Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Anyone else think that the "Hold" analyst recommendation is non-sensical?

Warren buffet does not care about market price unless its very cheap. He never buys stock to sell at a gain, he buys stock to own businesses that produce cash flow.

To understand analyst ratings you have to understand the job and objectives of the analyst. Analysts use industry experience/connections and financial valuation to identify stocks that are undervalued on a fundamental financial basis. They will often give a price target, which is usually close to the fair value of the firm in one years time. Sometimes the market re rates the stock within the year closer to actual value, sometimes it does not.

Analysts aim to find and expose value creation "stories" that ring true with funds managers and high net worth clients and this creates brokerage revenue for the firm. Also analysts can attract investment banking business, by giving the company exposure in hope that the company will chose their firm for any corporate finance business in the future.

The "Hold" rating happens when a stock that was previously initiated at a buy, is now almost fairly valued for whatever reason. The stock now has a predicted total shareholder return of ~10% over the next year and if you are holding allot of stock, to sell now would a) incur capital gains b) drive down the price and c) throw away the possibility of further out performance by a stock with a track record.

Of coarse there are many many other ways a stock could goto a "hold" for example if the stock tanks 50% on sentiment, and the immediate future looks bleak, but its still undervalued fundamentally. If it was a buy at $1 and nothing in the future cash flows have changed, it cant be a sell at 50c.

A major reason why analysts seldom put a stock on "Sell" but do put them to "hold" when bad times hit, is that a Sell rating will impact the share price even more to the downside and put the analyst into the bad books with that company. The analyst could get a reputation in the industry as someone you don't want to cover your company because you could get down graded to a sell!

The job of an analyst has very delicate politics involved within his/her firm and with external parties. It is not an easy job by any means to balance all the stakeholders! Many analysts have been led astray in the past, and it takes a judge of character to identify what analysts are going to be the most reputable in their research.

So as a retail investor, the best bet is to read analyst reports, but ignore recommendations! Analyst reports are almost always very high quality financial analysis and you can draw your own conclusions from the legwork that has been done by somebody else.
 
I know the dude is well-respected and has a successful history...but surely a vast majority of people buy because they think the price will go up? What is the point in buying a company which I think has the right fundamentals but the SP won't go up?

The market is based on sentiment.

You buy because you think the business itself will improve and generate more profits/earnings over time. Not because the stock on the market will make you money by its price increasing. There is a difference.
 
You buy because you think the business itself will improve and generate more profits/earnings over time. Not because the stock on the market will make you money by its price increasing. There is a difference.
There are several threads on this forum comparing fundamental and technical analysis. You might broaden your outlook and therefore your potential profitability if you were to do a search and read some of these.
 
You buy because you think the business itself will improve and generate more profits/earnings over time. Not because the stock on the market will make you money by its price increasing. There is a difference.

I have highlighted the two bits where you are right, there is an enormous difference, think and make being the two operative words.
Unless you own the company the latter highlighting is the one that applies to you.

One makes money for you directly, the other makes money for managers, directors, flashy offices and any other necessary outlays, then you may eventually reap the benefits of what is left over.

Look at Qantas, bet none of the "investors" on here who espouse their virtues were on the Grange Hermitage distribution list last Christmas.
 
One makes money for you directly, the other makes money for managers, directors, flashy offices and any other necessary outlays, then you may eventually reap the benefits of what is left over.

Sounds like management isn't doing what they should. In the interest of the shareholders, profits should be passed on, not spent on flashy offices, or an overseas trip, right?
 
Sounds like management isn't doing what they should. In the interest of the shareholders, profits should be passed on, not spent on flashy offices, or an overseas trip, right?
Perhaps a 'flashy office' helps that CEO to think better? Perhaps his foreign buyers place considerable importance on the appearance of status which is represented by an impressive office?

Perhaps the overseas trip is to make new contacts to advance the business? Or simply to keep the company's management up with what's going on outside of the antipodes?

