This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Banks turning the corner?

Jump to new
Why should we believe them now?

Just a question.

Why should we believe the brokers who say the banks are going lower?

Any idiot on the planet could see from a chart that the banks have fallen a lot and its very easy to say there is more downside!

Where were these brokers when NAB was $44 and MQG was $88?

They were telling the public that the good times were rolling on and evrything was heading higher and higher.

I have only seen one sell recommendation on a bank and that was on ANZ when it was $26 with a price target of $24.20. That was from fn arena.



As I said its very easy to say a stock is going up when its heading north.

Very easy to say a stock is going down when its going down.

Do your own research. If your holding long and accumulating along a time line I think thats investing.
 
Re: Why should we believe them now?

The broker is a sales person!!! As long as you trade, they make the transactions money!!!

Follow your own judgement.
 
Re: Why should we believe them now?

I think context and comparative analyis is important when it comes to using/interpreting broker analysis.

Equity analysts don't have a crystal ball that can predict what the future is, so all analysis is virtually conducted on a 'ceteris paribus' basis. No one could predict both the nature of the current FS crisis and it's timing and no one can predict the broad market influences that are to come.
These large multiple deviation events are by definition unexpected and no analyst would take pot stabs at what they might be and incorporate it in their analysis.

What I think might be of some use is to compare the reports for multiple banks from the same analysis - ie which bank do they think will best deal with current conditions.

Then make sure you read sector-based analysis and listen to economists (Bloomberg is great - I'm a big fan of Tom Keane *sp) where you can to get a feel for what they see coming. They won't be right, but atleast it'll help you be aware of what's out there.
 
Re: Why should we believe them now?

Ken I wouldn't believe any of them. I just read those reports and then make my owns decisions. The so called smarties at Fat Profits had IAG as a buy at around 18 or 24 Months ago, yep all that knowledge and so called expertise and IAG is down 50%. Read em and then make your own decisions is best mate.
 
Aussiejeff said:
The most interesting thing about the article was that the reporter actually stated at the end of his blurb that he held shares in ANZ too. Far too honest to succeed in the dog-eat-dog world of media madness IMO....


AJ
Click to expand...

AJ- that struck me as odd too. It's not like he's an expert or anything. Maybe he just wanted people to think ANZ was a good buy... lol. Anyway, there will be more pain in store for the banks today I should think. When will this end
 
AnDy62 said:
AJ- that struck me as odd too. It's not like he's an expert or anything. Maybe he just wanted people to think ANZ was a good buy... lol. Anyway, there will be more pain in store for the banks today I should think. When will this end
Click to expand...

Anything to do with finance, whether it be reporting, fund managing, financial planning must disclose interests. The reporter by rights should disclose his interest in ANZ becasue regardless of whether he puts a positive or negative spin on the article the consumer must know whether he has a conflict of interest in what he/ she is reporting.
 


Ideally, yes.

So, do you know what shares Alan Kohler holds? The same disclosure rules you talk about "by rights" should apply for every media "financial commentator" who "advises" the public about what shares or sectors "look to be a good investment" or "look to be a bad investment". How many commentators do you know who regularly declare ALL their holdings?

Really, the whole "rules of disclosure" thing for these "experts" in the media is just a wishy-washy mess IMO. Seems to be more of a voluntary thing on a person to person basis, rather than cast-iron rules that can be strictly enforcable by law.... hence my surprise that this reporter actually did so.


AJ
 

That is strange.

Does Etrade mainly cater to "Mums and Dads", rather than institutions? If so, then can one assume that ordinary investors are buying what they think is cheap currently (banks) and selling what they assume is doing well (miners) and institutions are doing the opposite or is this assertion completely false?
 

Hmmmm.... nothing surprises me anymore in this chaotic period for the world's financial markets.... every day we see shares that are expected to go UP plummet, or shares that are expected to plummet, SOAR - and much of it based on a fleeting moment of positive sentiment or irrational fear. Oh wait! The one thing that DOES surprise me is that the bottom hasn't yet completely fallen out of the world's stock markets....

