As Host of the Board, I had that short thread that I started removed, as I felt it was inappropriate to direct it at #6 like that. He certainly has a right to post his opinions here, like everyone else. I would however certainly appreciate it if we stuck to evaluating stocks as investing opportunities, and not wander off into arguments (which I was partly responsible for).
Best
Saul
As Host of the Board, I had that short thread that I started removed, as I felt it was inappropriate to direct it at #6 like that. He certainly has a right to post his opinions here, like everyone else. I would however certainly appreciate it if we stuck to evaluating stocks as investing opportunities, and not wander off into arguments (which I was partly responsible for).
I noticed you refer to yourself as “Host of the Board” and would appreciate if we stick to evaluating stocks as investing opportunities. Others have referred to this forum as “Saul’s Board” and that we only discuss “Saul’s Stocks”
Is this to be considered as a change in policy? Is this to be a learning forum with other viewpoints welcomed considering the markets and the world are changing. Differing viewpoints would die by themselves if there is no interest, and at the same time they would flourish if merit and potential opportunity was found in them?
Respectfully submitted
b&w
I noticed you refer to yourself as “Host of the Board” and would appreciate if we stick to evaluating stocks as investing opportunities. Others have referred to this forum as “Saul’s Board” and that we only discuss “Saul’s Stocks.” Is this to be considered as a change in policy? Is this to be a learning forum with other viewpoints welcomed considering the markets and the world are changing. Differing viewpoints would die by themselves if there is no interest, and at the same time they would flourish if merit and potential opportunity was found in them?
Hi b&w, You have several questions there.
First question – Others have referred to this forum as “Saul’s Board” - Well of course this is “Saul’s Board”! It’s clear from the title of the Board: “Saul’s Investing Discussions”…
Second question - With regards to discussing only Saul’s stocks, I have never, ever wanted to restrict the discussion to stocks I was already invested in. You’ve been around the board long enough to know that I get a lot of ideas from stocks that others bring to the board and that I have never even heard of before (Kite and ZioPharm just recently, as an example). Here’s the quote from The Rules of the Board on the Knowledgebase:
As far as restricting to “Saul-type stocks”, I don’t know what a “Saul-type stock” is. Seriously. I look at a stock and examine it with the method outlined in the Knowledgebase, which is available to everyone. So let’s not talk about Saul-type stocks, which don’t have any fixed meaning that I’m aware of, and let’s talk about evaluating stocks using the “Knowledgebase method,” or even the “Saul method” if you like a shorter title. Some people will prefer to use other methods. That’s what makes horse racing, to mix a metaphor. This board isn’t about any particular stocks. It’s about learning how to evaluate stocks using a valuable, effective and common sense method. With the method, you’ll find your own stocks! I’ve seen calls to move discussions of companies to other boards because I’ve sold out of them. I don’t think that’s a good reason to stop discussing a stock. I sell out of plenty of stocks but welcome discussion of them… We are here to discuss interesting stocks, and whether I am personally invested in them is irrelevant.
Third Question: Is this a change in policy? Are other viewpoints welcome? I’m not sure what you mean there. There’s no change in policy. Other viewpoints have always been welcome and people have always disagreed with me about individual stocks. However, I set this board up to discuss growth stocks. It’s not a board to discuss all the subjects in the world. You’d be amazed how fast people would drop off if it was that diluted. But you can discuss individual growth stocks from any point of view you want.
However there ARE subjects that don’t belong on the board. As I said, this board is for the discussion of growth stocks, and the Rules of the Board also makes clear that there are subjects that don’t belong on the board. These include subjects such as politics (which turn into vicious fights and are very destructive), technical analysis, option trading, investing for dividends, investing in going-nowhere stocks for turnarounds, or sell-off-the-parts candidates, etc. Again, there are plenty of boards where those discussions would be very welcome, but this one is for growth stocks.
And, again from the Rules of the Board:
Expressions of anger because people disagree with you about a stock are definitely out of place here.
Hope that helps,
Saul
Is this to be considered as a change in policy? Is this to be a learning forum with other viewpoints welcomed considering the markets and the world are changing. Differing viewpoints would die by themselves if there is no interest, and at the same time they would flourish if merit and potential opportunity was found in them?
This is just a very personal observation, not a guideline or anything like it. Some Fools want to emulate Saul’s performance by duplicating his positions. Others want to learn from Saul’s method. A third group – where I find myself – mostly are looking for interesting leads to research their own way. All of us contribute opinions when we feel they are of interest. Saul has stated that he has picked up interesting leads from others meaning he is not averse to posts about “not-Saul stocks.”
