The returns to the net
current asset value rule are astronomical.
Graham's net
current asset value rule for acquiring sub-liquidation stocks is an example of such a simple, unambiguous investment strategy; simple to calculate, with concrete rules for its application.
Not exact matches
Following the financial crisis, I argued that regulators should look into whether or not the mutual fund
rules and
current accounting
rules were appropriately structured given the growing presence of firms like Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA), which get a pass from daily net
asset value calculations and other requirements.
The spotlight that private equity firms and hedge funds find themselves under in the
current regulatory environment, as well as the changes in fair
value rules for financial reporting, increase the scrutiny of alternative
asset managers by investors, fund administrators, and auditors.
And the
rules couldn't be more concrete: Buy if market price is two - thirds of net
current asset value or less.
Do
current accounting
rules capture the
value and any potential impairment of
assets in a consistent and useful manner, (eg compare mining vs oil; contrast IFRS and US GAAP)?