[Yowserrrs]

I'll first admit my own biases as an experienced hedge fund analyst but I still need to question the novelty of what is presented by David as it applies to the stock market...obviously a large discrepancy between projected value and actual value is superior to a small discrepenacy...as important as it is for lawyers to be able to argue the other side, it is just as important for stock analysts especially for more liquid names (ie the financials)...I contend that trades stemming from a fundamental disagreement with the other side are far more profitable than those where the other side's argument cannot be disproved....for example, many investors have been burned buying financials on this recent dip...i think the majority of those getting long did not fundamentally disagree with the bear case, namely that assets would continue to be wrote down constraining future lending opportunities and thus a direct hit to the bottom line...i think as prices declined investors saw the opportunity to get long Citi at an 8 P/E even if it might later turn out to be a 10 P/E...i suppose that only leads to the question "doesn't that preclude one from getting long at any price"...ie the bear thesis will be around for at least the time being...obv that doesnt preclude but I would only buy where a bank reached a fair valuation assuming troubled assets written to 0, the price reached a point where the acq of the bank would be a worthwile accretive endeavor to multiple willing bidders, or and this is strengthened by the 10 yr treasury being <4%, the minimum sustanaible dividend created a yield that made is considerably attractive....in summary, when one cannot disprove the other side, one should not simply buy a stock because its "cheap" but rather wait until it becomes so cheap that the opposing argument becomes nullified.

Would love feedback....i know there are far better ways to express my point...David?