I would have to say D. Yatckman's timing to buy this stock was a lot better than mine. RIMM = Research in Motion which, needless to say has had a hell of a bad year. I have been takin' to the wood shed with my $ .005 million purchase...down 57% since March.
Here's the article on his purchase:
http://www.cantechletter.com/2011/08/who-is-rim-investor-donald-yacktman/Now the $71 million question is...do I DCA into RIMM at these levels or just buy some YACKX = Yacktman Fund and let the professional do my bidding?
bee
Comments
Yacktman also owns HPQ among other fallen angles. I think he will be wrong at least on some of these. Hopefully, he is more right than wrong.
I read an article in Barrons early this year that RIM was under valued and a good investment. Just recently (in the last month maybe), I read again in Barrons that they "admitted" that was a bad call, and now think RIM is a poor investment_ oops.
Hi Cathy. I guess you should be cautious of every investment, but imho the Yacktman funds have demonstrated an ability towards capital preservation well beyond the average large cap fund. Heck, even with holdings in Newscorp (and how could an investor foresee the London newspaper scandal?) and HP, his funds have held up "much" better then his peers or the benchmark S&P 500 over the last 3 months or year-to-date... #1 in it's category over the last 3 months.
I'd be more worried if he was loading up on financials ala Berkowitz.
There is a reason you are hiring a fund manager. If you have hired Yacktman, he is doing exactly what he is supposed to do. There is still risk however. That is the nature of the beast.
First, the fact that a manager has a beaten down stock in the portfolio does not mean the fund took most of the beating. It is very likely the manager has purchased the security after the sell-off or even if it is down, it might not be as much as you think. The average cost could be much lower.
Secondly, good value managers actually look at beaten down stocks to see if the intrinsic value is higher and there is a potential to realize that value. I.e. they are looking for appreciable discounts to that value. Sometimes they are wrong but if they have purchased the stock after sell-off they do not need the stock to go back to original price levels to make money.
Thirdly, on average beaten down stocks lose less. Market might still not like the company but expectations will be set low so it is easier to beat expectations. On the other hand, if a glamour stock disappoints, the punishment is much more severe. Nothing grows to the sky and even those most beloved companies will disappoint one day.
Still there are risks with concentrated value investing. If the bets pay off, they pay off handsomely. On the other hand, if they are wrong, it creates much resentment from shareholders. Look at Fairholme. Berkowitz could be right in the end but investors do not have patience to stay with him.
So, if this style is making you uncomfortable, you should probably look at other funds. Probably, you would want less concentration as well. Both YACKX ad YAFFX are heavily concentrated.
I don't particularly like tech because so much of it just doesn't stand the test of time over the years, whether due to not keeping up with the evolution of technology, being a fad, management issues or other reasons. I certainly appreciate value investing, but it's still extremely risky in its own right (see HP, which appeared to be a good value and then fell another 20% last week.) That's not to say that HP isn't still potentially a good value, but I think it's a matter of can they turn it around, what's the "time value" of having to wait for them to do so, etc. I certainly like value investing, but think piling into a particular sector believed to be "value" is immensely risky; I think there are a number of great values across the market right now (especially if this isn't a repeat of 2008 and I'm not convinced it isn't), but these come from a number of different sectors.
Best Buy's another one, down nearly 50% in the last 3 years. I don't like retail and think it's overbuilt in this country, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a national electronics retailer on that level anymore, but who knows. You could have a catalyst come along like if online retailers were ever forced to charge sales tax in every state. It could be a value at these levels, or not. RIMM is another one. However, expectations for these companies have been lowered significantly. That doesn't mean that things can't get worse, but you have something of a cushion if they do not.
I do agree with investor that "Thirdly, on average beaten down stocks lose less", although as he notes, it does not take the risk out of the equation. It's a matter of having a company whose expectations are lowered, possibly significantly. It's not a company trading at a 100 p/e who has to either beat expectations significantly or get obliterated. I've noted a number of tech companies over the last several months who lost double digit %'s because they met expectations - they had reached valuations where if numbers weren't fantastic, things would turn sour quickly.
I picked up a bit of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) about a month or so ago just under 30 as a value play - hasn't done terribly well over the last several months, but thought it was at a reasonable valuation. Additionally, provides basic needs, has a significant history and offers a decent enough yield.