Seeking Alpha

Clinton Holmes

View as an RSS Feed
View Clinton Holmes' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 7 Defensive Investor Quick Picks For March [View article]
    Fair point Dashan. Maybe I'll start to follow up this monthly quick pick article with some more in depth analysis of some of the companies highlighted.
    Mar 5 05:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 7 Defensive Investor Quick Picks For March [View article]

    Thanks for the comment. Serenity and I both use the same formula for graham number: sqrt(22.5*EPS*BVS) so the coming from the inputs for earnings per share and book value per share. I'm not sure where you saw Serenity's calculations, I'm assuming here:

    It looks like Serenity gets their data from Yahoo! Finance while I source mine from Guru Focus. The differences don't appear to be drastic though - Serenity had Graham numbers of 39.24 and 52.57 for ALG and BHI respectively, while I had values of 39.53 and 51.00.

    Does that help answer your question?

    Best Regards,
    Mar 4 06:20 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investing In 2013: Remember 1977 [View article]

    My apologies if this question has already been asked, but isn't at least part of the reason energy prices skyrocketed in the 70's/80's due to limited supply and the issues with OPEC. I'm wondering if energy is really the right play since in 2013 it looks like more natural gas and energy alternatives will be brought to market to meet demand due to technology advances. Any thoughts?

    Thanks for a good read!
    Feb 27 10:15 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • February's Quick Picks For The Benjamin Graham Defensive Investor [View article]
    I'm glad you've been doing well with HFC Happyhouser. Any other stocks you like? I'm looking for new ones to perform analysis on.

    Best Regards,
    Feb 23 09:14 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 'Real' Cost Of Paying Too Much For A Stock: A Case Study [View article]

    I agree with the point I think your trying to make, which is that the rate of compounding is more important than entry price over a long period of time. The point I'm trying to make is different. I'm trying to show the the opportunity cost of paying too much for a company. Let me take your example to emphasize.

    Company A's shares sell for 2 dollar today. The next year two years, the company spends heavy to set up the future and report lower than expected net income - by the end of the two years, share price has dropped to 1. From year 2 on it grows 30% for thirty years.

    Investor 1 bought 1 share at $2 today. Investor 2 put 2 dollars into a 5% bond, then buys 2.205 shares in two years. Which is the higher return at the end of 30 years?

    Investor 1 = 1*1.30^30 *1 = 2619
    Investor 2 = 1*1.30^30 * 2.205 = 5777

    Best Regards,
    Feb 12 06:52 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How To Properly Think About Stock Prices In Today's Volatile Markets [View article]
    Thanks for an excellent article. I think we must be on the same wavelength though, because I just published an article on the real "cost" of paying too much for a security:

    Keep up the excellent work,
    Feb 11 08:31 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 'Real' Cost Of Paying Too Much For A Stock: A Case Study [View article]
    Thanks for reading ABuck. Glad you liked it. I wish I had thought of putting a line showing 10% growth starting starting at ~$475.

    My quick math, assuming 9 periods, 10% growth, and PV of $475 has the future value of the share at $1120.03. If the investor could have bought ~1.47 shares, the initial investment would equal $700, and the FV would have been $1,650. Not too shabby

    Best Regards,
    Feb 11 08:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The 'Real' Cost Of Paying Too Much For A Stock: A Case Study [View article]
    Thanks for the comment Lakeaffect. I really like the strategy of maintaining a shopping list with a "Strike price" for the different equities. I do something similar. For each stock I analyze, I figure out my strike price and the 1 to 2 major reasons I liked the stock - then when the price dips - I buy as long as my 1 to 2 reasons for wanting to buy are still true I will pull the trigger.

    I like the idea of when to sell article. Look for one in the coming weeks :)

    Until then, happy investing!
    Feb 11 08:15 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Wells Fargo - Fundamentally Strong And Offers 4.5%-8.8% Average Annual Return [View article]

    Agree with you on the CDOs. Could you say more about California taxes? I hadn't heard about this.

    Feb 11 06:08 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 'Real' Cost Of Paying Too Much For A Stock: A Case Study [View article]
    Excellent points Kyle and itsonlyahobby. Investors should definitely be considering the affects of inflation when measuring margin of safety - especially if fixed income securities, as proposed by Graham, are your benchmark.

    Thanks for the comments!
    Feb 11 06:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 'Real' Cost Of Paying Too Much For A Stock: A Case Study [View article]
    Thanks 1caflash! I'm glad you enjoyed the article.
    Feb 11 05:59 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 'Real' Cost Of Paying Too Much For A Stock: A Case Study [View article]
    ATL Value Investor is correct, it is defined as annual earnings divided by price per share. The only thing I want to add is that Graham recommended averaging the last few years of earnings in order to get a more accurate measure.

    Best Regards,
    Feb 11 05:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Wells Fargo (WFC) is upgraded to Buy at Stifel Nicolaus, as valuations have the firm doing a bit of shuffling in its bank ratings. UBS catches an upgrade as well, but Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB) is cut to Hold. [View news story]
    Not surprised. The fundamentals are excellent:
    Feb 11 08:30 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • An In-Depth Analysis Of Cisco Systems [View article]
    Excellent in-depth analysis Maani
    Feb 10 08:44 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fundamental Value In Wells Fargo [View article]
    Normally I don't like to comment unless I have something nice to say, but I feel readers will be so misguided by this article I feel the need to speak up.

    First, I agree completely with jclyak and Zeeshan.Maqsood. If you look my article analyzing $WFC fundamentals:
    You will see that in addition to revenue increasing, both earnings per share and the dividend have been increasing at greater than 6%.

    Second, a correlation of 0.44 is weak correlation at best. It is not even remotely relevant.

    Lastly, this is most ridiculous statement I've ever heard, "In this regard, it means that if the EPS of the company is increasing, it is very likely that company may decrease its dividend payout or/and share prices may reduced"

    Look forward to hearing your response...
    Feb 10 06:20 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment