PTM - Platinum Asset Management

[jkool]

I was crazy about this float at $5 and the criticisms posted in that post are laughable..

Laughable? Can you pls elaborate?

Is it because the price jumped up so much on the first day? Good for all the trading folks out there who got in early but that is not the game my post is referring to.

Thanks
jkool

 

[jkool]

Another set of numbers to consider:

PTM's last year's EPS (the only known hence imho lack of historical data): $0.33
Floated at: $5.00
Hence your yrly theoretical return is: $0.33 / $5.00 = 6.6%pa (before tax; obviously the smart investment banking folks priced the float in line with returns on any other cash term deposit)

First day close situation? $ 0.33 / $8.80 = 3.75%pa (in other words P/E around 26.7)

Mind you, for what I know the 2006 result was PTM's best ever right? But say that Kerr Neilson keeps his magical touch and manages the extraordinary: DOUBLE the earnings next year.
So EPS would become $ 0.66 against the price (lets be nice to him and say the initial excitement wears off) of $7.5 a share. Hence an average punter is looking at a pretax profit of 8.8%pa.
Even if the price fell back to the float value of $5 your pretax gains would be 13.2%pa (not even deducting the fees the fund is going to charge you). Or am I missing something? Where is the 17.3% I was promised and would love to get?

But than you may decide that the price is just going to go up and up because...I dunno....people just love the guy.
Well in that case all bets are off and whoever holds the shares latest loses his shirt.

I am definately not going to win any kind of popularity contest here thats for sure

Good luck
jkool

 

[stoxclimber]

Is it because the price jumped up so much on the first day? Good for all the trading folks out there who got in early but that is not the game my post is referring to.

No, I've publicly posted before about how its a great buy [at $5].

Let's analyse the criticisms one by one:

The fund was only started in 1995 and where had the market had any down year ever since 1995?

Firstly, there have been down years, 2002 as the author notably points out. #2, Platnium's International Fund is INTERNATIONAL..looking at the performance of the All Ords is ridiculous, there's a relevant benchmark provided there and PTM is well exceeding it.

12 years of historical performance not good enough
I may appear to be too prudent about this, however I don’t really consider its promoted stellar performance of only 12 past years sufficient enough to put my money in it for the long haul.

So how many years is appropriate? Would 15 do it? 20? 30? It's ridiculous to speak of a certain number.

Listing on historical highs
As any of you would probably know, in the last few weeks the ASX has been breaking its historical records on almost daily basis. Just how long this run can continue and, more importantly, how can any manager keep on generating similarly stellar from such a high cost basis are the questions an intelligent investor surely needs to ask himself.

a) not a relevant criticism of PTM's OPERATIONAL BUSINESS
b) PTM is long/short
c) PTM isn't ASX only

Total misunderstanding of PTM's business.

Buying IPO = higher risk

No evidence. Silly blank statement to make.

Fees fees fees

PTM remains 75% owned by staff. Those staff are also paid as a result of the fees they geneerate from performance. I don't see how anyone could think that after PTM unlock 25% of the equity of the business, they will raise fees to such a high rate that it will cause everyone to withdraw their money, resulting in a) there not being any fees to pay wages with b) making their 75% equity interest worthlesss.

With all due respect to the author, the author has not understood the PTM business in the slightest, and also has greatly misunderstood the structure of the new listed company.

The reasons why PTM is a great buy are:

a) exposure to the superannuation industry, obviously one of strong and reliable growth
b) exposure to general global equity markets, which have over 200 years exhibited strong growth
c) barriers to entry due to PTM's very strong brand image [highly respected at the major superannuation houses e.g. perpetual]

Does this mean its worth $9? Up to you. But at $5 (which is only a small premium on a PERPETUAL DIVIDEND DISCOUNT MODEL at 12% WACC, also consider imputation credits) it was a no brainer.

I didn't think an asset management company would open at a 70% premium though..I was hoping to pick up at 6-6.50 as I missed out on the IPO.

 

[jkool]

Finally some arguments, thank you.

So:

Firstly, there have been down years, 2002 as the author notably points out. #2, Platnium's International Fund is INTERNATIONAL..looking at the performance of the All Ords is ridiculous, there's a relevant benchmark provided there and PTM is well exceeding it.

One single down year! Yes ok the fund is international and the article should perhaps show MCSI World Net Index however the number I see thrown around is "its benchmark's performance was about 8% average". Not apples and apples but really not that far from All Ords after all.

