# Free online tool for value investors



## pblain (21 January 2017)

What do you think of this tool?  https://valuefrog.com

It calculates the intrinsic value of ASX listed companies using different methods. It’s free BTW.


----------



## galumay (21 January 2017)

Its so inaccurate as to be entirely irrelevant. None of the data was correct for companies I checked.


----------



## luutzu (21 January 2017)

pblain said:


> What do you think of this tool?  https://valuefrog.com
> 
> It calculates the intrinsic value of ASX listed companies using different methods. It’s free BTW.





This is the best one I reckon www.danginvestor.com


----------



## pblain (21 January 2017)

galumay said:


> Its so inaccurate as to be entirely irrelevant. None of the data was correct for companies I checked.



Data is from Morningstar US site http://www.morningstar.com/


----------



## valuefrog (12 February 2017)

I’m the creator of ValueFrog.  https://valuefrog.com  I started this over Christmas for my own use, but I make it available to the community.  The first iteration was pulling data from a source that didn’t always align with the stats I was seeing elsewhere. It was a free source and sometimes you get what you pay for!  It now uses a more reliable data source, which looks much better - but I still can't make any guarantees about it so definitely verify the financials elsewhere.

There's also a new feature that scans for businesses that are trading below the 4 intrinsic values that ValueFrog calculates.  (Click on “Bargains” in the menu). Many of the results are at low prices for a reason, but there are a few worth considering.

ValueFrog is a work in progress so let me know if you have any feedback. Keep in mind that it’s aimed at value investors. Also note that it isn’t a commercial product - it’s a side project that I started to supplement the other tools I use.


----------



## nevsupra (15 February 2017)

valuefrog said:


> I’m the creator of ValueFrog.  https://valuefrog.com  I started this over Christmas for my own use, but I make it available to the community.  The first iteration was pulling data from a source that didn’t always align with the stats I was seeing elsewhere. It was a free source and sometimes you get what you pay for!  It now uses a more reliable data source, which looks much better - but I still can't make any guarantees about it so definitely verify the financials elsewhere.
> 
> There's also a new feature that scans for businesses that are trading below the 4 intrinsic values that ValueFrog calculates.  (Click on “Bargains” in the menu). Many of the results are at low prices for a reason, but there are a few worth considering.
> 
> ValueFrog is a work in progress so let me know if you have any feedback. Keep in mind that it’s aimed at value investors. Also note that it isn’t a commercial product - it’s a side project that I started to supplement the other tools I use.




Greetings, It works, what key drivers do you follow?


----------



## skc (15 February 2017)

valuefrog said:


> I’m the creator of ValueFrog.  https://valuefrog.com  I started this over Christmas for my own use, but I make it available to the community.  The first iteration was pulling data from a source that didn’t always align with the stats I was seeing elsewhere. It was a free source and sometimes you get what you pay for!  It now uses a more reliable data source, which looks much better - but I still can't make any guarantees about it so definitely verify the financials elsewhere.
> 
> There's also a new feature that scans for businesses that are trading below the 4 intrinsic values that ValueFrog calculates.  (Click on “Bargains” in the menu). Many of the results are at low prices for a reason, but there are a few worth considering.
> 
> ValueFrog is a work in progress so let me know if you have any feedback. Keep in mind that it’s aimed at value investors. Also note that it isn’t a commercial product - it’s a side project that I started to supplement the other tools I use.




Looks interesting. Thanks for putting it up for all to have a play. The 4 different methods tend to generate quite different valuations and it's difficult for the casual observer to decide which one makes the most sense. Nonetheless a good starting point for a project or someone looking for a 2nd opinion.


----------



## So_Cynical (16 February 2017)

skc said:


> Looks interesting. Thanks for putting it up for all to have a play. The 4 different methods tend to generate quite different valuations and it's difficult for the casual observer to decide which one makes the most sense.




Strange results on some of the stocks i hold, the site needs something to make sense of it all...the problem with value investing is that its all rear view mirror, you cant rate potential.

EG: HZR brings up results of 0 - 0 - 0 - 0


----------



## galumay (16 February 2017)

So_Cynical said:


> HZR brings up results of 0 - 0 - 0 - 0




I think that means its a strong sell, So_Cynical.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 February 2017)

I don't think any of the methods properly account for growth.
The Buffet one is the most inaccurate and dodgy. Montgomery always seems low.
only Graham has a price close to CSLs present price while SGH is valued as $0 with Buffett giving it a price of $7.70 showing it is too reliant on historical figures.
I like the tool generally though but I reckon the Buffett one needs a rethink.


----------



## galumay (16 February 2017)

Knobby22 said:


> The Buffet one is the most inaccurate and dodgy.




Thats because its misused, when Buffett talks about free cash flow its not the same as the FCF that something like Morningstar or Yahoo Finance uses. Also he uses the IV calculation as a really raw filter, its something so simple he can do it in his head and get a 'back of the envelope' IV so he can decide whether or not to look any deeper. There is no way a normal investor can use the formula on its own to decide whether a company is investible or not. I use a derived form of the Buffett formula in my spreadsheet, along with several others. It usually results in a conservative IV compared to others - but you have to derive FCF the way he does. Dodgy Roger I have never used his approach as I think its inherently flawed.

Personally I think the growth element is the trickiest part in any FA approach, I work with a very conservative estimates of future growth, with a few steps over time (downwards). It means very few companies present as trading below their IV, but I think its better to err on the side of underestimation generally.


----------

