This Is the Market's Cheapest Stock

You may never have heard of Arkansas Best, but its 462% gain from 1999 through 2008 makes it one of the great success stories of the past decade.

So what made Arkansas Best so special? A decade ago, the stock was cheap. And I mean dirt cheap.

Using Capital IQ, an institutional database, I ranked the 1999 stock universe by price-to-sales, price-to-earnings, and price-to-book multiples, and ordered the stocks by their combined rankings. Based on how it stacked up against the rest, Arkansas Best was literally the market's cheapest stock. It was one of those rare, no-brainer bets that made a small number of savvy investors rich:

Company

1999 Price-to-Sales

1999 Price-to-Earnings

1999 Price-to-Book

Return 1999-2008

Arkansas Best

0.2

5.9

0.7

462%

*Data from Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's. Includes companies traded on major U.S. exchanges with market capitalizations greater than $100 million.

There's one company out there today that looks remarkably similar to Arkansas Best before its spectacular 10-year run -- TRW Automotive, the market's cheapest stock as of the start of 2009.

Company

2009 Price-to-Sales

2009 Price-to-Earnings

2009 Price-to-Book

TRW Automotive

0.2

1.7

0.7

*Data from Capital IQ as of Dec. 31, 2008.

TRW Automotive looks pretty much like a can't-lose investment -- even if its earnings never grew, with a P/E of less than 2, you'd theoretically make all of your money back in just under two years. Except ...

Tomfoolery aside ...
I'm sure that recent events can pretty easily illustrate the fallacy in that line of thought.

About a year ago, Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) was trading for a seemingly cheap 0.8 times book value. But $21 billion in losses later, the stock is down 83%, and it could still be a huge value trap. Because no one -- not investors, not financial pundits, not management, not even The Man Upstairs -- knows what Citigroup's inscrutable assets and liabilities are. If you don't believe me, please turn to pages 28-38 of Citi's most recent 10-Q filing for a summary of its TARP and global risk exposure, and 39-46 for derivatives. (I'll save you some time: It's long, and there are lots of big, boring numbers.)

See, the trouble with backwards-looking multiples -- especially in this unusual environment -- is that they're, well, backwards-looking. They don't take into account future business prospects.

So despite being the market's cheapest stock on a trailing multiple basis, TRW Automotive may not be a great stock for you to buy. The company has done an admirable job in the past few years growing sales and earnings while diversifying its customer base. Still, it operates in a pretty brutal, low-margin industry against more than 15 major competitors. And three of its top four customers, Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, are struggling (as you may possibly have heard).

Taking into account future prospects, TRW Automotive may actually be more expensive than Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL  ) , whose P/E is a somewhat lofty 22. That's because TRW Automotive lost more than $900 million in the final quarter of 2008, and it isn't expected to return to profitability until 2011. Meanwhile, Apple is expected to continue growing earnings, generates nearly twice as much free cash flow as net income, and has more than $25 billion in the bank.

But just in case you're curious ...
You may be interested to see how much money you could have made buying the lowest-multiple stocks in the past:

Year

Company

Price-to-Sales

Price-to-Earnings

Price-to-Book

Return Through 2008

1999

Arkansas Best

0.2

5.9

0.7

462%

2000

Tenneco

0.2

1.9

0.1

(67%)

2001

Visteon

0.1

3.3

0.4

(97%)

2002

Industrias Bachoco

0.3

3.2

0.5

160%

2003

Reliant Energy

0.2

2.6

0.1

81%

 

Average

0.2

3.4

0.4

107%

* Data from Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's.

Those are some impressive, albeit inconsistent, gains. Of course, you could have made even more money investing in a number of other value stocks, though they may have appeared somewhat pricier based on a cursory look at their multiples. Consider these monster performers:

Year

Company

Price-to-Sales

Price-to-Earnings

Price-to-Book

Return Through 2008

1999

PotashCorp (NYSE: POT  )

1.8

12.6

1.4

623%

2000

Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT  )

1.5

16.2

2.9

126%

2001

Petrobras (NYSE: PBR  )

1.4

5.8

2.2

568%

2002

Chemical & Mining Company of Chile (NYSE: SQM  )

1.2

19.5

0.8

1,084%

2003

China Mobile (NYSE: CHL  )

3.2

12.5

2.8

387%

*Data from Yahoo! Finance and Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's.