So how many years is appropriate? Would 15 do it? 20? 30? It's ridiculous to speak of a certain number.

10 years would be ok if it was complete. I dont think that a series of % returns alone is sufficient enough.
What about a complete 10 years summary of income statements as provided by number of listed companies in their annual reports?

a) not a relevant criticism of PTM's OPERATIONAL BUSINESS
b) PTM is long/short
c) PTM isn't ASX only
Total misunderstanding of PTM's business.

I get it. They do short selling and they do overseas markets. They should make some profits regardless of which way the market is headed.
Yet they are listing at a time when everyone is so hyped up about the record breaking market levels. Well ok, a smart business decision of course, now they will get the best price for their shares, but it is not a shopping time for me. I realize though that we are all different.

No evidence. Silly blank statement to make.

Well at least to me, an IPO without sufficient credible records I can look at (the records may be out there maybe I just did not look hard enough, I certainly dont see them in the PDS though as per your second qoute), is investing blind folded.

PTM remains 75% owned by staff. Those staff are also paid as a result of the fees they geneerate from performance. I don't see how anyone could think that after PTM unlock 25% of the equity of the business, they will raise fees to such a high rate that it will cause everyone to withdraw their money, resulting in a) there not being any fees to pay wages with b) making their 75% equity interest worthlesss.

Sure they need to pay their staff. But how many fees is enough? Why not instead of preset values a share in profits once they exceed their benchmark? IMHO the tricky forest of fees reminds me a mobile phone contract and hence does not really help to build much confidence. That goes for PTM as well as for any other fund.

Does this mean its worth $9? Up to you. But at $5 (which is only a small premium on a PERPETUAL DIVIDEND DISCOUNT MODEL at 12% WACC, also consider imputation credits) it was a no brainer.

No brainer for the short term? Sure I acknowledged that in the last paragraph. But whatabout long term? But I guess not many people is interested in distant future now is it?

I didn't think an asset management company would open at a 70% premium though..I was hoping to pick up at 6-6.50 as I missed out on the IPO.

And thats confusing me most. The normally conservative folks over at Intelligent Investor valued this off the bat as buy upto $7.50 ie from what I see thats around 22 times earnings. How did they come to that figure? By comparing to Perpetual or other funds as you do? They dont really say much on that.

Just one last note: I am not saying that I am right, I am simply trying to understand.

Cheers
jkool

 

[stoxclimber]

jkool
quick post as im about to hit the sack

Next year forecast dividiend of 32.5c (per share).
Note this is 46.43c if one includes franking credits.

PTM's income is derived from fees, which is a function of FUM...FUM has two main growth components:
i) growth in superannuation funds
ii) growth in equity markets

Superannuation is clearly a growth area, risks to growth here are that PTM could lose its favour from the super houses, competition is not that big a worry to long term growth IF PTM maintains its prestigious brand image.., given the super fund of funds providers are in love with PTM, it seems unlikely although sustained poor performance (probably 4-5years) would change that

Equity markets clearly grow long term, FUM grows in line with them..

So if we just use a very simple Gordon's growth DDM, what sort of WACC is appropriate? Having an rf of ~5.5% and a market risk premium of 6%, beta should be slightly higher than market considering the operating leverage, say 1.2 as a rough estimate, gives a discount rate of 12.7%

Appropriate long term growth rate? Needs a probability weighting of poor performance, but I can't see anything under 4% being justifiable if we look at long term inflation at ~2.5%.

So if we ignore the forecast strong growht in PTM over the immediate business cycle, and just look at a Gordon's growth DDM, say a growth rate of 5%, gives a value of $6.02.

So the issue was clearly underpriced at $5, hence why I was so enamoured with it and consider the proposition that there was no value in the float at $5 ridiculous.

 

[lamadas]

The bastards didn't send me or my parents the prospectus as promissed. When I heard the days gains I think I could honstly have walked in the front door and throttled someone.

F**CK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yeah I know I had several conversations with them about my mum not receiving a prospectus (as she holds units in Plat int'l) and they even prosmised to send her an express mail one which didn't arrive and so in the end I had to find a generic application form and enter her personal code on it and personally hand deliver it on the final day.....as it turned out though she only received 10% of what she applied for ...... sorry to hear about your experience as well.......but it appears most punters would not have received more than $10000 worth anyway... better than nothing but still a long way off expectations.