Why should all profits be 'passed on'? Many very successful businesses put much of their profit back into growing the business which in turn may be expected to grow the SP for the benefits of shareholders.

Could go on.
Sigh.
 
Why should all profits be 'passed on'? Many very successful businesses put much of their profit back into growing the business which in turn may be expected to grow the SP for the benefits of shareholders.

Which is great provided those funds are invested in such a way that justifies those funds being retained. But unfortunatly there are many cases where the funds are invested poorly and value is destroyed.

For example if a company retains $1M and uses it for a deposit to make a $10M investment which in latter years due to poor performance has to be written down in value to $5M.

Fosters take over of southcorp happened this way, Hundreds of millions was written of that investment with a stroke of a pen, which could have been prevented by not overpaying in the first place. Just because a CEO is a good operator does not always make him the best allocator of capital.

Alot of CEO's make big investments at the wrong time, over paying for take overs and destroying value, Or buying back company stock at $50 and having no funds or no confidence to buy back stock at $30 ( think BHP)

Coles could end up being a big write down for wesfarmers, the return on the capital they invested is low, which is a sign they may have over paid and may need to make some write downs.
 
Another example perhaps...

AMP announces merger with AXA to cost $30million in first half of 2011
From: AAP
June 28, 2011 8:23AM

AMP reported in a statement today that M&A transaction costs for the first half of 2011 are expected to be $30 million and relate primarily to the costs associated with the merger of AXA and include legal, financing and investment banking costs.

"These M&A transaction costs are not part of the merger integration budget," the statement reported.

AMP said AXA's financial results for the three months to June 30, 2011, would be reported separately at AMP's first half results announcement on August 18, 2011.

Also, AMP said it would provide an update on integration costs as part of its results announcement.
 
Which is great provided those funds are invested in such a way that justifies those funds being retained. But unfortunatly there are many cases where the funds are invested poorly and value is destroyed.
Well, yes, quite obviously it's only useful to shareholders if the invested funds are placed wisely.

I was simply trying to explain to whomever it was who suggested the shareholders weren't getting a decent deal (or words to that effect) unless all profits were paid out as dividends, that these profits can actually bring greater returns to the shareholders if wisely ploughed back into the business in such a way as to promote growth of the SP, this latter often being ultimately more rewarding to said shareholders than the value of an increased dividend.

OK?
 
IMO hold is a way for a broker to say " I told you so" , they can easily flip it positive or negative. Nothing is ever really a hold imo you can't sit on the fence for stocks.
 
Not that I'm a big follower of analyst consensus but I just started wondering about it and looked up the definition.

"A "hold recommendation" is an analyst's opinion that can loosely be interpreted to mean that a stock should be kept by individuals who already own it, but should not be purchased by those who do not already own it. A hold recommendation is generally better than a sell recommendation but worse than a buy recommendation, and it usually means that the analyst believes the stock will remain fairly stable and keep pace with, but not surpass, the market. Holds are also referred to as "neutral" or "market perform" recommendations."

So for those not owning the stock, they're saying "don't bother buying it, we envisage mediocre returns so look elsewhere"

To those that do own it " well you're invested now, you might as well stick with it".

The only difference between someone who holds the stock and someone who doesnt is the transaction cost. So the only way this makes sense is if the analyst thinks that the returns will only be sufficient enough to cover the cost of your sell order if you hold.

That's hardly a margin of safety...

Have I missed something??

Edit: I guess there's also the 12month tax hurdle too but most recommendations are not to know the tax situation of the individual. Hence the disclaimer fine print at the end of any advice.

You can look at this from another angle. Research reports are mainly written for institutional clients. Unlike retail investors it is rather hard for institutions to enter or exit large positions and the associated costs esp related to illiquidity could be high. A hold means the stock is expected to perform inline with market (i.e. +ve most of the time), and is therefore valuable if your exit costs are high, and/or that you have nothing else to buy.
 
Top