[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Just throwing it out there...
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Just throwing it out there...
- From: borealis <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 15:17:01 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <327A0D09.2B10@web.restaurant.org>
> Given that the NAIC stock evaluation form (and if I had it in front of
> me I'd be more specific) is based on a comparison of recent performance
> to five-year performance, what are our feelings about stocks with IPOs
> within the last five years? Some of the companies I had in mind to
> research (Red Hook, Pixar) have only gone public in the last year or so.
> Obviously, there's nothing wrong with learning about these stocks, but
> what's the consensus on this? Should we get to know the NAIC forms first
> with more established stocks before we try to rate the newbies? Has
> anyone else run into this in their research?
THe NAIC philosophy seems clear: find companies with potential to double
your investment within 5 years. To that end, they suggest investing in
companies that have had historically strong growth over time. This is not
their only means of measuring, but it is one of the methods they use.
It is difficult to measure a relatively new company in this way. No doubt
about it, it's all but impossible. But it is also difficult to measure
other types of companies in the traditional NAIC way: banks & real estate
firms come to mind...
That doesn't mean they aren't suitable for scrutiny by our clan, of
course. I'm just not sure how we can evaluate them in such a way as to
satisfy ourselves that we've invested wisely...
I'm loathe to sound like a conservative, but I think we might be better
served in we try to find companies that we can evaluate the "NAIC" way.
After all, they've been around far longer than we have, and they seem to
have a method that works more often than it fails...
There. I've attempted to sound intelligent, but managed to say nothing. I
feel much better.
What say others?