Of course, time will reveal all.


AJ

(PS: Are those lists showing the *smart money* action???) LOL
 
osmosis said:
That is strange.

Does Etrade mainly cater to "Mums and Dads", rather than institutions?
Click to expand...

Yes.
osmosis said:
If so, then can one assume that ordinary investors are buying what they think is cheap currently (banks) and selling what they assume is doing well (miners) and institutions are doing the opposite or is this assertion completely false?
Click to expand...

Very interesting.
 


I agree with you and I beleive that disclosure should be greater across a broader range of areas. To be honest I work day in day out disclosing my interests to others and if I did not do so I could face very hefty penalties. Other in my industry are still adapt at confusing the disclosure to clients but I take an open honest approach and it works.

Personally I can name two other industries which I beleive equally should have the same requirements that I face on a daily basis. I think realestate agents should put in writing any interests that they have, including commissions, related parties etc which could impact upon the sale of a home.

I also think that Employment agencies should disclose to potential employees the fees and retainers that they make from selling the employee so to speak to an employer. I was shocked to find out that it is not unusual for an employer to pay $15,000 to an employee earning $100,000 to a recruitment firm for this service which is apportioned over 1 year. Personally I can't see the value in such a service but it exists. Although the employee is not a consumer in this situation I think I would view the realtionship with the recruitment consultant a little differently knowing this. I knew that they were paid for the service but I assumed that it was a one off flat fee not based on a particular salary range for an employee. The conflict that I see existing in this industry is that the employer will deliberately pay the employee less in this instance to account for the lost 15%. Personally I think it doesn't matter what the employee earns the amount should be based on a flat rate not a sliding scale just because I earn more. That said any work that I do in my chosen field I will charge according to the complexity of the situaiton not on a % amount.
 
Interesting comparison. Looks like the CBA took a wrong turn and CSL fitted a super-charger to catch up. Won't be long at this rate before CSL value outpaces CBA for the first time....

If it hadn't been for the terrible beating CSL took between 02-04, it would likely be at $50+ by now.

(I hold neither stock ATM - thankfully it would seem in the case of CBA but most unfortunately not for CSL!)


AJ
 

Attachments

  • CSL vs CBA.gif
    9.8 KB · Views: 248
Banks did well today, probably all the traders bottom picking.

SUN up on the speculations of a takeover by Buffet....

even MQG pick up a little rise right before close.
 
blehgg said:
Banks did well today, probably all the traders bottom picking.

SUN up on the speculations of a takeover by Buffet....

even MQG pick up a little rise right before close.
Click to expand...
Can you provide news link to this buffett takeover rumour ??
 
blehgg said:
Banks did well today, probably all the traders bottom picking.

SUN up on the speculations of a takeover by Buffet....

even MQG pick up a little rise right before close.
Click to expand...

I think this is the case of Chinese whisper. There are a few articles around telling the story Warren Buffett is out hunting for insurance business and I think people twist and turn and some how QBE and SUN comes into the picture.

I'm a big SUN holder with recent low price and I didnt act on that speculation
just trying to buy good stock for cheap.
 
I don't know about Buffett... but Fairfax have put out a rumour that WestPac is eyeing off SUN..
Cheers
..........Kauri
 
Some traders said Suncorp's shares were driven up by market talk that Westpac Banking Corp (ASX: WBC.ax) , Australia's fourth-biggest lender, could possibly make a takeover bid for Suncorp to expand its business into Australia's eastern state of Queensland.

Westpac and Suncorp declined to comment on the speculation but sources in both companies downplayed the talk.

Full Story Here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Learning fundamental analysis...
2
Replies
24
Views
10K
dhukka
D
FNArena's summary of 2007
Replies
0
Views
8K
Julia
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...