|
Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
I guess it was about four months ago that I told everyone on the Sklansky Forum that I bought 30,OOO shares at about 6.80. Bought 10,000 more at 9 right after they beat SONY. Never sold any. Since I'm a big shot I don't think I'm allowed to say more.
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
Nice run past few months. Congrats!
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
I guess it was about four months ago that I told everyone on the Sklansky Forum that I bought 30,OOO shares at about 6.80. Bought 10,000 more at 9 right after they beat SONY. Never sold any. Since I'm a big shot I don't think I'm allowed to say more. [/ QUOTE ] I called with QQ when 3-bet ($375 preflop) in a 10-150 game two days ago. I rivered a straight to win a $1700 pot vs. AA and a flopped set of tens. Was that clear enough? Maybe I should put it this way. This forum isn't a dick waving contest for people to show up and brag about how much money they've made because they guessed right on a stock. And you of all people shouldn't be results oriented. Your financial posts would be much more useful if you explained why you think an idea is a compelling investment. Then others could counter with risks and concerns that you may or may not have thought of. In the end you gain a better analysis of your investment, and forum members might benefit from learning about a great new idea. Let me get you started. IMMR has a crappy business that's barely growing and has been losing money for just about ever (at least 5 years). No one cares about "haptics" that's clear from their nearly flat revenue line and long history of red ink. Their tangible book value is around $3.30, and that's only because of the large Sony settlement. At first glance, it appears to be a company without much of a future. Obv. you feel differently, so you either expect IMMR to hit some inflection point where real revenue growth will actually start, or a bunch more legal settlements (you need another $250M just to justify todays price). So which is it, and why? Otherwise I'm going to whip my dick out and bore you with the tale of when I bought several hundred thousand shares of a little medical company in florida for 72 cents each, and sold them all for nearly $3 just over a year later;) |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
I wanted to post a poker analogy but couldnt think of the right one. Congrats david, and it does feel good to be right, but its like if the guys whole range is skewed towards sets and huge draws, so you call with an overpair and happen to be right and he happens to miss. You can win and it still might have been a -EV call. Im not saying this was, it might have been a great pick, but DC is right in terms of explaining why it was a good pick.
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise I'm going to whip my dick out and bore you with the tale of when I bought several hundred thousand shares of a little medical company in florida for 72 cents each, and sold them all for nearly $3 just over a year later;) [/ QUOTE ]let's see your dick! (and by that I mean let's hear the story!) |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Otherwise I'm going to whip my dick out and bore you with the tale of when I bought several hundred thousand shares of a little medical company in florida for 72 cents each, and sold them all for nearly $3 just over a year later;) [/ QUOTE ]let's see your dick! (and by that I mean let's hear the story!) [/ QUOTE ] http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5...ckrun01rm0.jpg |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Otherwise I'm going to whip my dick out and bore you with the tale of when I bought several hundred thousand shares of a little medical company in florida for 72 cents each, and sold them all for nearly $3 just over a year later;) [/ QUOTE ]let's see your dick! (and by that I mean let's hear the story!) [/ QUOTE ] The company is MDF now (was MDPA), and was going through a restructuring in 2004 where they were closing/selling a couple money losing subsidiaries the former CEO had opened in a misguided effort to build an empire. It was easy to see that after losing the which they would be making 20 cents or so profit after tax. There were some risks, including a single customer, but at 3.5x potential PE it seemed like you were more than compensated for those risks. The new CEO did a bangup job and I sold when it reached a reasonable PE. |
THANKS DAVE........
I made 10% so far.
I wished I would have bought in at 6 and change. I bought in right after the settlement with the big guns. I gotta figure Sklansky doesn't want to be involved in pump and dump lest his scandalous behaviour be brought to the fore, again. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
"I called with QQ when 3-bet ($375 preflop) in a 10-150 game two days ago. I rivered a straight to win a $1700 pot vs. AA and a flopped set of tens.
