According to an article published by Bloomberg Cheapest Stocks in 16 years draws investors, "Investors are preparing to snap up shares of telephone, health-care and computer companies after last week's $2.1 trillion global stock market rout left U.S. equities the cheapest in 16 years."
I am always pondering stock valuations in search of bargains and have been thinking that there are many bargains to be had. Having come to this conclusion though is not based on the relative market strength or weakness, or whether the over all market is cheap or not. I am not interested in bear markets or bull markets. The average investor should view all markets and promoters of said markets as full of bull. The best way to invest in stocks is the same way you invest in friends - one by one, respectfully, fairly and refraining from judging the proverbial book by it's cover. You should look deeper and think long term.
Some companies have reported terrific earnings Intuitive Surgical (NASDAQ: ISRG), Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) and some have been lackluster Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ). Some have been dismal like housing stocks Pulte Homes (NYSE: PHM) and Toll Brothers (NYSE: TOL). While one could make the argument that stock valuations are at a low point there is more to the story.
Since valuations -- think price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios -- are at a cumulative low, and the market prices stocks based on future earnings and growth of equity potential, then one has to assume the brokerage houses, investment banks, hedge funds, institutions and the like have priced in a continuation of the same low interest, high liquidity conditions that lead to this economic situation. I do not have such clarity in regards to this future.
Maybe the headline should not read "Stocks are the cheapest they have been in 16 years", maybe it should read "Large investors are more tenative than they have been in 16 years". After all look how fast they were jumping ship last Thursday and Friday. In any event, I will continue to write about specific opportunities and resist characterising the over all markets.
Those of you who are new to BloggingStocks can check out my other stories and read Chasing Value or Serious Money to find more potential opportunities and verify my track record as well.
Disclosure: As of this writing I own shares of ISRG and JNJ.
Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm.
$600 Million Powerball: 1 Winning Ticket Sold in Fla.
Why Taco Bell and Popeyes Want to Serve You Breakfast


Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-30-2007 @ 8:12PM
Georges Yared said...
Sheldon has written a brilliant article. Any level investor should read this article and take it too heart. Bravo Sheldon, bravo
7-30-2007 @ 9:46PM
DAN said...
The average non-millionaire investor doesn't have enough time to fully investigate stocks, so direct investing with mutual fund companies are the best way to go. Why pay a broker? And then look at the returns - who cares if one fund has higher expenses than another one if the fund with the higher expenses nets you a higher return.
7-30-2007 @ 10:56PM
Jan Sopoci said...
Dan,
Superior performance can be a fleeting thing...here for a year, or two.....then gone. Fees are "forever"...how often does one read about a fund lowering fees? I'm actually a bit ambivalent about funds. Because of the explosion of funds, and their "kissin' cousins", ETFs, the amout of "due diligence" needed to pick out a good fund approaches that of ol' fashioned stock picking.
Jan
7-30-2007 @ 11:28PM
TONY CALDERONE said...
MR. LIBER...YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL END IS UP...SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAD A COLUMN TO DO AND WANTED TO PLAY CONTRARIAN....THATS OK IF YOU'RE BUYING OR SELLING FOR YOURSELF....BUT IN THE WORLD OF FINANCIAL COUNSELING, IT IS DISINGENUOUS AND MORE SPECIFICALLY...BULL SHIT!
7-31-2007 @ 9:30AM
DAN said...
Jan,
Fees are also forever if you have a brokerage account, whether it be commissions or a fee based on your portfolio balance. And if you have mutual funds in a brokerage account, you pay a fee to the broker on top of the fee to the fund company. Stick with direct accounts with established companies (Franklin Templeton, etc) & funds with good track records that have been established by the current managers. You get instant diversification without investigating 500 stocks. If you own 10 funds with differant objectives, you may own a piece of a few thousand stocks. "Due diligence" on funds certainly take much less time than on the stocks involved. Of course someone with a knack for picking stocks at the right time & who has unlimited time for investigating could do better than a good mutual fund management team. But how many investors meet this bill?
7-31-2007 @ 11:28AM
John said...
"Stocks are the cheapest they have been in 16 years" reminds me of the cover of Time magazine that had the house on it with the dollar signs...when was that?, right before the bubble burst in the housing market. There are many shoes out there that could drop this market like a rock, due diligence is needed.
7-31-2007 @ 12:24PM
Sheldon L said...
Dan,
You are right the average investor should be in mutual funds not stocks. Even with all the research and experience that goes into my picks, I still invest 50% in low cost funds. That is where we disagree. I use Vanguard and Fidelity index funds and no more than three in a portfolio and keep fees to a minimum.
Tony,
Thanks for your comments, but you should temper your anger and re-read. I did not say it was a bad time to invest, I said there were still bargains. I said be selective and do not follow the hype in the market from people who make a living on fees, commissions, trading and deals. I said don't be a sheep. However, if you are one of the hypesters or you are stretched on leverage than I understand your angst; I understand I am trimming your action. You in particular should be cautious - Good luck!