While this is by no means a conclusive survey, we can draw a few important conclusions:

  1. With valuations so depressed right now, investors today are likely to see a high number of strong performers in the coming years.
  2. The "cheapest" stocks on a multiples basis are not always the best value stocks.

Point taken
While I've shown you which name the multiples tell us is the market's cheapest stock, I should caution that it's not one I would recommend buying. As investors, we should always keep in mind that valuation is a forward-looking exercise that requires anticipating how the company will perform under future conditions. At Inside Value, The Motley Fool's value investing service, we also consider a company's competitive position, market opportunities, relationships with customers and suppliers, and the quality of its management when building our models.

Our Inside Value team has identified several bargain stocks that also have the competitive positioning to thrive in this market. You can click here to read about their favorite stocks free for the next 30 days. There's no obligation to subscribe.

Ilan Moscovitz owns shares of Apple, a Motley Fool Stock Advisor selection. Petrobras is an Income Investor pick. The Fool has a disclosure policy that makes us all proud.


Read/Post Comments (54) | Recommend This Article (265)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On May 23, 2009, at 2:05 AM, eynigma wrote:

    So when are we gonna hear what we were baited into reading for? Or will this post get deleted also?

  • Report this Comment On May 23, 2009, at 7:05 AM, tedski2000 wrote:

    eynigma wrote:

    "So when are we gonna hear what we were baited into reading for? Or will this post get deleted also? "

    Did you read the article with your eyes closed?

    It's shown right after the Arkansas Best table above.

    TRW Automotive

  • Report this Comment On May 23, 2009, at 7:13 AM, exseries7 wrote:

    The article makes a good point that having good fundamentals and technicals does not necessarily make a good buy, but that you have to look at future prospects.

    A case in point was in mid March then MF listed several stocks with substantial amounts of free cash flow. I chose GTLS becasue I wanted to increase my energy positions and was rewarded with a 200% increase. Thanks guys.

  • Report this Comment On May 23, 2009, at 10:16 AM, sfalise wrote:

    I can recall when Motley Fool was our friend and trusted advisor. Now, they are just another double-talking souless corporation with the ultimate goal of squeezing out as much money as possible from its' clients. The truth is that, in the current market, all you have to do is buy a few quality stocks and hold on to them for awhile. I bought GE in March (no thanks to MF) and have already doubled up. I gotta laugh every time I receive one of these misleading "direct mails" from MF...kinda sad actually...

  • Report this Comment On May 23, 2009, at 11:01 AM, tedski2000 wrote:

    Also, their argument kinda loses its punch when you see that TRW Automotive already returned 600% in just 2 months, from March 9, 2007 to May 7.

  • Report this Comment On May 23, 2009, at 11:37 AM, 7footmoose wrote:

    I'm not sure why MF feels it necessary to resort to gimmickry to make its point. Price, value, quality of earnings and timing are often divergent aspects of stocks and as such are not unique to these companies.

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2009, at 1:33 AM, robertf36009 wrote:

    I won't buy GE because I can't trust the management. Immelt has run GE into the ground. He is in bed with the Obama administration, a huge conflict of interest, and the rules don't apply to him. Not only is he not chastised for running GE into the ground he gets appointed to the presidential finance counsel. Immelt ia a liability for GE.

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2009, at 3:53 AM, ozzfan1317 wrote:

    Although I find Immelts Abilities questionable I think GE is a good example of the kind of business even an idiot could run and keep profitable.

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2009, at 3:54 AM, ozzfan1317 wrote:

    Also I think Ford has a good chance at gaining market share and might be worth keeping an eye on.

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2009, at 3:55 AM, ozzfan1317 wrote:

    Also I think Ford has a good chance at gaining market share and is worth keeping an eye on.

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2009, at 8:59 AM, wax wrote:

    I think what everyone needs to focus on is that the article is an advertisement for the Inside Value newsletter.

