Is Value Investing Dead?

Every year thousands of people make the trip to Omaha for Berkshire Hathaway's annual shareholder meeting. They come in fanatical droves -- from as far away as South Africa and Singapore -- to see the man whose extraordinary success has been largely attributed to one strategy: value investing.

Unfortunately, the original value crusaders, Benjamin Graham and David Dodd, are long gone, while Warren Buffett has become a touchstone in an investing landscape riddled with leveraged corpses, speculative traders, and overzealous CEOs.

We've squeezed almost every gem of wisdom from his meetings and transcripts, and we've analyzed his moves from every conceivable angle. All of this ultimately raises one question: Once Warren is gone, will the end of an era also mark the end of value investing?

Old school values
When Graham and Dodd's seminal piece, Security Analysis, was written in 1934, it was much easier to be a value investor.

First, the time was right. Still reeling from the Great Depression and unemployment of up to 25%, the Dow had lost about 90% of its value in three years. The tenets of Graham and Dodd -- to buy stocks for prices significantly below their intrinsic values and even their book values -- were especially applicable because prices were distorted, and many stocks were significantly undervalued.

Second, with most of the Dow 30 comprised of metal, oil, or manufacturers, balance sheets were pretty straightforward. Valuing stocks wasn't necessarily easy, but there were some pretty common elements to look for: book value, tangible assets, etc.

Third, if you look at all the value crusaders, they all share one unique attribute: tenacity. They had the doggedness to perform painstakingly tedious work, laboring over worksheets, completing arithmetic by hand. They just seemed to work, well, the hardest.

New school values
Seventy years have come and gone, and value investing has come under increasing criticism. In fact, I've seen money managers tell their clients that if their time horizon is less than two decades away, value investing is not for them.

Why? Take a look at the comparative performance of value versus growth over the last five years.

Indices

Top Holdings

2009 Return

3-Year Return

5-Year Return

Russell 1000 Value Index (IWD)

JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM  ) , General Electric (NYSE: GE  )

19.2%

(7.9%)

(1%)

Russell 1000 Growth Index (IWF)

Cisco Systems (Nasdaq: CSCO  ) , Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT  )

36.7%

(2.1%)

2.5%

What gives? Well, business is much more complex than it used to be. With intellectual property rights, patents, and licensing fees, studying balance sheets is a bit murky. Companies like Qualcomm (Nasdaq: QCOM  ) , Pfizer (NYSE: PFE  ) , and Merck (NYSE: MRK  ) are all wrapped up in intangibles, and it's simply harder to predict future earnings.

In addition, the days of sweating over spreadsheets are over. Computer programs and stock screeners make it simple to find a company that fits a certain mold -- even the laymen can whittle down enormous loads of data and draw conclusions. The advantage of having the fortitude to do the "hard work" is gone, lost in a sea of statistics and a market inundated with information.

And finally, being a value investor requires a temperament few have -- especially given the above considerations. Asset manager Jean-Marie Eveillard said, in response to the question of why there aren't more value investors, given Buffett's success, "If you are a value investor, every now and then you lag, or experience what consultants call tracking error. It can be very painful. To be a value investor, you have to be willing to suffer pain."

So does this mean value investing is dead?

WWWD?
Value investing isn't dead -- but it's not going to look the same in the 21st century as it did in the 20th.

We just have to look at Buffett, who, like always, adapts to the times. As the market collapsed around us and blue chips fell by the wayside, he scooped up some $3 billion worth of General Electric, and recently invested in ExxonMobil and Nestle. He lent Goldman Sachs $5 billion and locked in 10% annual gains -- and of course negotiated an option that has already netted him close to $2.4 billion.

Deliberate, prudent, unyielding -- classic Buffett.

Today's market offers something unique to the 21st century -- a plethora of booms and busts. There have been more financial crashes in the last 30 years than in any other time period -- and that means there are price distortions that investors can take advantage of, just like Buffett has done lately. Value investing isn't dead, nor is it immaterial.

Don't get distracted by puzzling trading strategies or speculate on leveraged financials (thank you, Citigroup). Understand a business and invest in your area of competence -- when it's cheap.

And remember as well that the last five years don't dictate the future. From 1927-2005 (78 years!), value investing has outperformed both small and large cap growth stocks by a substantial margin. From 1975-2005, value stocks outperformed growth stocks in 12 out of 13 developing countries. Clearly, in both the U.S. and abroad, value reigns supreme.