Was that clear enough? Maybe I should put it this way. This forum isn't a dick waving contest for people to show up and brag about how much money they've made because they guessed right on a stock. And you of all people shouldn't be results oriented. Your financial posts would be much more useful if you explained why you think an idea is a compelling investment. Then others could counter with risks and concerns that you may or may not have thought of. In the end you gain a better analysis of your investment, and forum members might benefit from learning about a great new idea." You are totally out of line. Or confused. Firstly there is a big difference between talking about a success after the fact, where there could be many undivulged failures as well, and talking about a successful risk which I announced I was undertaking BEFORE the fact. As long as there weren't a lot of announced risks that failed and were ignored. If you are that bad with analogies it makes your other advice suspect as well. But worse yet is your characterizing my post as bragging. Huh? I suppose there is a little bit of that, but did you read my post? I was telling people I still OWN the shares. If my intention was to brag I would say, or wait until I sold them. As it is, I risk eating my words. You need to remember that the original thread was on a now closed forum. If it still existed, no one would have thought anything about my posting an update that I hadn't sold yet. As for my reason for holding it still it has to do with a fuzzy recollection of an article I read about ten years ago. Since I may be mistaken about some details I'm afraid I'll get in trouble if I mention it. The mere fact that I have 440K invested in it may mean something to some people. Who knows? I think I'll sell it all if it goes back to 9 since that would be evidence that the magazine article reason is not valid. Meanwhile I still own 10,000 shares of TASR which I told everybody two months ago I bought at 7.80 (because I thought people were overacting to rare deaths) and it is now about 9.40. And my dick IS bigger than yours. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile I still own 10,000 shares of TASR which I told everybody two months ago I bought at 7.80 (because I thought people were overacting to rare deaths) and it is now about 9.40. [/ QUOTE ] I'm glad you brought this topic back because I had a question to ask about it. I know very little about stocks but found your logic for buying this interesting. You think the public overweights the rare-death aspect of the product, which seems reasonable. Looking at this aspect alone would indicate the stock is undervalued. You argued along the lines that we can forget everything else since on average the market is efficient, therefore there is an expectation that all other aspects of the company are correctly accounted for in the price. My question is: looking at the public misperception you observed in isolation, why does this indicate the stock is undervalued? Surely a small number of really smart people with most of the money may have had the same observation you did and caused the price to be corrected before you got in. Wouldn't you have to somehow argue that they, too, had the same misperception the public did? So how do you argue that that hundreds of your counterparts weren't in with 30k shares before you were? |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile I still own 10,000 shares of TASR which I told everybody two months ago I bought at 7.80 (because I thought people were overacting to rare deaths) and it is now about 9.40. And my dick IS bigger than yours. [/ QUOTE ] QFT |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
I wonder how long until OOT/BBV find this post and Sklanskys dick quote.
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how long until OOT/BBV find this post and Sklanskys dick quote. [/ QUOTE ] we're here, im expecting a full scale MS paint attack at any minute now |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
the operation goes under the name "D-day" for many various reasons
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
hi
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Meanwhile I still own 10,000 shares of TASR which I told everybody two months ago I bought at 7.80 (because I thought people were overacting to rare deaths) and it is now about 9.40. [/ QUOTE ] I'm glad you brought this topic back because I had a question to ask about it. I know very little about stocks but found your logic for buying this interesting. You think the public overweights the rare-death aspect of the product, which seems reasonable. Looking at this aspect alone would indicate the stock is undervalued. You argued along the lines that we can forget everything else since on average the market is efficient, therefore there is an expectation that all other aspects of the company are correctly accounted for in the price. My question is: looking at the public misperception you observed in isolation, why does this indicate the stock is undervalued? Surely a small number of really smart people with most of the money may have had the same observation you did and caused the price to be corrected before you got in. Wouldn't you have to somehow argue that they, too, had the same misperception the public did? So how do you argue that that hundreds of your counterparts weren't in with 30k shares before you were? [/ QUOTE ] In most cases they, if "they" exist, don't correct it all the way. Just like in sports betting. Partly because they aren't rich enough and partly because there would be no point to. