Investing style is a religion

[luutzu]

Dude, I ended this debate on the 25th of June, I only wrote what I wrote today to show the actual fact of 1 single point to clear it up for the readers at home, I have given up trying yo convince luutts.

He seems to look at everything backwards, and misses key points, so I have no more time for it, I am working on frying a bigger fish at the moment.

I know you're upset when you start calling me funny names

No. The way Monty value it is a bit like playing a ponzi scheme. That is, he doesn't see new equity, or retain earnings, as his. He sees them as someone else's problem.

So when new equity is raised, he doesn't see it as his own cash being put into the business. When earnings are retained, he see it as some one else's profit that's being kept back.

If we follow that approach, we're essentially getting into a business and let other shareholders reinvest their earnings, let other shareholders take up those "rights" issues and additional capital investment.

Not saying that that's a bad idea. Just that.. well, one, that's not exactly holding onto a business as though it's yours alone. Two, you're hoping that if others are adding in the cash, the share price will just rise over time because their new cash pick up the losses and over compensate them to such an extend that if you're in early enough, you will always make money.

Problem with that is, as with all ponzi, the music will eventually stop if the business is bad enough.

I'm not saying WOW is a Ponzi and such. Saying that the way Monty value it... it would only be correct if the investor just happen to be smart or lucky enough to jump in early and enjoy the ride over a decade or two. i.e. be on top of the pyramid.

-----------

Again, if an ATM dispenses $1000 a day. We're buying it because of that ability to dispense $1000 a day.

Say we pay $10,000 for that ATM and can pick it up today.

If after we paid, receive and take it home with us...

Why would that ATM be priced higher than $10,000 that we've paid for simply because we decide to retained, say $500 from that $1000 daily payment?

For sure it will now be "worth" more from that retained earning; but that new worth is from our savings from what ought to have been paid out to us.


But yea, I don't know man. I don't understand the other way of valuing stuff so will just stick to what I think I know.

But seriously, appreciate the patient and debate. I somewhat like you

 

[galumay]

luutzu I could be mistaken but the position you hold is the consensus of most.

Concensus of 1 methinks.

Gawd, they're everywhere, there goes another on ignore!

 

[luutzu]

Concensus of 1 methinks.

Gawd, they're everywhere, there goes another on ignore!

It's a wonder you learn anything dude. Ignoring people with different perspective, listening only to those that can finish your sentence.

Yea yea, I know I'm on your ignore list long ago.

 

[Value Collector]

My understanding of the difference is that value investors insist on getting stocks cheap. Growth investors insist on growing earnings, but are willing to buy in at a higher price a value investor wouldn't.

I came across this video today, it shows what I was trying to explain a while back that value and growth are not different things, rather value is an integral part of all intelligent investing.