    As such, it has the perspective of a value investor. Saying that an investment returned x% over a two month period of time is of course great, but for the true value investor, it means nothing.

    Value investing is such that the goal is to return x% over a lifetime of investing, not just a few months. And it is that context that the article was written.

    Wax

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2009, at 9:40 AM, MaxDiesel wrote:

    This article was an adventure to no where. I was like watching a show only to realize if was just another infomercial. You MIGHT be a winner!

  • Report this Comment On May 25, 2009, at 8:30 PM, kellogg9 wrote:

    I checked into TRW Automotive stock and you can see they performed better in 2007 and so their discussion in this article kinda is watered down

    Kelly - http://www.stockcoupons.com/

  • Report this Comment On May 25, 2009, at 11:05 PM, lutece7 wrote:

    Why are there both Hidden Gems and Inside Value subscriptions? Aren't those two subjects too close to divide into two separate $199 subscriptions? I think that the Motley Fool should not split such fine hairs. Tips that fall within the category of "inside value" are not shared with the Hidden Gems subscriber, and the stocks that are considered by the Fool to "hidden gems" are not divulged to the Inside Value subscribers?

    This makes the Fool look greedy when they maximize the number of subscriptions that overlap so much. How many different subscriptions at Fool are there now?

  • Report this Comment On May 26, 2009, at 3:55 PM, hipcapfounder wrote:

    MF are you paying attention to what this threads general gripe is? I hope so. I think it's high time you consider giving back (to the faithful subscribers) a little sumtin, sumtin! Call it your own version of stimulus or bail out if you will. I am a Hidden Gems subscriber. I am considering canceling my subscription and reallocating that money to Global Gains. MF, throw your subscribers a little TARP money........let every subscriber take a peak at one other subscription every year (call it a birthday gift if you don't like TARP) I would be inclined to think you could get alot of happiness from current subscribers that way!

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2009, at 3:27 PM, faclllus32 wrote:

    with much respect and as a sbscriber,i have to tell that i'm very tired reading messages with very interesting"TITLES" to fid only at the end you are selling one of your investiment letter,as in "THIS IS THE MRKT.CHEAPEST STOCK" and your messages many times are to long and boring,you should have some respect and pity for whoever is going to read your columns, thenk you for listening and you should listen

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2009, at 3:44 PM, DavisAK wrote:

    Sorry MF, but I have to support the criticisms above -

    $199 for Inside Value, and you then get teasers for Hidden Gems? Teaser titles? It is getting harder to feel comfortable recommending MF to friends (based on the old MF values) when your current focus is so commercialized, selling all types of subscritions with little overlap.

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2009, at 3:50 PM, briboe wrote:

    My MF subscription runs out in 2 weeks! Hooray for me! No renewing for me. The absolute worst stock/investing advice period.

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2009, at 4:08 PM, dlcapo wrote:

    Gotta say MF has made some improvements in HG's lately so I'll hang on a bit longer. But I agree with alot of the above. So many choices how do u know where to put you $ if you can only afford one?

    dlcapo, long time HG member.

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Eugenio13 wrote:

    Well for me too is Motley Fool a great dissapointment, 199 $ just for acces to a website, and for others stuf pay more and more and so on... NO in december its finish for me, I did make no dime profit with MF, only losses!

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2009, at 6:37 PM, inverbrass wrote:

    Just once it would be nice if you would get to the point without trying to sell something.

    Why don't you just list what you want to sell, what you are trying to accomplish with the sale and let us decide for ourselves.

    Facts, not BS

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2009, at 6:44 PM, Robt2102 wrote:

    As many of us can realize The best way to make a lot of money in this market is my selling subscriptions tell the population HOW TO MAKE MONEY IN THE MARKET. Then after you hook them on a subscription, pound their E-Mail with offers of many more great SUBSCRIPTIONS.

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2009, at 8:21 PM, jfrankh57 wrote:

    An interesting thread. I have to agree that the sales pressure is pretty high in Motley Fool. I gleen a smidgeon of pertinent (to the market) info and then a few more pitches for some premium services. Yes, I know that MF needs to make money, that is the way of capitalism, but you already have us hooked, at least in one of the premium services, where an e-mail with a teaser hyperlink leads us into these threads. Please leave us with fewer pitches. Thanks!