So don't let the naysayers get you down -- there are still plenty of tremendous value stocks out there! Our Motley Fool Inside Value team practices what Warren preaches and scours the market for the best deals each month. This has been a difficult few years for our analysts, but they're still managing to beat the S&P 500 by over seven percentage points -- that's pretty impressive considering the challenging environment.

If you believe like we do that value investing is here to stay, and you want to know the seven value stocks you should be buying right now, we're currently offering a 30-day free trial to Inside Value. Click here for more information.

Fool contributor Jordan DiPietro owns shares of General Electric. Berkshire Hathaway is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor recommendation. Berkshire Hathaway, Pfizer, and Wal-Mart Stores are Inside Value recommendations. The Fool owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway. The Fool's disclosure policy is always looking for a discount.


Read/Post Comments (29) | Recommend This Article (69)

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 January 14, 2010, at 3:40 PM, revealedin71 wrote:

    The main problem with value investing ,in its traditonal form , is that it screens in mostly value traps... stocks that have great balance sheets...but also companies that aren't going anywhere, anytime soon. As Coach Allen said, "The future is Now!!"

  • Report this Comment On January 14, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Fool wrote:

    pretty stupid article.

    For one you compared tech stocks to blue chip stocks but investing in GE at $40 dollars was not a value investment.

    A value investment is investing in GE today or at $7 dollars.

    I will bet GE outperforms Apple from today into next year by about 50-60%.

    That is value investing. As you defined it by stocks near historical lows which are good companies or by buying stocks under book values. Your article sets out to prove your point but you support your arguments poorly.

  • Report this Comment On January 14, 2010, at 4:14 PM, TMFPhillyDot wrote:

    @ fool,

    I'm sorry you didn't find the article helpful.

    My point with Buffett was that he was adapting to the current climate and made some excellent purchases as a result of the market fall out. His GS purchase was unreal -- 10% dividend of preferreds with acquired warrants to purchase @ $115. And his GE purchase, yes -- it would have been best to buy at $7 -- but hey, no one is perfect. If you truly think that GE will outperform AAPL by 60% in the next year then maybe his purchase (of preferred stock with warrants) at $22 wasn't that terrible.

    Buffett of course makes mistakes (he has said that his COP purchase was the worst of 2008), but I still think that he made some sweet deals and that we can learn, as investors, to benefit from the ups and downs of the market. That was my point.

    Foolishly,

    Jordan (TMFPhillyDot)

  • Report this Comment On January 14, 2010, at 8:32 PM, daveandrae wrote:

    I am a value investor.

    So, no, it is not dead. The principles Graham and Dodd were teaching decades ago are still very much alive today. The Intelligent Investor is an amazing book.

    Brilliant and timeless all rolled into one.

    In my opinion, the hardest part of being a value investor, growth investor, bond investor, small cap investor, emerging market investor, short seller..etc..etc.. is remaining disciplined. Especially when your style of investing is out of favor. Put simply, whatever your circle of competence is, even if it is only 9-10 stocks.....Stay-In-The-Circle!

    Don't expand it.

    I added to my Pfizer position earlier this month, because I think the company is going to earn 1.66 a share in 2010.

    1.66/18.58 = 8.93%

    In my opinion, this is a classic example of value investing. Buying a solid business, at a great price, and then simply HOLDING it, for a very, long, time. As an individual value investor, it is extremely difficult to find more than one good idea, per year. If you think you've found two, then you are probably deluding yourself.

    Last year, I bought as much GE at an average price 14.32 as I could afford, as the company has at least 11.08 a share in asset value. Today, GE is trading well above my buy ceiling. So I am simply holding my shares. Probably for the rest of my life.

    This is probably the hardest part of being a value investor. And that is NOT selling a great stock that you have bought at a great price. Instead, letting the retained earnings build up over 20-30 years, THEN selling out.

    I still hold the McDonald's stock I purchased back in 2003 for 13.60 bucks a share. Why would I ever sell out of a stock like that?

    Have I made some mistakes? Oh God yes. An ocean full. We all do. The trick is to study your mistakes very carefully, while at the same time, not looking back. You can only live life forward.

    Thomas Edmonds

  • Report this Comment On January 14, 2010, at 9:02 PM, CD101C4 wrote:

    IMHO, value "investing" isn't dead, but it's obscured by investor's inability to sell the investments that were once of high value. I found it easier to follow Graham's advise in finding an investment, but found it difficult to identify exit point (otherwise, as daveandrae states, ".. Probably for the rest of my life..."-- I have made that mistake with GE, Intel, CSCO, MSFT, PFE... and the list goes on and on...)