That said, “Saul stocks” get ten to twenty times as many posts as non-Saul stocks. Lots of other previously active boards have dried up for a variety of reasons while Saul’s board is very active making it an interesting destination. As TMF has evolved I feel that they are less interested in the free boards than in the paid ones. When I joined up there was a membership fee that had to be paid to access any part of TMF. They got rid of it – I suppose – because there was no profit in it.
TMF is still my favorite go-to place to discuss stocks but I find it less interesting than it used to be. Early on I was more interested in discussing individual stocks, now my interest is more in portfolio strategy but I don’t get much feedback about it. Based on this experience I feel that Saul’s board is so active because it discusses mostly individual stocks.
Denny Schlesinger
Saul has stated that he has picked up interesting leads from others meaning he is not averse to posts about “not-Saul stocks.”
Hi Denny, Just to verify that I quickly skimmed my notes on stocks I’ve had positions in in the last two years. I found the following stocks that were first brought to the board by others’ posts. I’ve missed a lot of them, I’m sure:
MITK, brought by Neil
HUBS, brought by Neil
KITE, brought by bulwinkl
TLND, brought by Bear
PAYC, brought by Andy
ZIOP, mentioned by someone on the Kite thread as another interesting CAR-T stock
INBK, brought by Anirban
PN, brought by F1Fun
TEAM, brought by Kevin
And if I missed one that you have brought in my quick scan, I apologize. I love having members present stocks they find interesting (but prefer they say why they are interested and not just throw a stock symbol at us and say “You should look at XYZ! I think it will be up 50% this year”).
Saul
I set this board up to discuss growth stocks. It’s not a board to discuss all the subjects in the world. You’d be amazed how fast people would drop off if it was that diluted.
I concur that if this became a dividend, or value, or technical analysis, or retirement type board I’d likely drop away. Everyone one of these topics has been discussed on this board though and it is appropriately asked to move on when it goes on too long. One reason this board has been successful in remaining valuable to so many is that Saul DOES enforce a policy which he has IN WRITING to keep the board’s purpose on target. He doesn’t kill off topics until they have flourished for awhile and it is proper board management to point out when topics get off course and cause the board members to sift thru the day’s of off topic postings.
And if I missed one that you have brought in my quick scan, I apologize. I love having members present stocks they find interesting (but prefer they say why they are interested and not just throw a stock symbol at us and say “You should look at XYZ! I think it will be up 50% this year”).
I don’t think you missed any of mine probably because now I have only one reason to buy a stock, the price is going to go up. The traditional method of security analysis is to go over the data with a fine tooth comb to find why it is going to go up. I’ve inverted the method, I find stocks that have been going up fast, the reason I show so many charts, and then I go over the data to find out why I should NOT buy the stock. Most people find this most unsatisfactory. 
The only reason stocks go up is because there are more buyers than sellers. If I like a stock and Mr. Market doesn’t, it’s my loss. If Mr. Market likes a stock but I don’t, I don’t have a capital loss. If Mr. Market and I both like the stock, it’s win-win.
Denny Schlesinger
I still consider myself a beginner even though I’ve dabbled in the market for several many years. I’ve learned a lot from a lot of people on this board, but I’m still not very adept at applyiin what I’ve learned.
Given that, I would say my two top mentors have been Saul and Denny. As long as you two keep posting, I’ll keep reading.
Than you very much brittlerock, I hope I don’t disappoint you.
Denny Schlesinger
“If Mr. Market and I both like the stock, it’s win-win.”
What worries me about this is when Mr. Market goes from manic to depressive when I still like a stock I’m holding. That’s why I need to have a good defense ready, which would include having an idea of a rational valuation for a stock. And it falls apart with a company like Amazon (though Mr. Market seems happily married to it), so I’ve been on the sidelines with that one.
I suppose your response would be, “Sell when it starts to go down beyond X%.” Then we could have a thread discussing what that X% should be. But we should also have a talk about avoiding bubbles, or about how to get safely out of a bubble.
What worries me about this is when Mr. Market goes from manic to depressive when I still like a stock I’m holding. That’s why I need to have a good defense ready, which would include having an idea of a rational valuation for a stock.
When the market goes crazy it takes stuff down hard in what appears to be random carnage. That may include the stuff your research indicated as safe and solid. If the market made logical sense, smart people would be rich. This is not the case.