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2009, at 8:34 PM, humaglobin1 wrote:

    I agree with many of the above comments. MF has to stop sending email with a come-on for the title. Naturally, I am interested in the cheapest stock, but the article does not deliver much more than platitudes.

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Julia1234 wrote:

    Ditto on the above. Also, here I bought in to MF believing it was long term commitment (investing.) I have had too many hype then sell a few months down the road to trust anything now. They make me fall in love and then just break my heart :-( (tee-hee, a bit of humor to make a point)

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2009, at 10:20 PM, bobruss94 wrote:

    I was a subscriber for a couple of years, to insider and to value investing. Then I woke up to the fact that I was being baited and strung along for more subscriptions.

    I have been gone now for two years, and am doing just fine. I peek back once in a while to see if anything has improved.

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 12:31 AM, davidsue64 wrote:

    THANKS FOR THIS STORY.I FOUND OUT THAT I HAD A PENSION PLAN FROM MY OLD JOB AND I'M THINKING ABOUT INVESTING SOME OF THE MONEY IT IN STOCKS AND BONDS.THIS STORY HAS HELP ME TO LOOK FOR SOME STOCKS THAT I MAY WANT TO BUY.I ENJOY READING YOUR E-MAIL.THANKS.

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 7:51 AM, AR1945 wrote:

    Your news letters are so lengthy and confusing that a common investor has hard time to read & understand.

    NL are made just intersting followed by @$*%% that they are intended to hook the reader in buying your advisory service.

    Make it brief to the point where reader is benefitted. You don't have to waste your lengthy sentances to hook a customer. They will come by themselves if they see you are transparent and straight forward.

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 9:24 AM, dragracerdad wrote:

    You want lenghty and confusing, get a a copy of the wall street journal or read the SEC financials. If this is hi-brow reading for you maybe you should be trading lunches with the children on the playground.

    This is simple stuff for a common low-dollar investor. If we all had big bucks we'd have team doing our number crunching for us like Warren does.

    C'mon now?

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 9:46 AM, earleadopter wrote:

    I agree with most of the comments, but allow me to go further. Motley Fool has strayed from its founding values and become nothing more than a subscription-maximizing, least-common-denominator-targeting, over-the-top, bait-and-switching, misleading-email-sending embarrassment.

    Consider this an intervention. Wake up Tom. Wake up Dave. Doesn't at least one of you feel sick when you read your own ridiculous emails?

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 9:53 AM, dragracerdad wrote:

    AR1945, which of the services are you paying for? And which one sounds like the same one?

    I'm a new investor... less than a year. The Fools and fool community got me off to a nice start. And yes, I subscribe to Motley Fool Adviser. Much cheaper than paying to talk or giving commissions to a financial egghead.

    They don't sell anything else. How do you think they pay for their web-hosting, and find time to write articles? For free?

    Actually there is a great deal of free info/advice.

    And I apologize for making fun of your lack of reading comprehension. Truly.

    The combined efforts of all fools tall and small make this the fun and informative place it is.

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 10:52 AM, snakeflake wrote:

    We all know that MF uses teaser headlines to get you to long-winded articles that could be summed up in a couple of paragraphs. We also know it is all just to push subscriptions to newsletters. Why do we come back? I do not know that. I do know the definition of insanity, it is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So we are crazy about the market and want to know as much as possible to make informed decisions. However, MF has not changed and I say I will not be distracted by their headlines, but I probably will the next time I read a headline touting the 3 best stocks.

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 11:08 AM, grandmew wrote:

    I also am very disappointed in the way and info that MF is offering in emails. Hate to say it, but I will not renew and agree with the negative comments above.

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 11:31 AM, jbrt wrote:

    Best way to double your money ... FOLD IT ! and count , I gave up even reading MF . I read the comments , seems peoples are catching on , it took MF 10 years to come up with this stock, just wait 10 more maybe they will " step in it " again . This page must be a fund managers dream . Talk about the " blind leading the blind " same goes for the emmy wanna be's on you know what channel and the journal , it is really getting deep , put your boots on .

