Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Dexter

#51
General Discussion / Re: Biotech Stocks
May 28, 2016, 08:57:13 PM
Glad to hear you've had a good experience in biotech.  My experience has been pretty limited. 

A number of years ago, I researched a few small biotech companies because they were trading in the market as net-nets (i.e., their market capitalization was less then the discounted value of the their current assets minus all liabilities).  I was looking at them because they were cheap, not because I knew that much about their products (usually just one or two experimental drugs or therapies) or their prospects. 

I don't think I ended up investing in any of these biotech firms.  I think most of these companies went under or raised more money and severely diluted existing shareholders.  However, there was one biotech firm that received FDA approval for one of its drugs and the next day its stock price went up 7x. 

If I were to invest in a biotech stock (especially one that didn't have consistent profits for the foreseeable future), I would need to buy it on an asset basis (for example, when it is a net-net) and I would need a large margin of safety in my purchase.  In other words, I'm not willing to pay for uncertain future prospects, just net assets (and at a discount). Any upside beyond net asset values would just be gravy. 

Biotech companies can be extremely lucrative if you pick the right ones, but how do you do that consistently?  Biotech stocks can be very tricky to get right.  Many times, these companies go public by telling their initial investors that they have this revolutionary product or drug that just needs some additional development, testing and governmental approval.  However, the company's projections and financial forecasts are usually too rosy.  In reality, many of these companies are consistently losing money (in the form of R&D and SG&A expenses) in the hopes that their drug works, gets FDA approval, and then is embraced by customers.  There are a lot of hurdles to clear in order to achieve success.

I don't have any specific expertise or industry contacts in the biotech space -- I'm a true outsider.  So, there is a very low probability of me guessing which company or companies are going to succeed.  And even if I was an expert or insider, it could still be extremely difficult to pick the winners.  In fields with constant and dramatic change, the future is not that clear. 

I know some people try to trade biotech stocks based on investor expectations or quarterly earnings, but that's not my game. 

If you have any specific biotech ideas that you want to share, please feel free to post them in the Investment Ideas board by stock ticker and name.
#52
Investment Ideas / Re: TWTR - Twitter Inc.
May 27, 2016, 07:23:21 PM
Mark -- thanks for your thoughtful responses.  And that was a nice bump in the stock price today, wasn't it?  Hopefully you benefited from that.

I found your mention of Snapchat's valuation pretty interesting.  I did some searching and came across this article from Fortune:

http://fortune.com/2016/05/26/snapchat-worth-20-billion/

Basically, Snapchat is still growing like crazy and the company only really tried to make money off their users in the last quarter of 2015.  But the $20B valuation is still amazingly high for this company. 
#53
Strategies / LEAPS
May 26, 2016, 09:57:42 PM
Has anyone successfully employed a LEAPS (Long-Term Equity Anticipation Securities) strategy?  If so, I'd be interested to hear what you did.  My results to date with LEAPS have been mixed.  But if LEAPS are used judiciously, they can be an excellent source of leverage -- just ask the guys at Cornwall Capital.
#54
Investment Ideas / Re: TWTR - Twitter Inc.
May 25, 2016, 01:43:26 PM
The BBC posted this interview today with Jack Dorsey, Twitter's CEO.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376037
#55
Books / "The Outsiders" by William Thorndike
May 24, 2016, 08:03:40 PM
I just started re-reading William Thorndike's fantastic book entitled "The Outsiders: Eight Unconventional CEOs and Their Radically Rational Blueprint for Success."  The book profiles eight CEOs who excelled at capital allocation and obtained shareholder returns that blew away their industry peers and the S&P 500.

If you get the chance, you should pick up a copy and give it a read -- it will be well worth your time. 
#57
Capital Allocators / Re: Thomas Gayner
May 23, 2016, 07:37:08 PM
Here's a talk that Tom Gayner gave at Google.  It's excellent. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sG91e1Wh4I
#58
I ran across this YouTube video the other day by Ray Dalio (founder of Bridgewater Associates) and wanted to share it with the board.  The video discusses economic concepts like credit, deficits and interest rates.  It's very informative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0

#59
Investment Ideas / Re: TWTR - Twitter Inc.
May 19, 2016, 04:17:53 PM
Hey Mark,

No problem -- I've enjoyed looking into Twitter's business. 

I'm still researching the company and formulating my opinion on Twitter's future prospects.

I can see two potential paths to profits for the company:

1) Grow Monthly Active Users (MAUs), revenues and profits.
2) Try to maintain the number of MAUs they currently have and reduce costs.

If Twitter is able to increase it's number of MAUs, that would probably be the best outcome for them.  By increasing MAUs, the Twitter network would become more valuable and revenues would probably increase more than costs (due to network effects and economies of scale).  This should lead to profits.  However, Twitter has had a hard time increasing MAUs in the last 4 quarters and I'm not entirely sure why.  Are people tired of Twitter and their offerings, or is something else going on?  I don't know.

If Twitter reduces costs (for example, R&D) and tries to milk the value of its network, the network might start to shrink and lose value.  However, if some of its current spending consists of growth capital expenditures (capex), then maybe some costs can be eliminated without harming the number of MAUs.  I do wonder, though, what will happen to Twitter if it's not the top dog in messaging in the future. 

So, here are a few questions for you:
1) Why do you think growth has slowed? 
2) Do you think this slowdown is temporary?  If so, why?
3) Are there any good substitutes for Twitter?

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
#60
Capital Allocators / Thomas Gayner
May 18, 2016, 10:33:12 PM
Thought I'd kick off this category with an excellent investor and capital allocator: Thomas Gayner, co-Chief Executive Officer of Markel Corp.

Recently, Tom gave an excellent interview to Value Investor Insight (VII), and I thought I would share it with the group.  Here's a link to the interview:

http://www.valueinvestorinsight.com/pdfs/TrialAPR2016.PDF

In this interview Tom described his investment process, as follows: "We're looking for profitable businesses with good returns on capital at modest leverage, that have honest and talented management, that have reinvestment opportunities and capital discipline, and that have shares trading at fair prices." 

Tom also provided some commentary on The Walt Disney Company, Brookfield Asset Management, Diageo, and Nestle in this VII interview.

I found one passage of the interview especially interesting.  In it, Tom Gayner said: "We were buyers...and at the end of the year owned core positions in Alphabet, Amazon and Facebook.  Ten years ago I wouldn't have owned any of them, but given the winner-take-all elements of their businesses you can credibly think about how durable the franchises are and how much runway they have ahead. At the end of last year Alphabet had $73 billion of cash on its balance sheet. People say, 'Oh, but a lot of that is trapped overseas,' to which I say, so what? It's $73 billion! This is an immense cash-generating machine at the top of the food chain in the world of data, which as everything becomes more and more digital becomes more and more valuable over time. I'd also add that each of these companies has young, founder visionaries who have already demonstrated remarkable success. That fits very well with how we invest."

Tom Gayner's change in attitude regarding tech companies is pretty incredible.  Most value investors claim that they can't invest in tech because of the constant change, brutal competition, and disruption inherent in the industry.  But here is a stalwart value investor stating that he is now willing to own certain technology companies (whereas 10 years ago, he wouldn't have).  Certainly food for thought.