CSL , share dropped 4% and with a reasonable increasing in volume. Is this mean it will have another few big drops before recover?
My theory is that there has been more of an appetite for risk recently. Hence defensives such as Healthcare have fallen out of favour, funds have moved into financials and miners instead.
My theory is that there has been more of an appetite for risk recently. Hence defensives such as Healthcare have fallen out of favour, funds have moved into financials and miners instead.
Pretty true. It's also that though CSL is cheap there are some amazing bargains out there, if the economy improves. CSL will rise in the second wave if the recession is indeed over. I don't think it is yet unfortunately.
It is puzzling why CSL would fall. It has little debt and lots of guaranteed revenue. But then again, it was way lower than it was worth a few months ago (around 29) and went up to 38. I made nearly 30%
CSL's products are pretty much recession-proof: recessions don't stop people getting sick. On top of this, its costs are lower, due to the word-wide downturn. Since it averaged around 37 over October and the first half of November last year (before investors started panicking) it should return to this level again. Nothing has changed to affect its fundamentals that I'm aware of.
I don't think the recent AUD strength is a problem either. CSL was above 35 when AUD was between 95 and 85 cents last year...
I'm buying more in any case.
On what basis are you suggesting this? We have had more than one big drop and CSL hasn't gone up. It has been trading sideways with effectively no real increase in SP for the last 18 months.That's possible, but the returns on other stocks would have to be huge. For a start, if what you say is true about defensive stocks and if there is another big drop, then CSL will go up quickly.
Why? As above it hasn't done this previously.Moreover, if there is a shortage of capital and CSL went down as people shifted into better returning shares, then it is due to go up when other investors enter the market.
More ramping. You have offered no justification for your suggestions.Basically it is a win-win stock to own at this price. Insurance on the downside, and 20% on the upside! What other stock gives you that??
Basically it is a win-win stock to own at this price. Insurance on the downside, and 20% on the upside! What other stock gives you that??
On what basis are you suggesting this? We have had more than one big drop and CSL hasn't gone up. It has been trading sideways with effectively no real increase in SP for the last 18 months.
Why? As above it hasn't done this previously.
Ecoinvestor, your posts appear to be pretty close to pure ramping imo.
With a SP which is not going up, and a paltry 1.7% dividend, I don't know why anyone would buy this, frankly. Yes, I know it's considered by analysts to be a good 'core fundamental stock' but if we have the view that we buy stocks to make money from them, I find it hard to see why you'd buy something which has not experienced any sign of an uptrend for a long time.
More ramping. You have offered no justification for your suggestions.
What 'insurance' is there on the downside? Is CSL somehow protected from the possibility of bad news? '20% on the upside'????? Really? Where do you get this figure?
CSL paid $0.43 in dividends last year, and only half of that div was 100% fully franked.
How could that be good value?
CBA paid $2.66 per share in divs last year at an average of around $40.00.
Maybe reread my post. I quoted the last eighteen months Of course it's gone up and down during that time. But it has been trading below the MA for most of this time.:headshake
December 11th 08, it was $28.11. Feb 26th 09 it was $38.26. You should check your facts before posting flaming rants, Julia.
Oh dear. You cannot annualise a two month return with any sense of realism, surely! That's just picking out the bits you like? Show me where the stock has at any stage in the last eighteen months shown an annual 180% increase. Remember, my comment related to this last 18 months.I bought at 29, sold at 37. Hmmm, lets see, that's about 30%. I think I'd classify making 30% return in a bit over two months as making money. That's an annual rate of 180%. Or is that not enough for you??
Please do refer the matter to a moderator. I am very happy to accept the judgement of any moderator.I'm pretty close to asking the moderator to remove your raving posts. This one is, silly, emotive and plain factually wrong.
I have stated simple fact. This was in response to your post which had all the qualities of a ramp.I don't see the point in people posting comments like your's above. It is ad hominem nonsense. How about using some reason and logic instead of attacking people's motives?
Maybe reread my post. I quoted the last eighteen months Of course it's gone up and down during that time. But it has been trading below the MA for most of this time.
See attached screenshot which demonstrates my point.
I have stated simple fact. This was in response to your post which had all the qualities of a ramp.
Still waiting for your explanation of the 20% upside for this stock.
Simple easy maths. It was trading at 37 or so in a stable market last year. It went down to 30 or so recently for no fundamental reason. Here is the calculation:
37 MINUS 30.3 equals 6.7.
6.7 DIVIDED by 30.3 is over 20%.
Also, of course it goes up and down. That's great for making money. When the fundamentals haven't changed, buy when its low sell when it gets back to the fundamentals. This is all I am saying.
the reason for the price deline is due to CSL's major share holder selling its holding from about 11% now about 4.8%. FLC stopped selling in Jan which resulted CSL price increased from 30 to 38. Recently, it started to reduce its holding again. Well, if FLC keep selling at the current speed, its 4.6% holding will disappear in about 2.5 months.
Can someone analyses their short term view on CSL? the price has been around 31-32 for more than a week now ...where will it heading? up or down ?
Thank you, nomore4s, for saving me the trouble of pointing out what you have here.lol, you have got to be kidding me.
Your valuation is based on nothing more than it was trading at $37 in a "stable market". That has got to be the weakest analysis I've ever seen to establish fair value.
You're naive if you think the fundamentals of any stock haven't changed since we had a "stable market"
What are these fundamentals you keep banging on about? All your posts you rave on about fundamentals but I'm yet to see you post any valid fundamental research.
lol, you have got to be kidding me.
Your valuation is based on nothing more than it was trading at $37 in a "stable market". That has got to be the weakest analysis I've ever seen to establish fair value.
You're naive if you think the fundamentals of any stock haven't changed since we had a "stable market"
What are these fundamentals you keep banging on about? All your posts you rave on about fundamentals but I'm yet to see you post any valid fundamental research.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?