  • Report this Comment On January 14, 2010, at 10:18 PM, jimratflorida wrote:

    On the odd occasion when I stumble across Kramer, I am reminded of all the things someone can do wrong with their life savings.

    Investing should be a game to be played deliberately and your results should not be based upon your nimble fleet-of-foot moments.

    I own 31 stocks. I like the companies, and I respect the talent of the management. When I lose confidence in my hired managers, I go to the exit.

    It would be presumptious of me to say that I am like Buffet. However, I did not lose a dime in the dot-com meltdown because I never felt that price-to-sales was a proper valuation metric. Consequently, I avoided the "great" stocks that never earned a dime, but were touted by the talking heads as being a "great buy" because their P/S ratio was only 50/1.

    Where does this insanity come from? Is no one paying attention? Calculators are $1.99 each...

    P.T. Barnum said that a sucker and his money are soon parted. Madoff and Cramer have made sure that his prophecy came true.

  • Report this Comment On January 15, 2010, at 7:08 AM, Fool wrote:

    Value investing is not about holding stocks as long as possible. I know a lot of people who understand the principles of value investing but somehow non of them is able to tell when to sell.

    And actually its not that difficult at all, you buy when the PE reaches the historical low and sell when it's back at the historical top again.

    Warren Buffet is more than only a value investor like Graham. Together with Munger mr Buffet changed the old strategy and became a value & growth investor. If your able to pick value and av. growth of 10% per year your the king.

    Since I'm not that good I keep it simple by following Grahams good old value strategy (-: Buy low and sell high....

  • Report this Comment On January 15, 2010, at 8:24 AM, daveandrae wrote:

    I bought my first 200 shares of Pfizer back in 2002, at a market price of about 29. By early 2004, the stock was peaking at market price of around 38 dollars per share. By that time I had accumulated approximately 300 shares.

    A guy I know that was a technical analysis said the stock was over extended and that I should get out. I told him I wasn't interested in short term results. I was much more interested in holding the stock over the long term.

    Well, over the next five years, the stock price fell irregularly from 38 to 11. Today it trades at 19 and change.

    I now have 1,965 shares of Pfizer stock. My current cost basis is around 18. My position in the company has grown by 6 fold since I bought my first 200 shares almost 8 years ago.

    What is the moral of my little story?

    Simple...

    1. Over a 40 year period of working and saving, you are far more likely to be a net buyer of stocks, then a net seller. Thus, anything you're going to be buying in the future, you should want to be paying a lower price, not a higher one.

    2. Buying a good stock, is a lot like marrying a good woman. if you really picked the right one, you won't want a divorce. If you're buying a stock with the intention of selling it in the future, then you probably should not be buying it at all!

    3. Someone once said that a bear market is a time when shares are returned to their rightful owners. Truer words have never been more spoken.

    4. The stock market has never been about "timing." It is much more about time IN. Mind the gap

    Thomas Edmonds

  • Report this Comment On January 15, 2010, at 9:48 AM, kstoltz wrote:

    daveanddre -

    While I can see why you have your point of view, I can't agree with it.

    If you're buying a stock, you are expecting to gain something from it, either through dividends or selling it at a higher price. Otherwise you are not investing, you are collecting.

    In your Pfizer example, all that says to me is that you bought at a high price relative to its future prospects. You DCA'd into an okay position, but really, what has been your average return over that time, and would you not have been better in an index fund? What made you make the initial purchase in Pfizer at 29 to begin with? What was the value that you perceived at that price?

    I'm not saying this to say that you didn't have good reasons. You may very well have. But you are not really advocating for value investing with your example. You're saying that if you buy and hold, and DCA when the price drops, then......well, at this point, I'm not sure what you're saying. You're obviously in the green for now, but you don't really intend to sell, so I'm not sure what you've gained.

    Buying a stock is a lot like buying a stock, and that's all. It doesn't give you love, it doesn't give you comfort. It doesn't give you anything except possibly, an increase in value.

  • Report this Comment On January 15, 2010, at 10:57 PM, useurnoodle wrote:

    daveanddre -

    I too once subscribed to the idea of buy and hold come hell or high water so long as the stock I originally purchased was one I intended to hold for a very long time. This was especially so with the “solid” stocks that pay regular dividends. It is no secret that compounding dividends add up over time. Although this did produce significant gains over the long run, they were often far from spectacular.

