|
|
#41
05-25-2007, 04:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
1) I think it's really funny that so many of you are trying to reason with a guy that is clearly not going to change his mind until he makes a prediction about how the market thinks/acts/moves/eats/pisses/whatever and it doesn't work.
2) The suggestion that an opinion (lost in all this seems to be the fact that David is in all likelihood completely unqualified to evaluate either the actual cost of accidental deaths or the market's implied perception of it) about a misevaluation in one facet of the stock is a good reason to buy or sell because all of the other factors as a whole will be a wash and "Any deviation is just variance" is laughable. Again though, no one believes this until they see it for themselves. "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." 
|
|
#42
05-25-2007, 10:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
1) I think it's really funny that so many of you are trying to reason with a guy that is clearly not going to change his mind until he makes a prediction about how the market thinks/acts/moves/eats/pisses/whatever and it doesn't work. 2) The suggestion that an opinion (lost in all this seems to be the fact that David is in all likelihood completely unqualified to evaluate either the actual cost of accidental deaths or the market's implied perception of it) about a misevaluation in one facet of the stock is a good reason to buy or sell because all of the other factors as a whole will be a wash and "Any deviation is just variance" is laughable. Again though, no one believes this until they see it for themselves. "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." [/ QUOTE ] my favorite part is the no lose. if it goes down its just variance and if it goes up he called it. Barron
|
|
#43
05-25-2007, 10:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
1) I think it's really funny that so many of you are trying to reason with a guy that is clearly not going to change his mind until he makes a prediction about how the market thinks/acts/moves/eats/pisses/whatever and it doesn't work. 2) The suggestion that an opinion (lost in all this seems to be the fact that David is in all likelihood completely unqualified to evaluate either the actual cost of accidental deaths or the market's implied perception of it) about a misevaluation in one facet of the stock is a good reason to buy or sell because all of the other factors as a whole will be a wash and "Any deviation is just variance" is laughable. Again though, no one believes this until they see it for themselves. "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." [/quote}] ITS THE TECHNOLOGY STUPID!!!! That's the real reason I decided to buy IMMR, after it went up upon the lawsuit settlement.
|
|
#44
05-25-2007, 10:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
until he makes a prediction about how the market thinks/acts/moves/eats/pisses/whatever and it doesn't work. [/ QUOTE ] It is not supposed to work every time just on average. Many of us have been here for a long time and heard quite a few suggestions over the years from DS, and the record is very good. Many of us use our own ideas in exactly the same way DS suggests and the record is again good. It is pretty much the Peter Lynch method. The jury may be out on just how efficient the market is but if somehow the market is in fact close to perfect, it will be useless to learn all the other company evaluation skills and details anyway. Since the market seems not to be perfect with regards to these "insight ideas" it must be better to spend almost no extra time and go for it with the ideas. Also it is in line with general laziness ( the true path to wealth). D.
|
|
#45
05-25-2007, 10:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] until he makes a prediction about how the market thinks/acts/moves/eats/pisses/whatever and it doesn't work. [/ QUOTE ] It is not supposed to work every time just on average. [/ QUOTE ] I can understand David's argument. Essentially that if a company has 5 valuation factors, and the market is totally misevaluating factor 5, on average you could do well because odds are factors 1-4 are evaluated correctly. I can agree with this, though I'm not sure what edge it gives you and how many deals you'd have to participate in to confidently overcome variance. The part I don't understand is how do you know the market is misevaluating factor 5, when all you know is the sum of 1-5? [ QUOTE ] Many of us have been here for a long time and heard quite a few suggestions over the years from DS, and the record is very good. [/ QUOTE ] Is it? In the tiny sample I'm aware of, David's been spot on. But there are psychological reasons why you might remember David's wins better than his losses. It's not as if David is running a public investing service documenting every pick, or an audited fund. At this point we don't know David is skillful any more than that guy who sat down at your poker table and won the first 3 hands. [ QUOTE ] Many of us use our own ideas in exactly the same way DS suggests and the record is again good. It is pretty much the Peter Lynch method. [/ QUOTE ] Uh, no. Peter Lynch understands how to value a company. He would always compare the propects of the business (it's value) vs. the price the market was giving him. [ QUOTE ] The jury may be out on just how efficient the market is but if somehow the market is in fact close to perfect, it will be useless to learn all the other company evaluation skills and details anyway. [/ QUOTE ] It's not really out. Most academics agree in the weak form of the EMT, i.e. you can't predict price trends. They have conceded that skillful individuals can beat the market, as they could never explain my walking breathing two word proof. [ QUOTE ] Since the market seems not to be perfect with regards to these "insight ideas" it must be better to spend almost no extra time and go for it with the ideas. Also it is in line with general laziness ( the true path to wealth). D. [/ QUOTE ] Who said doing valuations didn't allow you to be lazy? Read about Monish Pabria, who's crushed the market while napping every afternoon. But don't be so lazy to think you can be ignorant and beat the market through anything but luck.
|
|
#49
05-25-2007, 01:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
If the market is efficient, then how can Buffett's success be explained? He's crushed the market for over 40 years [/ QUOTE ] Wikipedia has a good explanation of the three levels of the efficient market theory. Essentially the weak form allows for Buffett and it seems to correspond to his thinking as well. [ QUOTE ] "adherents of the theory, observing correctly that the market was frequently efficient, went on to conclude incorrectly that it was always efficient. The difference between these propositions is night and day." "I’d be a bum on the street with a tin cup if the markets were always efficient." Warren E. Buffett [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#50
05-25-2007, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I have a two word proof that shows you can. Warren Buffett. [/ QUOTE ] Yes I agree. Do you see the point I am trying to get at? [/ QUOTE ] Honestly, no. Our exchange got a little confusing as it was mixed in with other responses.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