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Meanwhile I still own 10,000 shares of TASR which I told everybody two months ago I bought at 7.80 (because I thought people were overacting to rare deaths) and it is now about 9.40. [/ QUOTE ] I'm glad you brought this topic back because I had a question to ask about it. I know very little about stocks but found your logic for buying this interesting. You think the public overweights the rare-death aspect of the product, which seems reasonable. Looking at this aspect alone would indicate the stock is undervalued. You argued along the lines that we can forget everything else since on average the market is efficient, therefore there is an expectation that all other aspects of the company are correctly accounted for in the price. My question is: looking at the public misperception you observed in isolation, why does this indicate the stock is undervalued? Surely a small number of really smart people with most of the money may have had the same observation you did and caused the price to be corrected before you got in. Wouldn't you have to somehow argue that they, too, had the same misperception the public did? So how do you argue that that hundreds of your counterparts weren't in with 30k shares before you were? [/ QUOTE ] In most cases they, if "they" exist, don't correct it all the way. Just like in sports betting. Partly because they aren't rich enough and partly because there would be no point to. [/ QUOTE ] David, I don't know how much water your last statement holds. If there's no point to "them" getting within whatever range of the "correct price" then is there any point for you? I think you would be better served to say that the big money that likey moves the stock closer to the correct price can't afford to get any closer for liquidity reasons that wouldn't affect an individual investor. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
In most cases they, if "they" exist, don't correct it all the way. Just like in sports betting. Partly because they aren't rich enough and partly because there would be no point to. [/ QUOTE ] I don't see how this is justified. It seems like a timing issue to me -- it all depends on *when* you make that key observation of the stock. It's going to get corrected eventually. How do you know if it already has or not without trying to put a value on the stock? And I have no idea what you mean by "there would be no point to". |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
OK, lets put it differently. As long as only a few people know an angle they couldn't possibly move the price to what they think is correct. Because the closer they moved it to that price the greater the amount of money that would bet the other side.
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
OK, lets put it differently. As long as only a few people know an angle they couldn't possibly move the price to what they think is correct. Because the closer they moved it to that price the greater the amount of money that would bet the other side. [/ QUOTE ] First, I'll concede on dick size, as I'd rather not go to showdown with you:) Second, if I post that I got lucky in a hand of poker you wouldn't think much of my poker skills (actually I did, and you probably don't). Much of 2+2 is devoted to analyzing the right lines to take in various forms of poker, so why shouldn't this forum be devoted to discussions of the right lines to take with investments? You've already said on the TASR thread that you believe in the efficient market theory and that stocks are fairly priced. But then you say you can find stocks where the market is incorrectly pricing in a specific important event/factor, and you can find an edge doing so. These two statements are contradictory, do you see why? You've referenced this as working in sports handicapping and I admit I don't understand how it works in sports handicapping, because I see it as similar to investing. Why I don't think it can work in investing is that stock valuations are a multifactor calculation. Picking one factor can't tell you the values of the other factors, nor can it tell you what value the market is putting on your specific factor. All you know is the total value the market is putting on the business, i.e. the sum of it's component valuation factors. This is why I think you have to analyze all the relevant valuation factors before you decide the market is wrong. But I'm here to learn. Can you explain why you think differently? |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
OK, lets put it differently. As long as only a few people know an angle they couldn't possibly move the price to what they think is correct. Because the closer they moved it to that price the greater the amount of money that would bet the other side. [/ QUOTE ] Ok so you have to argue that very few people see the same angle as you. You're saying it's hard for the price to become correct because the massive other side pushes back; but it's going to be corrected eventually -- that's why you buy it. But you still don't know WHEN it's going to be corrected. How do you know it hasn't already corrected itself at the time you're investing? It's not like when the correction happens the public is going to walk around saying "oh TASR isn't so bad, everyone overreacted to the rare deaths thing". And when you see the price go up you have no idea if it just corrected or went up because of unrelated factors. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
I have no reason to believe I'll explain it any better, but I'll try anyway:
1) the market is efficient, ON AVERAGE 2) we see one aspect of the stock we think is unaccounted for 3) we can assume the other aspects of the stock are 0 EV because they are efficient, on average. So we can be lazy and ignore them, and the stock is undervalued. I think generally it's sound. But my problem is with identifying (2). I don't know how you can tell when the aspect of the stock you think is unaccounted for, has been finally accounted for. One way would be to look at everything about the company and try to put a value on the stock, as you say. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
kdotsky, the market is not that efficient.
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
"You've already said on the TASR thread that you believe in the efficient market theory and that stocks are fairly priced. But then you say you can find stocks where the market is incorrectly pricing in a specific important event/factor, and you can find an edge doing so. These two statements are contradictory, do you see why?"
I don't believe in the efficient market theory. I mis spoke. In other words I don't believe that the market always evaluates public information properly. I believe only in what I think you call the weak version. That the markets price on average is correct. Which sort of implies that charting won't work. As to the rest of your post, you seem to have a mental block about something that is common sense. If only I know the quarterback is hurt do I need to know more to make a bet? True sometimes the second string quarterback is just as good, and those bets will be bad, due to my laziness. But on average I will still win. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
As to the rest of your post, you seem to have a mental block about something that is common sense. If only I know the quarterback is hurt do I need to know more to make a bet? True sometimes the second string quarterback is just as good, and those bets will be bad, due to my laziness. But on average I will still win. [/ QUOTE ] What if the market is under-rating the teams running game and defense? How do you know the market doesn't rate the quarterback change as skillfully as you? The wonderful thing about the stock market is that while it's usually efficient (not the same as on average), occasionally it presents you with a price that is clearly wrong. But catch these errors, you need to be able to estimate what intrinsic value is, and you can't do that by just looking at one aspect of the company. I.e. TASR's product risk of causing death may be a minor impact on it's value as you think, but if you don't know what TASR's real value should be, you can't tell whether that one factor is causing TASR to be undervalued or not. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
I believe it is generally accepted that certain sports teams see a large amount of action for no apparent reason and the odds offered by Vegas books reflect this action. This is not that much different than many stocks.
Sports books often have futures bets on the Cubs winning the World Series at odds way off from the real odds of this event happening. Now, your friend in the Cubs front office tells you the team is about to make some big off season moves and pick up a stud pitcher and a big name hitter. The Vegas books haven’t yet heard the news and futures odds have not yet moved. Putting aside the general stupidness of futures bets, is there now value in placing this bet on the Cubs to win the WS? I think you would agree that the sports books generally get it right in the same way the markets generally get it right. Sometimes you may have knowledge or insight that is not seen by other investors or punters, but is it necessarily +EV to act on this one small piece of knowledge without knowing something about the value of the investment or bet? Without looking at the underlying value of the stock or the underlying value of a sports bet, you are doing nothing more than speculating. I'm Irish, there will be no dick waving on my part. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
That the markets price on average is correct. Which sort of implies that charting won't work. [/ QUOTE ] David, can you explain your reasoning as to why market price on average being correct, would lead to an implication that charting won't work? |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
But catch these errors, you need to be able to estimate what intrinsic value is, and you can't do that by just looking at one aspect of the company. [/ QUOTE ] So according to this statement, you cannot make money with insider information about pending one time events (lawsuits, settlements, recalls, discoveries, etc.) which is equivalent to the realization of the market misinterpreting the effects of public one time events. Price is determined by the aggregate view of the market. If the public is irrationally viewing one factor, how is this any different from the public irrationally viewing the sum of all of the factors(ie the intrinsic value)? Both are going to put pressure on the price in one direction and both are making assumptions about how much attribution various aspects contributes to the price determined by the market. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
If only I know the quarterback is hurt do I need to know more to make a bet? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, that is because you're the only one who knows he's hurt and thus you can assume that information is priced in. That is insider information, though. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But catch these errors, you need to be able to estimate what intrinsic value is, and you can't do that by just looking at one aspect of the company. [/ QUOTE ] So according to this statement, you cannot make money with insider information about pending one time events (lawsuits, settlements, recalls, discoveries, etc.) which is equivalent to the realization of the market misinterpreting the effects of public one time events. [/ QUOTE ] Estimating intrinsic value has nothing to do with what kind of information you have, it's assumed you have enough information to estimate value reasonably accurate. This isn't always true, and some companies (internet businesses during the bubble) couldn't be estimated at all due to this information failure. And as far as I can tell, David isn't talking about insider information. [ QUOTE ] Price is determined by the aggregate view of the market. If the public is irrationally viewing one factor, how is this any different from the public irrationally viewing the sum of all of the factors(ie the intrinsic value)? Both are going to put pressure on the price in one direction and both are making assumptions about how much attribution various aspects contributes to the price determined by the market. [/ QUOTE ] One more time, how can you tell whether the public is irrationally viewing any factor? And how can you tell whether any errors made by "the public" in one factor, isn't more than offset by errors the public made in all other factors? There is only one reasonable approach (assuming you agree with David that you can't predict price action through charting and other technical approaches). You estimate all the factors and compare the sum you get to the market price. Usually price will be close to your estimate. When the price is far below a reasonable estimate, you have enough "margin of safety" to make a purchase. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
And as far as I can tell, David isn't talking about insider information. [/ QUOTE ] His injured QB analogy strongly implies otherwise. Where did the post about reds getting housed in this forum go? Deleted or self edited? J |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
Insider information was brought up to show an instance where everyone can agree which one time events can be used effectively to make money.
