Hi Explod,
Just continueing from what your saying 'US markets are overpriced' do you have any facts to back this up.
Are you talking about any particular sector? And what measurement are you using.
Since we are in the MBL thread I assume we are talking about US investment banks. Just doing a quick search. Goldman Sachs is on a current PE of 8.75. Other banks are very similar.
Please elaborate more. ie. at what multiples are you expecting something to be overpriced, evenly priced, and underpriced.
personally, at current multiples (and assuming things dont get much worse) i think the us is fairly evenly priced. although the tech sector in general i find is overpriced. i cant justify a company such as yahoo sitting on a PE of 45+, (my reason being the risk isnt worth any possible gains above the risk free rate).
Further to the last, just thought the following excerpt from "Conquer The Crash" which touches on P/E ratios may be of interest.
Precter, at Page 61.
- It's not directly responsible for this hedge funds.
- Those hedge funds HAVE NOT collapsed (yet), they only stand to lose a portion of their money.
- Even if does collapse its barely going to dent the financial rolls royce.
- MacQ generates way too much money, and its management are really top people.
- It's P/E ratio is 12, cheap compared to a sector average of 15 and an AllOrds average of 17.
- Analysts still maintain their bullish forecasts, I think Goldman & Meryll still retained a $106 target.
No offence if anyone lives in Toorak in Melbourne, but I hope it was your funds seeings as your houses price have gone up 700k in the last 3 months.
From Wikipedia on Prechter & EWI:
"In July 2007, the Hulbert Financial Digest, published by Dow Jones, reported that Elliott Wave International's Elliott Wave Financial Forecast had a 15-year annualized return of negative 25.4%/year and a return of negative 17.8% over the life of the newsletter."
Unfortunately, in light of the last 5 years of economic, share market, and property boom activity it looks a lot like Prechters book isn't worth the paper it's printed on. A slightly different slant on the old saying it's not time-in the market, but timing the market that counts.
Mime - have a good look through my post again mate.......
I didn't say anywhere within my post that I thought MBL were frauds...... Plus, Jim Chanos wasn't saying MBL were frauds, he simply said they had severe related party issues and complex off balance sheet debt structures that had the potential to cause issues in the future as they were not properly disclosed with the body of the Companies financials. These are all true facts - draw your own conclusions.
I know the Enron story pretty well (hence my avatar), at the end of the game they (Enron) were fraudulent, but the factors that lead their accounting team to come up with the dodgy strategies in the first place (i.e. Raptors limited partnerships, etc) was actually a legal accounting treatment - mark to market valuation of their deals via a DCF model. The SEC and their auditors signed off to the treatment initially. Have a look at MIG - isn't this exactly what they are doing, revaluing assets using AASB 139 and 132 whilst the group bleeds through cash like no tomorrow.....
Look, you don't have to listen to me - I would say the chart tells you more than I could....
All the best
Reece
Hats off to you Reece you nailed it.
I still remember you made many warnings about MBL long before the true Carnage started, I like i said in another post hope and expectation will be there until u choose not to see it!
Good on u Reece!
Interestingly, MBL have been the only ones not saying a thing about their exposure to the liquidity crisis - any rally IMO is a selling op, I would have thought there is more bad news to come from the "house that debt built"!
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?