the shizzle > shootin' the shit

Value Share thread

(1/13) > >>

shark:
Pete’s thread about investing is focussed on high growth companies which can do spectacularly well or the opposite.
My investing focuses more on companies where the upside is less exciting but seems to limit the downside typically from tangible assets held by the company.
If this is of interest to say a dozen or more I’ll post a bit more about value investing. If not I’ll delete the thread.

MischaHY:
Definitely interested in learning about what less volatile options you find interesting.

abarro81:
I'd be interested.. I've never invested until this year, now beginning to dabble. Mostly trackers but also some funds that invest in companies owning/developing renewable energy assets (which may fit with your preferred style).

shark:

--- Quote from: MischaHY on February 23, 2022, 10:55:09 am ---Definitely interested in learning about what less volatile options you find interesting.

--- End quote ---

Value shares don’t take into account volatility as a measure. There is a measure (VIX) that does focus on it as a measure if that’s your key criteria.

petejh:

--- Quote from: shark on February 23, 2022, 10:52:35 am ---Pete’s thread about investing is focussed on high growth companies which can do spectacularly well or the opposite.

--- End quote ---

I feel this is quite a profound misrepresentation actually Si.
If I *was* invested in high risk growth shares I’d be invested in stuff doing very poorly at the moment, typically tech growth stocks on Nasdaq and elsewhere. I’m not invested in a any stocks on the Nasdaq, and my portfolio this year is beating the S&P500, Nasdaq and FTSE - all are suffering corrections while my commodity investments are doing well.

There’s a big difference between thinking something is a growth stock because it actually is, versus not understanding certain sectors as they pertain to your preferred investing style. Maybe ‘riskier’ is a more apt description?

The investment thread title is supposed to be tongue in cheek btw ‘buy the dip sell the rip’ sounds gung-ho but the reality for me at least is very different and boring, hrs and hrs of reading.

I invest predominantly in the following:

One major gold producer (Agnico Eagle, formerly Kirkland Lake). A ‘value’ stock in these times if ever there was one.

I invest in two major tin producers (MLX and Alphamin). Again these are value investments to make any value investments that should make all value investors take notice. I mean they really are the definition of a value approach to investing in that they’re profitable but undervalued and they have a very solid fundamental asset backstopping their market value.

High quality resource exploration/development companies in the nickel and copper sector, that are in the stage of either early exploration or development. You ‘could’ class these as high risk (certainly), and growth..
..but knowing what you’re doing in this space can make it the most rewarding of all investing. To be clear - there is a whole ‘explorer/developer sector jam packed full of speculative shitco’s being ‘promoted’ by.. ahem.. cunts.
This is not that.
I’d like anybody to review the exploration companies recco’s  I’ve made public and see how they’re doing in this current correction, since the date I mentioned them on the thread.
My point being, if these were growth stocks by the common understanding then they’d be tanking. They aren’t, because the commodity thesis sitting behind them and the quality of the asset they’re developing is solid.
Currently still holding:
- Filo
- Meridian Mining
- Centuras Metals

There are two or three other explorers I’m invested in that are doing excellently but are at a stage before I’d feel comfortable mentioning on the investing thread.

Then there’s the periphery stuff, which yes you would class as growth stocks - a medical device developer at FDA approval stage (Polarean), two battery developers (GMG graphen aluminium, and Ilika solid state). One company that manufactures lightweight printed wiring harnesses - growth certainly but potentially at that point where growth turns to good levels of sustainable revenue.

Finally there are the recent things such as US fertiliser investments - CVR Partners, Mosiac Company, and CF Industries. These are again the very definition of a value approach to investing. I’ve mentioned these but not bought.

The common theme in my investments is tangible assets. A producer or developer/explore with a high quality defined resource of tin, copper or nickel, now more than ever, are pretty much the OG of tangible asset : )
So yeah I feel a bit misrepresented there by being categorised as someone who invests in ‘growth’. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the sectors involved.

All said in good faith btw. No issue with a value investing thread - fertilisers a great one, tin producers another.  ;)
Just wanted to correct your assumption.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page