurts your returns.
So a little boredom from time to time is good. 90% + of news is irrelevant, it is that other 10% we need discussion.
I really don’t feel the board has been “inundated” with off topic discussions, there are some, yes, but they’re pretty easy to ignore.
Completely agree. There a small fraction of those OT posts every once in a while and there always will be where highly intelligent and confident people gather.
I think the lowered activity on the board is because the results for the stocks discussed here have not been “up to historical Saul standards” for the past year.
True, and this raises an interesting question. Is there any correlation between detailed analysis and portfolio success?
It doesn’t bother me, I still enjoy and learn a lot from this board and will continue to frequent it.
I think the lowered activity on the board is because the results for the stocks discussed here have not been “up to historical Saul standards” for the past year.
I’ve noticed on multiple boards that people get chatty when stocks are going up and clam up when they are going down.
True, and this raises an interesting question. Is there any correlation between detailed analysis and portfolio success?
In Spanish we have a saying: “Neither bald nor with two wigs.” Each investor will find his comfort zone. Mine is a lot less analysis than the typical value investor will do but a lot more than the tip takers do. But it’s not only quantity but the quality of the analysis. You have to figure out what is and what is not relevant. Most talking heads are not relevant. Debt and growth are. Many of the numbers and ratios used are overrated. Business model is crucial. 90% of the so called news is noise. JMO.
Mine is a lot less analysis than the typical value investor will do
In a recent Fool SA newsletter, the editorial revealed an internal Fidelity study that shocked everybody with a counter-intuitive finding. They found out that the best-performing client portfolios belonged to people who died in recent years. For obvious reasons, they could no longer trade in-n-out and the portfolio just ran on auto-pilot. Interesting idea.
I think there is a lot of research data to point out that frequent trading is negatively-correlated with gains.
I think there is a lot of research data to point out that frequent trading is negatively-correlated with gains.
My problem is not frequent trading but bad trading when the chips are down. Emotions are terrible stock advisors hence the advice to only look at the portfolio quarterly at most.
Emotions are terrible stock advisors hence the advice to only look at the portfolio quarterly at most.
Right.
Isaac Newton was more than likely the greatest intellect to ever live. He lost a fortune in the stock market:
“Back in the spring of 1720, Sir Isaac Newton owned shares in the South Sea Company, the hottest stock in England. Sensing that the market was getting out of hand, the great physicist muttered that he ‘could calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of the people.’ Newton dumped his South Sea shares, pocketing a 100% profit totaling £7,000. But just months later, swept up in the wild enthusiasm of the market, Newton jumped back in at a much higher price — and lost £20,000 (or more than $3 million in [2002-2003’s] money. For the rest of his life, he forbade anyone to speak the words ‘South Sea’ in his presence.”
I don’t think that great intellect is an advantage in the stock market. It is more about strength of character. For this reason I don’t think that Saul’s success can be replicated because you cannot teach character, but it does make for a very entertaining discussion board.
But it’s not only quantity but the quality of the analysis. You have to figure out what is and what is not relevant. Most talking heads are not relevant. Debt and growth are. Many of the numbers and ratios used are overrated. Business model is crucial.
Business model is crucial. For the long term as well as “trading.” There’s so much more risk with companies where the business model is gimmicky, short-term, and opaque.
foodles: I think the lowered activity on the board is because the results for the stocks discussed here have not been “up to historical Saul standards” for the past year. I understand that different stocks go in or out of favor and everyone has less successful, if not downright bad, years at times.
Foodles, my own portfolio has stocks up as much as 54% since my initial investment earlier this year. Most are stocks I invested in because of Saul. I sold out of PN after a 105% return. How is those not “up to historical Saul standards”???
Yes, some other stocks have languished or even given crushing losses. INFN is my biggest loss. But … isn’t that the nature of investing? Find the right mix so that the portfolio losers will not overwhelm the portfolio winners. I’ve made a few big mistakes in my portfolio, but still I am very satisfied by my return so far this year.
I have a ton of work to do. Important stuff. Kids to raise, social life to stumble through, medical condition to deal with, and aspirations to become competitive again in my sport, house to turn into castle, hounds to please at al.
This morning I got up and looked at my port and got anxious. Pondering a change here or there and not sticking to leaving it alone.
No, I did not make any changes but it created stress and consumed energy and took away from the rest of what I needed or wanted to do today. Also, I might have done something stupid one of these days.
Point being, there is a reason as #6 cites that a dead person’sport may outperform. Also, there is too much daily stress watching it every day.
Again though, this said, still follow your stocks for relevant things and issues. At least that is what I aspire to do, of fall short still.