Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

David Trainer  

View David Trainer's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Low-Cost Funds Dupe Investors [View article]
    cdelaware:
    Great question.
    I am a big fan of FFO as I think it is a better number than GAAP earnings. GAAP is not very helpful in any industry.
    My NOPAT is a cleaner version of FFO. In fact, my NOPAT for O is higher than FFO over each of the last 6 years.
    My NOPAT for 2012 is $281.81 compared to FFO of $260.86 ($ in millions).
    Since 2007, my NOPAT has grown at 6.2% compounded annually while FFO is at 6.6%.

    This link (http://bit.ly/10LvzwE) shows the DCF model I use to quantity the market expectations in O's stock price to equal 13% growth in (NOPAT) compounded annually over the next 16 years.

    Pls check my math and let me know if you see any error.

    I am not sure that the institutional investors that subscribed to 17+ million shares @ $45.9 performed as much diligence as I did.
    Having been on Wall Street for nearly a decade, I know how little financial diligence goes into investment decisions. Many institutional investors are more concerned about matching performance of their benchmark in the next quarter than they are concerned about the true value and long-term opportunity in a stock. Just look at how much turnover is and how much it has increased since the tech bubble if you don't believe me.
    Mar 14, 2013. 11:10 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Low-Cost Funds Dupe Investors [View article]
    Bryce_in_TX:
    Thanks for your comment.
    Past performance means little to future performance unless you are a pure momentum investor.

    Stocks rise too high only to fall far all the time. Many people said BBBY was a great stock before it crashed.

    I recommend focusing on the current fundamentals and how the expectations for future cash flows reflected in the stock price compares to the current fundamentals.

    The current stock price, $44.7, implies the company will grow after-tax cash flow (NOPAT) by 11% compounded annually for 20 years.

    That looks fully priced to me.

    Assuming the stock will continue to go up just b/c it has done so in the past does not see wise to me.
    Mar 13, 2013. 04:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Low-Cost Funds Dupe Investors [View article]
    disallusioned:
    Thank you for your comment. You ask an excellent question.

    I am not a quant.
    My research is differentiated from all other by my unrivaled analysis of footnotes. The fundamental analysis we perform on every stock leverages more financial and valuation analysis and diligence than any other research firm.

    For more on why footnote diligence matters: http://bit.ly/13Wo4aP
    Mar 13, 2013. 04:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Low-Cost Funds Dupe Investors [View article]
    Pwdrskir:
    Thank you for your comment.
    SCHD is very cheap. My analysis shows its holdings are not bad, but not especially good either. The holdings get my Neutral rating.

    The link below provides a copy of my report on SCHD

    http://bit.ly/Xuz9hL
    Mar 13, 2013. 02:51 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Low-Cost Funds Dupe Investors [View article]
    outcastsearcher:
    You make some good points. Thank you for your comment.
    We do run a hedge fund and so we eat our own cooking, so to speak.

    And yes, my research is uniquely value-added b/c it is the only research that does proper diligence in financial footnotes.

    No other firms or analysts analyze footnotes as much or nearly as thoroughly as we do at New Constructs.

    I believe my service empowers individual and institutional investors to make more informed and safer decisions.
    Mar 13, 2013. 02:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Low-Cost Funds Dupe Investors [View article]
    Buyandhold 2012:
    Great point. That is my recommendation for many sectors and styles as there simply are no good options for ETFs or mutual funds in those categories.
    Mar 13, 2013. 11:35 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Low-Cost Funds Dupe Investors [View article]
    Thalamus777 - good point, active mgmt does not have much a history of paying off.
    My point is that if you are going to pay ANY fees, at least be sure that you are paying for good stock selection.

    Only good stocks can drive performance. Fees cannot create value.

    "attractive" holdings are defined here: http://bit.ly/vGuBp7
    Mar 13, 2013. 11:34 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Best And Worst ETFs And Mutual Funds: Mid-Cap Value Style [View article]
    Here's the link to my article on the mid-cap growth style.

    http://seekingalpha.co...

    Thanks for reading.
    Mar 7, 2013. 02:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 4Q Best & Worst ETFs & Mutual Funds – By Style – Recap [View instapost]
    Jamiel:
    Thank you for your comment,
    Would you please provide a bit more detail, such as the Dorsey Wright research to which you refer?
    Mar 5, 2013. 10:22 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Investment Style Rankings For ETFs And Mutual Funds [View article]
    Fair point, glewis002. You can see my ratings and the initial minimum requirements on my fund screener (link below).

    You'll see the other highly-ranked funds as well as GQETX, which is another class of the GMO Quality Fund with a $0 initial minimum but slightly higher total annual costs of 0.61% compared to GQLOX at 0.51%.
    http://bit.ly/12Y9or6
    Feb 22, 2013. 03:12 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Rating Breakdown: Best And Worst ETFs And Mutual Funds By Style [View article]
    Thank you getgl.
    Feb 22, 2013. 10:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Little-Known Tax Windfall Overstates Paper Company Earnings [View article]
    For info on my performance see:
    1. http://bit.ly/132gY3G

    2. http://bit.ly/IKTkzC
    Feb 19, 2013. 03:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Best And Worst ETFs And Mutual Funds: Mid-Cap Blend Style [View article]
    BOYDWSPOON1:
    Thank you for your comment.
    You raise an important point about the different ratings systems.

    Mine is the only one that rates ETFs based on their holdings.
    Focusing on costs is a bad idea b/c ONLY holdings can drive performance.

    No matter how low the fees, if the holdings do not perform well, the fund will not perform well.
    Feb 15, 2013. 10:37 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Rating Breakdown: Best And Worst ETFs And Mutual Funds By Sector [View article]
    My pleasure - I think you might also like to see my study on how low-cost funds dupe investors.
    It contains unique analysis on the entire ETF and mutual fund markets for US equities.

    http://bit.ly/Uh1z84
    Feb 12, 2013. 01:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • February's Most DANGEROUS Stocks Available To The Public [View instapost]
    pollyserial:
    Thank you for your candor.
    Most people want to be alerted to all my publications.
    There are not may posts like this.
    I am sorry this seems like noise to you. For others, it is a helpful reminder.
    Feb 12, 2013. 12:52 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
1,008 Comments
365 Likes