 

[jkool]

Firstly, there have been down years, 2002 as the author notably points out. #2, Platnium's International Fund is INTERNATIONAL..looking at the performance of the All Ords is ridiculous, there's a relevant benchmark provided there and PTM is well exceeding it.

More to the benchmarks to one's investment (this is just a cut&paste from my post on another good aussie investing forum; yes I have been copping some flak left and right since posting the article )
Yup they do invest mainly overseas but let me ask few things:
- are they australian fund?
- are they listing on the ASX?
- isn't it upto the investor himself to decide benchmarks for his/her portfolio not leave upto anyone else to dictate?
- whatabout for the years to come? how do you compare PTM share's performance in relation to other ASX floated companies you would otherwise consider putting your money in?

In other words, and with all due respect, as far as I am concerned PTM can measure their performance in comparison to yearly rainfalls in Sahara desert, but an individual aussie investor whos only investing backyard is the local market may perhaps consider ASX index as a more apropriate benchmark for his/her portfolio?

Thanks

jkool

 

[greenfs]

Twice I bought and sold this share today,not often have I done this on a first day listing. But for all the euphoria in the price, personally I would not be suprised to see this share slide/retract over the next few days or even next week. I hope so, the Insto's might then delve into this carcass. I expect I will try and snatch another parcel, for long term holding. To those still holding it must give you a warm feeling........ 5%+ annual return hmmmmmmmmmm?????

My advisor says anything north of $6.50 is over the top. By the way, the painter has finished today an your brickwork now looks lovely.

 

[stoxclimber]

Yup they do invest mainly overseas but let me ask few things:
- are they australian fund?

That's arguable, does it matter where the fund is INCORPORATED or where it INVESTS? Where you file the papers and have your office located when you invest globally just doesn't matter.

It's like saying a Japanese fund which invests exclusively in the All Ords, but is based in Japan, is doing a good job if it manages to beat the Nikkei (notwithstanding a major underperformance of the All Ords). Come on.

- isn't it upto the investor himself to decide benchmarks for his/her portfolio not leave upto anyone else to dictate?

Yes and no. Only certain benchmarks make rational sense - would it make sense to compare PTM's return to the return on government bonds? Would it make sense to compare NAB to the return on a resources portfolio? Comparisons should be on a comparable risk basis.

- whatabout for the years to come? how do you compare PTM share's performance in relation to other ASX floated companies you would otherwise consider putting your money in?

With respect, you do not seem to know many fundamental concepts of finance. Relevant in this case is that higher risk = higher return, and your expected return on an investment should be as a function of its risk [hence why comparisons should be made on a comparable risk basis].

If the All Ords was made up of companies like that which PTM invests in, and was a long/short index, then it would be appropriate to consider it as a benchmark. But is this the case?

Do you expect funds which invest in Australian Small Ords to compare to the ASX50? Do you expect investments in the Resources sector to compare to the Healthcare sector?

It has to be comparable. Your fixation on physical location does not relate to comparability. I cannot put it any stronger.

 

[Buffettology]

A friend of mines brother works for Maquarie Bank, he doesnt beleive the stock is worth $6.

I personally, think fair value is around $6-7, maybe higher in the current market of overvaluation.

So I think this will consolidate somewhere between $8-9 for a while.

I wouldnt buy personally at current levels.

Better returns out there.

SDG at 3.40 today, target of 3.55-3.60.

 

[jkool]

That's arguable, does it matter where the fund is INCORPORATED or where it INVESTS? Where you file the papers and have your office located when you invest globally just doesn't matter.

It's like saying a Japanese fund which invests exclusively in the All Ords, but is based in Japan, is doing a good job if it manages to beat the Nikkei (notwithstanding a major underperformance of the All Ords). Come on.

Yes and no. Only certain benchmarks make rational sense - would it make sense to compare PTM's return to the return on government bonds? Would it make sense to compare NAB to the return on a resources portfolio? Comparisons should be on a comparable risk basis.

All right lets look at it this way - Sure for PTM's comparison to similar international funds it will be best to use some kind of word index.
HOWEVER
In second stage (once I chose the best performing fund) and from the point of an investor I want to compare investing in best fund with opportunities available elsewhere within my investing playground (for me ie. Australia).

Ultimatelly there is number of investing oportunities available around which all compete for your investing money amongst themselves. YOU as an investor decide (regardless if an opportunity is stock, shares, bonds, whatever) which one is best for you based on a net after tax % retun or not?

Isn't the ultimate goal of investing "to finish with more dough than you had at the start"? So be that fund or stock or whatever ultimately they are all equal and I as an investor compare them based on just that - how much do they potentially bring into my pocket.

Now if you agree with me so far the rest should be a breeze

If I as an investor only invest in Australia (for any reason; ie. not confident go overseas, not enough money to venture there or just being patriotic...whatever) which I think is the case of majority individual Aussie investors, than I compare all my returns (from ANY of my australian investments) to yearly returns from ASX/All Ords indexes.

Sure the situation would be different if I was investing some money in UK, something in US, Japan and China say. Than perhaps I would compare my returns with some World Index also.

With respect, you do not seem to know many fundamental concepts of finance. Relevant in this case is that higher risk = higher return, and your expected return on an investment should be as a function of its risk [hence why comparisons should be made on a comparable risk basis].

Fundamental concepts such as? Risk / return relationship? Well I heard it once or twice before

And you say
"expected return on an investment should be as a function of its risk" ?

I much more prefer to believe the mantra which says that sucessful investing does not require anything more than basic algebra.

If the All Ords was made up of companies like that which PTM invests in, and was a long/short index, then it would be appropriate to consider it as a benchmark. But is this the case?

Do you expect funds which invest in Australian Small Ords to compare to the ASX50? Do you expect investments in the Resources sector to compare to the Healthcare sector?

It has to be comparable. Your fixation on physical location does not relate to comparability. I cannot put it any stronger.

As per above. To me all the investment oportunities are equal as they all compete for my funds, hence I use my own yardstick I deem most appropriate.

To your physical location remark - hypoteticaly: say that after listing on ASX the PTM share will grow in value around 10% in the next year but All Ords actually achieve 16%. Are you going to be satisfied with your PTM shares performance if their MSCI World index finishes the year only 5% up (ie. Australia outperforms the World)?

Let me know what you think.

Thanks
jkool

 

[TheRage]

Jkool and Stoxclimber it is good to finally see some strong fundamental arguments about a stock and not crap illiogical rampings. Personally I have not researched this stock so I do not have an opion or valuation but I enjoyed reading both of your cases. Keep it up and lets have some more discussions like this on other stocks.

 

[Buffettology]

Jkool is an investor, in "given" stocks. Guys like him, make decent money off little risk. Taken from the master of investments. I think what he is saying is very logical and obvious, but its very different to a trader, who beleives in risk V reward and the fact that both are somehow directly correlated. When obviously, there is very low risk, with very good rewards of 15-20% compunded annually over the long-term out there.

From pure excitement, it was obvious this stock was going to skyrocket, but I personally have told other analysts from my work I would sell, as I dont see it going too much higher than $9. But hey, thats just me. One analyst I know beleives it will break $10 in the near future. Its all a matter of opinion, but I definately see where Jkool is coming from.

 

[Judd]

PTM is not a managed fund! The discussion appears to assume that it is. PTM is the management arm of the funds that it manages, ie the blokes that clip 1.2% of the funds under its management whether they go up or whther they go down. How TF do you think Kier Nielson and others got so bloody wealthy?


PTM similar in some ways to TRG.

 

[stoxclimber]

Judd, I think myself and jkool are essntially treating an investment in PTM as a proxy investment in their fund, as the earnings is strongly linked to fund performance.

jkool:

[Your line of argument does implicitly assume that the Australian market has a higher level of expected return than equity markets globally; very debatable.., but I will proceed with that assumption]

In second stage (once I chose the best performing fund) and from the point of an investor I want to compare investing in best fund with opportunities available elsewhere within my investing playground (for me ie. Australia).

Not exactly. You're missing a key step:
1. Decide what you want to have exposure to (global equities, ASX, resources, etc.) <-
2. Find the best possible investment that gives exposure to that risk factor.

If you want to invest in the All Ords, and return All Ords index returns, then you wouldn't look at a global equity fund.

Isn't the ultimate goal of investing "to finish with more dough than you had at the start"? So be that fund or stock or whatever ultimately they are all equal and I as an investor compare them based on just that - how much do they potentially bring into my pocket.