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 12:19 PM, davidklaproth wrote:

    I've been a MF "Hidden Gems" subscriber for a long time, and have to agree with the many posters who are fed up with the MF tendency lately to cross-sell and up-sell to more and more niches.

    Okay, I know I'm shouting: PAY ATTENTION, GUYS, AND GET BACK TO BASICS; FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS, LESS ON SELLING "SUBSCRIPTIONS" TO OTHER PRODUCTS!

    It would also be wise for you to let your audience know that your paying attention--before you lose theirs!

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 12:34 PM, mybrickhouse wrote:

    I too got tired of being taken down the road with teaser headlines. Realizing, only too find out it`s more than anything else but a way to get me to buy yet another subscription. I cancelled my HG subscription after 4 years (with less than stellar results). See Ya !!!

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 12:54 PM, habuchas100 wrote:

    Is MF morphing into Sham Wow? But Wait, There's more!

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 1:41 PM, wuff3t wrote:

    Frankly I'm amazed by many of the comments on here. Many of you seem to be too lazy to do your own research and don't really want to invest - you just want someone to come along and hand over free money to you. Investing takes time and effort - and most of that should be your own.

    TMF offers a great deal of free advice, plus points readers in the direction of many other sources (eg recommended reading such as "The Intelligent Investor". However that's over 500 pages long, including commentary, so I doubt most of you will even bother opening it. Too much like hard work...). The newsletters give succinct but nonetheless fairly comprehensive breakdowns on each recommendation, running through the numbers, previous performance and future prospects, quality of management, potential risks etc. There's more than enough to get you started and to be honest for the price you pay for a year's subscription it's better advice than you'll probably get from a stockbroker who will charge you a lot more.

    From then on it's up to you to do some more digging. If you can't be bothered then don't complain if you lose money. Investing is hard work - it's fun too, once you start learning more about what you're doing - but nobody said it would be easy. If you're looking for easy money the stock market is not the place for you.

    Sorry for sounding harsh. Perhaps some of you had been misled. But better you realise now than later.

    For those of you complaining about the pitches for other services, what's wrong with you? You can try the other newsletters for free (that's a heck of a lot of free recommendations with all the legwork TMF has done - try finding that anywhere else) and if you don't want to just don't. Just delete any e-mails (unopened) you don't want to read and come to the website and search for what you want. All the articles here are useful, regardless of the sales pitch at the end - if you actually want to learn.

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 2:32 PM, supyo1 wrote:

    Man...so many negative comments. I am a new subscriber and feel like I have gotten some good info from MF. I do however, get frustrated with all the navigating around to find what I thought a particular article was going to tell me and then feel like I have to continually sign up for new stuff to ultimately get the info. Obviously, the small $ and time investment in MF can lead to returns with just one good tip so the complaining may seem a little silly. My question as a new subcriber is: With all the negative comments posted, where is MF's response? Your customers, long-term and new, seem to want to hear from you with something other than another seemingly sales pitch...

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 3:28 PM, andyouare wrote:

    I am a first year RuleBreakers subscriber. I enjoy reading the comments and find them interesting at times. As in some of the comments above, I understand the feeling of being baited, then hit with sales pitches for another subscription. I also understand the feelings when recommendations are made, then later it turns out to be a bad reco. Only speaking for myself of course, I subscribed to see what info, advice and help would be given for the $199 price. Naturally I didn't expect everything I read would be gold. Its $199, you don't get gold for that. So they offer, how many other subs? for $199. If you subscribed to every thing they offer, I still know the Fool doesn't have everything correct. So to me its just opinions, recommendations, info to be taken or not. Thats our choice. Keep telling the Fool how you feel about the sales pitches and bad reco's, and keep commenting on the good reco's. Don't rely on anyone's choice but your own. Make the best choices you can and learn from them. Good luck to all.

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 4:09 PM, upright33 wrote:

    At what point will Motley Fool give subscribers real, factual , useful information(which we have all paid for) without resorting to the late night cable infomational bait and switch technique which is loathsome, deceitful and,, to me at least, unethical.

