There's this idea out there that there is a thing called "value investing" and that Warren Buffet, Howard Marks, Columbia Business School Joel Greenblatt now lead the school.
Not blaming you everyone thinks this.
It's fair to say that Buffett's success is 85% what he learned from Graham and most people respect him (and the others) because they used Graham's ideas to become rich.
I am anarchist-inclined and don't equate wealth or fame to worth. What I choose to value are revolutionary ideas and on that regard I go further than Graham would in many ways.
Compare Graham's comment "the most docile and apathetic animal in captivity is the typical American stockholder" to Buffett justifying the frauds perpetuated by banks he owned during the GFC by saying
"If a cop follows you for 500 miles, you're going to get a ticket."
https://www.cnbc.com/2013/10/16/buffett-on-jpmorgan-jamie-dimon-will-survive-fine.html
I don't want to invest like Graham I do it my own way through picking and choosing all the most powerful ideas I can and developing them further.
Hadn't seen that article but of course corporate democracy is an contradiction in terms like humane rape.
Because it's plainly rule by the very rich which is fundamentally undemocratic.
The article I was referring to was the famous one during the great depression where you could buy a net-net as all this money was raised from shareholders in the new deal days leaving them desperately poor. In those days literally no-one had spare cash around.
http://csinvesting.org/wp-content/u...more-dead-than-alive-3-parts-by-b-grahams.doc
It's truer what you say nowadays that people should keep cash although circumstances may vary, I don't subscribe to the dogma that if you are poor it's your own fault. I keep conservative finances myself.
Fundamentally the argument is what is the job of management, is it to make money for stockholders or is should the corporation milk it's owners. There's something wrong with issuing stock at $1 in 2013 was it then offering a miserable 60c to buy it back a few years later.
The correct policy is very clear by paying a dividend the company reveals if you like the earning power of the business to the market and so maintains a fairer quotation on the shares. If there's spare cash pay a dividend, maintain capital discipline but don't increase debt.
If people want to buyback shares great, give them a dividend re-investment plan buying shares at the market price to cancel them out.
Don't tell me about Buffett, he is just very rich but in every other (much more important) way a pathetic excuse for a human being who cares only for wealth and more wealth forgetting all but self.
Having said that Crescent is playing this game with Cardno and I am benefitting so guilty by proxy. In the range of absolutely appaling things I see directors doing to screw over their shareholders this is pretty mild.
They said when they made their partial takeover they would cancel dividends and buybacks so I was expecting it. Still we have seen long term holders like
@tamz sell out at a loss and I expect many others would be doing the same.
So yeah I can't approve, run the business for a profit don't milk your shareholders.
Buffett is a hack and if value investors exist (and I believe they do) that are working alone independently and following the school of * you I am going to do as I please
(20min delay)