    Over time I came to my senses and decided that selling a stock was not necessarily a bad thing. Besides you can always buy the same stock back if you want. Did anyone ever lose money by taking a profit? Sure there may be times that I sell too soon and miss out on some upside but when a stock appears to be oversold and seems due for a correction I have no problem reducing my holdings only to buy even more of the same stock later on after the price dips. I’ve also found that buying and selling the same stock usually far outperforms the dividend payments I would have received if I had just held the stock and reinvested dividends anyway.

    I don’t buy a stock with the expectation of being married to it. I feel no obligation to hold on to it for life. I also seriously doubt that by being faithful and holding on to it will somehow cause it to return the favor and provide a better return on my investment. It’s just a document that fluctuates in value based on market conditions and how the company it represents performs.

  • Report this Comment On January 16, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Fool wrote:

    I would not consider Buffet buying preferred shares in GE or GS to be a value investment. They are basically paying him like a high yielding bond. Second of all how could his 10% preferred dividend from GE ever be considered terrible even if GE does not go above $22. To make 10% a year in a AA+ company is quite amazing in itself.

    Your mention of Buffet’s COP purchase again is irrelevant Buffet bought this company at its high which would not be a value investment. Even though Buffet is a value investor not all his investments are value investments. So just listing a purchase of a stock by him and saying it failed does not mean “value investing is dead,”

    Lastly, you mention that the strategy of Graham and Dodd was to buy stocks below their intrinsic values and then you compare these companies the GE and JPM over the last 5 years which traded way above their book values. GE traded over 200 billion over its book value. So I just don’t understand your comparisons. There were plenty of stocks that you could have shown but you were lazy and picked companies which would prove your point but they do not actually show your point.

    Value investing is not dead your article is just flawed in your comparisons. During the recession I averaged in GE at $9 dollars and as a poster said above I will likely hold it for a long time. To me this is value investing. A value investment was not buying GE at $40 when every idiot was. It was buying GE at $9 and holding it.

  • Report this Comment On January 16, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Fool wrote:

    I would not consider Buffet buying preferred shares in GE or GS to be a value investment. They are basically paying him like a high yielding bond. Second of all how could his 10% preferred dividend from GE ever be considered terrible even if GE does not go above $22. To make 10% a year in a AA+ company is quite amazing in itself.

    Your mention of Buffet’s COP purchase again is irrelevant Buffet bought this company at its high which would not be a value investment. Even though Buffet is a value investor not all his investments are value investments. So just listing a purchase of a stock by him and saying it failed does not mean “value investing is dead,”

    Lastly, you mention that the strategy of Graham and Dodd was to buy stocks below their intrinsic values and then you compare these companies the GE and JPM over the last 5 years which traded way above their book values. GE traded over 200 billion over its book value. So I just don’t understand your comparisons. There were plenty of stocks that you could have shown but you were lazy and picked companies which would prove your point but they do not actually show your point.

    Value investing is not dead your article is just flawed in your comparisons. During the recession I averaged in GE at $9 dollars and as a poster said above I will likely hold it for a long time. To me this is value investing. A value investment was not buying GE at $40 when every idiot was. It was buying GE at $9 and holding it.

  • Report this Comment On January 17, 2010, at 2:08 AM, daveandrae wrote:

    When people say they do not understand buy and hold investing, what they are really saying is that they do not understand compound interest.

    My first dividend check from Pfizer was 17 dollars. My next dividend check will be 350 dollars. Thus, the annualized growth rate of CASH coming into my account from just this one stock alone over the last eight years has been 45%.

    Multiple a 45% growth rate over the of your LIFE and selling out makes absolutely no sense to me. This would defy both logic and arithmetic. If i did not reinvest another dime in this stock and reduced the annualized growth rate of future dividends down to 13%, instead of 45, by the time I am 65, ( I am 43) the quarterly dividend will still be eye popping.

    $4,033.00.

    Now, for just one moment, imagine holding 4 other stocks just like this one, say, Coke, JNJ, Procter and Gamble, and McDonalds, adding to each position, month in, and month out, year in, and year out, reinvesting the dividends, instead of spending them, and selling out becomes even more absurd.

