First, whenever you logon to Yahoo-Finance, Google-Finance, MSN-Money or other mass investor website and read a stock picking columnist, any columnist, and they all say the same thing “value beats growth”. Indeed to even be invited to the table, you must pledge allegiance to Buffett. How far off can the regime change be?

Second, will the regime change be as big as 2000 and 2001, when the shoe was on the other foot in 1999?

Third, rather assuming it must remain the same because of 17 years of data. Why is this number of years chosen? Does it have to do with difficulty in determining “point in time”? What does this say about the accuracy of the data?

Fourth, what is special about 1,000 stocks? Does this method work for top 30, top 100, top 500 or top 5,000? Does size matter in this debate?

Fifth, when Buffett, the master of value investing, underperforms three years in a row, even as the chants grow louder insisting he is the guru to listen to, what does this say about value investing?

What effect does both 4 and 5 have on the “Average Joe” small potatoes stock picking value investor? And what effect does 4 and 5 have on the mega fund value camp?

Sixth, does Soros’s principal of “when someone tells me how honest he is….” apply to a value investor’s telling you how pure as snow his data are?





Speak your mind


Resources & Links