I suppose your response would be, “Sell when it starts to go down beyond X%.”
I’ve never seen this strategy work. It was made popular by the Investors Business Daily newspaper (IBD). They suggest selling when you lose 8%. I’ve seen a lot of people try this and fail. It only works for IBD in selling newspapers.
#6
I noticed you refer to yourself as “Host of the Board” and would appreciate if we stick to evaluating stocks as investing opportunities. Others have referred to this forum as “Saul’s Board” and that we only discuss “Saul’s Stocks”
b&w, I understand your concern, although not the topic that’s off-topic. 
And I trust we’ve all been on boards that are run by a tyrant. It’s like voting for a governor, or a president. No matter who wins, everybody hates them … unless … unless the new guy actually does “the right thing” for the majority of the people. Then everybody loves them. When that doesn’t happen here, we all move off that board like our pants are on fire and our pockets are full of firecrackers.
Basically we all vote every day. By being here, we have agreed that what we want to discuss is what Saul wants to discuss. I doubt that one single person here agrees because it’s what Saul wants. No, I’m quite positive we “agree” (to varying degrees I suspect) because his focus just happens to be what WE want to discuss. Being on a board that is run by someone with a strict but not ridiculous or tyrannical focus can be to everyone’s advantage unless you disagree with the focus, and that’s perfectly legitimate. There are boards here for just about any legal topic. But keep in mind that most of the boards here and elsewhere that are consistently growing with a steady group of participants, usually have a fairly narrow, common focus. Yes, there are exceptions.
So vote away. But I hope you stay here, and I hope Saul keeps on doing what he’s doing with determined focus but an open mind. But keep in mind, that’s only my opinion and it matters no more and no less than yours or anyone else’s. If Saul messes up, you will know because you will be able to hear a pin drop in the empty cavern. I could point you to a former favorite board of mine that was ruined by a smart but narrow-minded board monitor but alas, it’s now an unused, deserted mall. Actually, I could point you to several. 
Personally I don’t really care who wants to discuss what. We live in a democracy, or so I’m told. But if enough people are interested in what I’m interested in, know that I will participate. But I will also feel somewhat of a personal obligation to keep the focus where I want it, because I’ve seen what happens in free-for-all discussions on the internet. (It ain’t pretty.) And if I don’t like the focus, here or elsewhere, “Adios, bro.” No offense whatsoever. Because “I voted today” and will everyday from now on.
We’re all free to do what we want, as it should be. But may I suggest we all be careful what we wish for, (and speak up when we disagree!) And of course, always, always, vote accordingly.
Hey, I like your button. “I voted today.”
(Me too!)
Dan
What worries me about this is when Mr. Market goes from manic to depressive when I still like a stock I’m holding. That’s why I need to have a good defense ready, which would include having an idea of a rational valuation for a stock. And it falls apart with a company like Amazon (though Mr. Market seems happily married to it), so I’ve been on the sidelines with that one.
I suppose your response would be, “Sell when it starts to go down beyond X%.” Then we could have a thread discussing what that X% should be. But we should also have a talk about avoiding bubbles, or about how to get safely out of a bubble.
I’m afraid you are making seriously wrong assumptions about my investing style. When JP Morgan was asked what the market would do he enunciated the Law of Markets by replying: “It will fluctuate.” A falling market is not a reason to sell a stock. What you are proposing is what my broker used to call a mental stop-loss order. That’s a trader’s tool. An investor adds on dips. There are three reasons to sell: 1) to take profits on rises, 2) when the story changes, and 3) when you realize that you made a mistake.
I should add that when I say I look for stocks that grow fast I don’t mean this quarter or even this year, I mean long term, more than ten years. I mentioned BCPC earlier and linked a 30 YEAR chart. Mr. Market is never manic or depressive for that long.
http://invest.kleinnet.com/bmw1/stats30/BCPC.html
Denny Schlesinger
It’s my observation that when the market goes crazy it takes everything down. Makes little difference what your strategy might be, growth, value, income, the market doesn’t seem care.
buyandwin,
I was wrong. Please disregard everything I wrote above.
Differing viewpoints would die by themselves if there is no interest, and at the same time they would flourish if merit and potential opportunity was found in them?
All my thoughts are off-topic to Saul too and that’s just fine. So here I go, voting again. Kinda makes me sick that I defended his actions like I did but that’s what hot air gets you. I hope you can forgive me, and I’ll see you around the boards one day.
Good luck,
Dan