    This is yet another reason why, in spite of overwhelming odds, a mere 3% of the population controls a whopping 70% of the wealth in this country. Truth be told, when it comes to investing, most people defeat themselves.

    As Pago said so long ago...."we have met the enemy, and he is us."

    Thomas Edmonds

  • Report this Comment On January 17, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Fool wrote:

    I think you should be weary holding all your money in Pfizer being a drug stock they are only as good as their next patent. I think GE would be a safer investment for you to hold at. But I agree with your strategy I just think a drug stock is not the stock you want to keep all your money in.

  • Report this Comment On January 17, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Fool wrote:

    Also you sound emotionally attached to Pfizer another problem you want to just by the company which will give you the best and safest return. I think Ge outperforms Pfizer over the next few years by at least 50% it is safer and you will get a larger dividend yield in 2 yearts when they up it to 30 cents.

    Just my 2 cents carry on sir.

  • Report this Comment On January 18, 2010, at 6:16 AM, wwbcm wrote:

    Of course Value Investing is alive and well. Since I read Graham's "The intelligent investor", I stopped losing money.

    For decades, there have always been so many people saying it was no more useful.

    But, as Buffet put it, in "The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville":

    "There seems to be some perverse human characteristic that likes to make easy things difficult.

    The academic world, if anything, has actually backed away from the teaching of value investing over the last 30 years. It’s likely to continue that way. Ships will sail around the world but the Flat Earth Society will flourish. There will continue to be wide discrepancies

    between price and value in the marketplace, and those who read their Graham & Dodd will continue to prosper."

  • Report this Comment On January 18, 2010, at 7:31 AM, SAMSCREEK wrote:

    samscreek

    I agree with "daveandrae" as far as the strategy is

    concerned.

    But I also agree with FOOL. Pfizer is not the

    stock I would have picked.

    I would give great consideration to stocks such as

    MKC, KMB, MCD and an energy company such as BKH or PNY.

    But I do agree that you can buy and hold for a long

    period of time and do very well. You just have to get it right on the stocks you pick to use this stratergy.

    Good luck and I hope you make a bundle.

  • Report this Comment On January 18, 2010, at 12:44 PM, kstoltz wrote:

    daveandrae -

    While I agree with what you said, and congratulate you on your success, I wouldn't call that value investing.

  • Report this Comment On January 18, 2010, at 1:26 PM, ozzfan1317 wrote:

    I think if your younger it is acceptable to mix growth and value as long as the price is fair. Both have their positives but if you are investing as a secondary income source growth likely offers faster short term gains.

  • Report this Comment On January 19, 2010, at 1:24 AM, daveandrae wrote:

    All-

    I bought my 1st 50 shares of GE stock way back in November of 2000. Been holding the stock in various amounts ever since. Increased my position by more than one third in 2009. Haven't looked at my account statement lately, but I know I now have well over 2000 shares of GE stock. My cost basis today is somewhere around 19.

    Would buy more today if I had the money. This particular stock, at this particular price, is a GREAT example of value investing.

    "The relatively unpopular large company"

    Very interesting that many of you would not have picked Pfizer as a long term buy and hold. For the stock returned 17.34% annually from 1972-2001. The only other stock that did better in the nifty fifty was Altria group.

    ( btw, Merck, JNJ, Bristol Myers, and S. Plough were ALL in the top ten, thus, even the very worst pharmaceutical stock in 1972 was a better investment than the very best tech stock over the next 30 years)

    In addition, the forward p/e ratio for Pfizer in 1972 was 24. Today it is 12, tops. This is yet another reason why so many people fail to make money in the stock market.

    Give someone a portfolio of Apple, Google, Berkshire Hathaway and Coca-cola, and they will sleep like a baby, completely unaware that their portfolio trades at more than 20 times forward earnings.

    Give someone a portfolio of stocks like Pfizer, and they will say it is full of dogs that is going nowhere. Never mind the fact that Pfizer is already up 7.2% year to date in a 2% market and still trades at a forward p/e that is less than 12 against 15 for the s&p 500.

    Thomas Edmonds

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2010, at 6:45 AM, dudemonkey wrote:

    Like daveandrea, I'm a value investor interested in accumulating shares of great companies when they are trading at an irrational discount to their intrinsic value. To me, discussions about whether buy and hold is dead or value investing is dead are about as relevant as Jim Cramer appearing on American Idol. If someone wants to declare these strategies dead, they're more than welcome to do so. It's not going to change my approach and, in fact, it just means that I have fewer competitors.

    When you think about it, people only bring these questions up during times when value investing is underperforming, and those are often the times when value investors make the most money since they are buying these cheap stocks that others are laughing at. Perversely, when you start hearing "value investing is dead", that's likely the be the BEST time to get back to work value investing. People who have been buying shares in great companies over the past year may not be sitting on too many ten-baggers but over the next decade they're going to make a lot of money and they're not going to have to do any work in order to do so.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2010, at 4:57 PM, ayaghsizian wrote:

    Of course value investing is not dead.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2010, at 2:16 AM, grant224 wrote:

    ""value investing is dead", that's likely the be the BEST time to get back to work value investing. "=dudemonkey

    Well said.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2010, at 7:59 PM, stockgeek54321 wrote:

    Its amazing how impatient investors can be sometimes. Of course value investing is alive and well. I wholeheartedly agree with you Daveandrae. The stock market, as Buffett said, has an efficient way of transferring wealth from the impatient to the patient. Investing in companies like KO, PFE, JNJ over a long period of time will make you very wealthy. If there is a market crash, your returns would actually be enhanced because the high yields you would get. JNJ since 1945 has returned 17%/year (with dividend reinvested of course). That would have turned your $5000 into roughly $120,000,000. If you had not reinvested the dividend, you would be looking at around $12,000,000. Why would you ever want to sell a company like that. If you had invested in the s and p 500, you would be looking at roughly $2,200,000.

    The ONLY TIME i would sell a company like KO, PFE or JNJ is if became very overvalued. (an example is KO when is PE was close to 40).

  • Report this Comment On January 23, 2010, at 9:13 AM, martystevens wrote:

    There is NO way you can say value investing is dead. Sure I do participate in more active trading strategies by using short term option strategies (with capped risk of course) but I do look for great companies to invest in using stock.

    My motivation to look for great companies came from the book "Rule ". I loved the book "Rule 1" by Phil Town and he explains the methods taught by Buffet, Graham, and Dodd. I'll admit it’s quite main street for some of you experienced investors but I thought he lays everything out in lament terms so it’s easy for us average folk out there to understand. There are even people out there giving away free analysis tools that follow Phil's methods as you can see at http://www.stock2own.com. Obviously you still need to do your homework but it’s great to see that there are people out there with the same mind set.

    If you would like to know more about the book "Rule 1" Just read the review from "The Fool”. http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2006/08/28/foolish-book-...

  • Report this Comment On January 23, 2010, at 9:13 AM, martystevens wrote:

    There is NO way you can say value investing is dead. Sure I do participate in more active trading strategies by using short term option strategies (with capped risk of course) but I do look for great companies to invest in using stock.

    My motivation to look for great companies came from the book "Rule ". I loved the book "Rule 1" by Phil Town and he explains the methods taught by Buffet, Graham, and Dodd. I'll admit it’s quite main street for some of you experienced investors but I thought he lays everything out in lament terms so it’s easy for us average folk out there to understand. There are even people out there giving away free analysis tools that follow Phil's methods as you can see at http://www.stock2own.com. Obviously you still need to do your homework but it’s great to see that there are people out there with the same mind set.

    If you would like to know more about the book "Rule 1" Just read the review from "The Fool”. http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2006/08/28/foolish-book-...

  • Report this Comment On January 23, 2010, at 10:29 AM, WishToRetire2 wrote:

    What do you do if you're planning to retire in 10 years. So really even then you'd only be starting to draw down the money 10 years from now. So a lot of the money's going to be untouched for 20 years. Where do I put that 20 year money?

  • Report this Comment On November 18, 2014, at 12:28 AM, Bananabender wrote:

    Warren Buffett is not and has never been a 'value investor'. His Buffett Partnerships were an early hedge fund that charged outrageous management fees, He bought insurance companies and used the float to buy dividend paying stocks.

    Since the late 60s Buffet has been a crony capitalist. He buys companies and then lobbies Congress to pass laws that benefit his subsidiaries.

    Value investing no longer works because A) detailed information on all companies is readily available to everybody. B) the staggering annual growth rates of 1950-1990 are well and truly over,

  • Report this Comment On November 18, 2014, at 1:10 AM, daveandrae wrote:

    FYI- As of today's close of business, I now hold 2,583 shares of Pfizer stock.

    Food for thought. :-)

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: 1085007, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/23/2014 10:14:47 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