Here is something that might explain it better. Can you make money JUST doing fundamental analysis of a company without taking into consideration the impact of global macro trends? |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
Here is something that might explain it better. Can you make money JUST doing fundamental analysis of a company without taking into consideration the impact of global macro trends? [/ QUOTE ] I have a two word proof that shows you can. Warren Buffett. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Here is something that might explain it better. Can you make money JUST doing fundamental analysis of a company without taking into consideration the impact of global macro trends? [/ QUOTE ] I have a two word proof that shows you can. Warren Buffett. [/ QUOTE ] i wrote out a long answer to this statement. then just laughed to myself and said "lol, it's not worth it, somebody will come in and explain this in 4 words." you did it in 2. wow. but, just to state my point, you can hedge out market movements even if you aren't warren buffet. i.e. fundamental analysis of a stock can lead to your conclusion that it is attractive, but you don't have a view on where the market is headed. so you short out the mkt risk and isolate your exposure to the stock itself. Barron |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
"How do you know the market doesn't rate the quarterback change as skillfully as you?"
I said that only I know. As far as whether I am talking about inside information or not, what difference does it make? This debate is over my contention that you can have an edge because you have somehow evaluated one aspect of the stock better than others have, even if you know nothing else about the company. I still don't get why you can't see that as obvious. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] That the markets price on average is correct. Which sort of implies that charting won't work. [/ QUOTE ] David, can you explain your reasoning as to why market price on average being correct, would lead to an implication that charting won't work? [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure the reasoning is 100% foolproof and I don't have time to think about it. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
"How do you know the market doesn't rate the quarterback change as skillfully as you?" I said that only I know. As far as whether I am talking about inside information or not, what difference does it make? This debate is over my contention that you can have an edge because you have somehow evaluated one aspect of the stock better than others have, even if you know nothing else about the company. I still don't get why you can't see that as obvious. [/ QUOTE ] But how can you possibly know that you evaluated this aspect better than others? TASR's price increase could've had absolutely nothing to do with what you saw as an inequality. I think what he's trying to say, is that by showing 2 stocks that went up, you're using this information to justify your strategy which defies the accepted opinion and that's being results oriented. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
And how can you tell whether any errors made by "the public" in one factor, isn't more than offset by errors the public made in all other factors? [/ QUOTE ] You're right, you can't tell. But his point as that these "other" factors are equally likely to cause an overpriced stock and an undervalued one when you know nothing else about them. In other words, the expected value of their pricing is the true price. Any deviation is just variance. |
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
This debate is over my contention that you can have an edge because you have somehow evaluated one aspect of the stock better than others have, even if you know nothing else about the company. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree. I think most people understand this point, and probably agree with it. I have trouble understanding the first part: observing something about the stock that is unaccounted for in the price. The QB example is obvious because it's insider information and you know it hasn't been accounted for. But I still don't see how you argue that TASR's price will account for your observation in the next few years rather than the previous few. This might get at the issue better: when and why do you sell TASR? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.