Agree on many stockbrokers screwing clients. I resigned from one, a household name as they loved telling clients to "Switch Trades, i.e Sell CBA and buy Westpac on b/s reasons or sell Rio and buy BHP to obviously gain mega brokerage. In those days they charged 1.5/2%
Clients would do it unquestioningly because "We" were held in such high esteem.
Stockbrokers still are and I'd say 90% fall far short, indeed many simply shouldn't be allowed to practice.
I've got news for you, @stockbroker. Where I worked, stockbrokers weren't held in esteem; they were held in nothing other than contempt. While 90% are charlatans, 99.9% are incompetent.
I employ far more tools when investing rather than just the totally elusive and dubious 'Intrinsic Value"
Understood. If you can't understand Intrinsic Value, you can't be expected to invoke its use
My past and present views on SDI have proved correct just like you correctly vilified MSB.
So like you I encourage opposing views and IMO SDI is fatally wounded.
I'm a great fan of views that oppose my own, because they help me avoid make investment mistakes. But those opposing views need to be based on fact or logical thought, rather than unsubstantiated histrionics such as:
"SDI is in a death spiral",
"real panic selling where the Holders have held for a long time but then throw in the towel at whatever price they can get",
"Momentum and volume is scary",
"CEO's desperate plea on how they need to find new products",
"reckless management for not hedging",
"IMO SDI is fatally wounded"
etc.
To prove how happy I am to listen to opposing views, let's start with just two points from my earlier post, to which you have chosen not to respond
1.) The first relates to SDI being - according to you - in a death spiral, to which my reply was:
So what makes you think that SDI now - in 2017 - is about to die, when the company's:
- Net Borrowings are zero,
- Current Ratio is at a record 3.7 times,
- Current Assets alone exceed all of its liabilities by a factor of 2.5x,
- Operating Cash Flow exceeds the capital requirements of the business by more than double.
2.) The second relates to your assertion of management's recklnessness by not hedging the currency, which prompted my question to you:
Given your self-proclaimed expertise in the art of currency hedging, and given that what SDI's board managers would really want in a hedging strategy, is to match it with their long-term capital allocation thinking.
To that end, presumably you think the A$:US$ will be at a materially different level from its current value in 3, 5 and 10 years from now?
Could you tell us what you think that new level is?
(If it will be roughly at its current level, between 70c and 80c (which also happens to be the level it has averaged since the A$ was first traded), then what's the point? Other than, as I said, to enrich the counter-party.)
In the interests of brevity (because I know you don't like reading too much), let's sart with just these two items, and then we can move onto others.
Would you care to respond this time?
Expand
(20min delay)