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 6:31 PM, casinojohn wrote:

    I make a lot of money each week at the casino playing slots! If you want to know how, send me $199 and I will tell you. You must have at least $50,000 to spare each year. I really make way more than probably anyone playing the stock market, but not as much as the MF...

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 7:20 PM, billytp wrote:

    Sorry guys, I'm with the majority here. As a first time subscriber, why would you think that all I have time to do is follow your hooks? Tell me up front what information you're promising that will need me to fill out forms to have sent or what additional services I'll need to subscribe to, to get the information you're touting. I'm not an idiot, but if you keep treating me like someone who's buying a blender from an infomercial, I can promise you that my first year subscription will be my last.

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 7:26 PM, gettinfooled wrote:

    Can't disagree with the posts. Agree that investing takes time, but just the same isn't that what we pay for on MF; to help separate the signal from the noise in order save some time for subscribers? Disappointed enough with MF to finally post myself. If there is not a change in the "bait and switch" why stay? MF is not currently saving me time....

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2009, at 9:48 PM, sabourins wrote:

    This article is dated May 23, 2009. Well, unless I am going crazy, I believe I read this same article a few months back. Why isn't the "ORIGINAL DATE OF PUBLICATION" used for articles that have been printed before. Seems rather misleading. And, why not state this is a repeat article? Lossing my foolish faith.

  • Report this Comment On May 31, 2009, at 4:48 AM, michaelartwork1 wrote:

    When are we going to start hearing about Biofuel (BIOF), an ethanol company that is going to be making some big gains by the end of this year?

  • Report this Comment On May 31, 2009, at 7:49 AM, PuckMeister wrote:

    MF

    Boy, you guys sure have a bunch of unhappy customers! Might be worth taking a look at what they are saying. Just a thought from a subscriber from the early 90's.

  • Report this Comment On May 31, 2009, at 6:00 PM, boultonconstruct wrote:

    Let me ask this. If you follow the MF advise can you make 20-30 % a year or is it just like shooting darts with your money???

  • Report this Comment On June 01, 2009, at 11:17 AM, ptex wrote:

    I've been a subscriber for a couple years, first with Hidden Gems now with Stock Advisor. I enjoy the fools recommendations as they are usually companies I would otherwise overlook. My subscription paid for itself when I purchased my first stock (Marvel). With that said I rarely read emails from the fool anymore as the majority are junk and I just don't have the time to sort through it all. The nice thing is the delete button takes care of the negative side of MF quite easily.

  • Report this Comment On June 01, 2009, at 1:33 PM, SkinnyLegsLikeLL wrote:

    Won't do a free trial for any subscription if it charges me automatically. It isn't free then. Change your marketing, please.

  • Report this Comment On June 03, 2009, at 6:13 PM, hoogey wrote:

    It's getting to the point that most days I don't even bother opening up this spam anymore!

  • Report this Comment On June 06, 2009, at 10:35 PM, dpfsharkbait100 wrote:

    I agree, and I don't even open most of the mails. I pay them for what I want, and would like to be deleted from all sales spams. If you can't type a simple e-mail that says "we recommend buying XXXX because of XXXXX" then you need to send some people back to grammer school. I work long hours in medicine, and subscribed thinking I would get simple, concise advise to guide me quickly. Instead, I get spam upon spam, and read endless crap finding there is no advice but just a sales pitch.

  • Report this Comment On June 09, 2009, at 7:39 AM, beagle59 wrote:

    And speaking of "spam", that seems like all we are getting...."WHERE'S THE BEEF?!"

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2009, at 7:36 PM, gvvc wrote:

    I agree with wuff3t comment, many subscribers do not take the time to read or research the material that they paid their hard earn money to receive. Instead they want it all on a silver plattler. Investing may not be your cup of tea. Investing takes hard work and time. I am not saying that MF, "HIDDEN GEM" is not lenghty and sometime misleading . So my suggestion to most subscriber take what you want and leave the rest. I have been subscribe for two years. I do research other investment material as well as MF.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 905668, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/27/2014 10:33:15 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement