I'd encourage anyone interested in investing to mostly disregard this kind of smart-sounding rhetoric. If short-term prices trade less on fundamentals, the payoff for a long horizon gets bigger, as long as fundamentals still win over 10+ years. The only claim that kills "old school investing" is that they don't. The price could be bigger drawdowns along the way. Maybe it takes 10 years to show. But if you're right on the business, and your entry point is such that the years of free cash flow you’re paying for upfront is manageable and will quickly shrink as the business grows, and your capital can wait, the stock will eventually get too cheap to ignore. Sure, if you can skillfully protect against some of the path pain, you'll be better off. But the idea that winning over the next 20, 50 and 100 years comes from something other than investing makes no sense.
@corsaren@excel_rator It’s interesting that the tycoons of the 1800s, like Carnegie seemed to implicitly understand the r>g concept. But many of today’s billionaires seem less interested in philanthropic endeavors.
@Mr_Neutral_Man Yes, I mean it's pretty clear the asset value is there. It just seems to be a question of whether mgmt. will do right thing for shareholders. Or if the equity is basically just like a static dividend yield. Like why wouldn't you sell one of these and de-lever / return capital?
@simon_ree No dig at you at all but even when self proclaimed non fundamental guy is acknowledging the ridiculous valuation levels, has to be late stage.
all the millennials and gen z crying about how its not fair that they're broke cause boomers got to buy the bottom of the market and ride it up for 20 years making millions while younglings got chopped up
but think of it this way:
we have the generational opportunity of shorting the pico top and riding the market down for the next 10-20 years
in 5 years you will look back at apple prices and think "how tf was that shi worth $350" when its $120 rn, "how tf was micron worth $1400" when its $400 rn, "how tf was Tesla worth $400" when its $80 rn
its a generational opportunity and we are in the perfect spot to capitalize on it
you will look back at this moment in 30 years and chuckle about how easy it was to retire
@MattWalshShow And in Hungary, the life time incentive was structured as a tax break for working women rather than credits or cash payments. So ultimately you need to be a working woman to reap the benefits which seems counter productive to raising children.
@MattWalshShow Saying that tax credits won’t incentivize people seems wrong to me. In CA, what good is A $1500 tax credit available to people making less than $35k? We should have larger tax credits to fully offset the marginal cost per child.
@InvestorMexican Putting aside the whether they beat or not and price. Considering revenue and net income. I wouldn’t say ACI is doing great, KR doing ok.
Costco is obviously different beast but valuation the issue there. SFM definitely hurting though.
@InvestorMexican think this is a tad short sighted. Sprouts has a loyal customer base. Consider how weak consumer discretionary environment is right now. Could be wrong ofc. But long term I like their strategy. They still have a niche. Mega grocers are a completely different shopping experience.