The key factor you are missing here is risk. If you follow your line of reasoning, no-one should invest in bonds, no-one should leave their cash in the bank earning interest, as those investment options are expected to leave you with less $ vis-a-vis a equity investment. This is what I mean by the risk-return trade-off..the more risk you are taking, the higher the return. So its apples and oranges to compare PTM [who probably have a pretty well diversified portfolio, although I don't know for sure obviously..] to a commodity heavy index like the All Ords, unless they have the same level of risk! And I very much doubt a long/short fund will have the same level of risk as a pure index..


Re: your example, yes, I would be. Let me rephrase your example with the rism element included that I'm talking about above:

Would you be happy investing in the All Ords index earning expected 16%p.a bearing a 25%p.a. standard deviation (for arguments sake) if over that time Paladin expected 25% but had a 70%p.a. standard deviation?

Isn't it apples and oranges to compare?

 

[jkool]

Your line of argument does implicitly assume that the Australian market has a higher level of expected return than equity markets globally; very debatable.., but I will proceed with that assumption

No I am not assuming that Aus market has higher return potential. I am assuming that for an average aussie investor the local Australian investments are (more or less) where most of his/her investment funds are tied up. So I dont see why should they use any other benchmark than some reasonable local sharemarket index on the lines of All Ords, ASX 200 etc.

More to the point if I put 10% of my money into PTM and leave 90% in Australian portfolio of stock and property (for argument's sake) how do I know if I had invested well? When 100% of my money outperforms my chosen aus stock based benchmark. Why would I measure 90% of my money with one yardstick and 10% with another?

Not exactly. You're missing a key step:
1. Decide what you want to have exposure to (global equities, ASX, resources, etc.) <-
2. Find the best possible investment that gives exposure to that risk factor.

1. Well I think that mine same as everyone's decision is fairly simple - Put the money into an investment vehicle, which one believes will guarantees him (based on some analysis) the highest cumulative return on his investment and safety of the invested principle.

2. Of course some investment are riskier than others. For example for my long term portfolio I assumed PTM even at $5 too risky (mainly due to the lack of sufficient data proving its past performance). I repeat: for my long term portfolio. I don't daytrade.

But the way I go about assessing risk appears to be completely different to the way you do it.

And to your point that

If you want to invest in the All Ords, and return All Ords index returns, then you wouldn't look at a global equity fund.

I must just say that to me investing that way is just somehow upside down process.

First I look for the investment opportunity (and as you can see above I am very liberal on those) regardless of its field or speciality. Why would I limit myself to only some section/industry? But once I am reasonably happy with it THAN i want to see how does it perform over time in realation to other opportunities I could have taken. And that is when my benchmark comes in.

I will look at a global equity fund (or anything else) and run it through my (perhaps rather prudent) "analysis" as it comes into my attention. Once analysed I decide if that is the right opportunity for me. Not the other way around as you appear to be suggesting.

The key factor you are missing here is risk. If you follow your line of reasoning, no-one should invest in bonds, no-one should leave their cash in the bank earning interest, as those investment options are expected to leave you with less $ vis-a-vis a equity investment. This is what I mean by the risk-return trade-off..the more risk you are taking, the higher the return. So its apples and oranges to compare PTM [who probably have a pretty well diversified portfolio, although I don't know for sure obviously..] to a commodity heavy index like the All Ords

Bonds/Cash: Long term yes, short term no way. As you know in the long term stock outperformes bonds and cash hands down. However in the short run bonds and stock can be more rewarding.

Eg. If one reasonably believes that the ASX markets at 6,300 (or thereabouts) can within a year go upto say 6,700 (I am not sayin it is or it is not ) than thats more than 6%ish percent a bank is offering you and you money is best kept in the stock. However if one conludes that such level is unreasonable than put it in the savings account. See? Simple algebra

Risk: You probably measure it by some beta or other deviation I dont believe in but that is just me. If it works for you, you better stick to it.
I measure the risk by the records of past performance, earning, growth, debt levels and the like you probably dont believe in. If I dont have such data (aka PTM case) I have nothing to go from so I give it a miss. If I am not reasonably sure about putting my money somewhere, I am not afraid to pass (ie. PTM case).

Another clue that our approach to risk is fundamentaly different I can see from your

compare PTM [who probably have a pretty well diversified portfolio, although I don't know for sure obviously..]

statement. I dont think I could seriously invest into a company about which I dont have such a basic info.

I hope you understand by now that I am not trying to dispute investin in PTM as oposed to investing in All Ords index. I am suggesting to use the All Ords results a measurement or tool to help me see more clearly if the PTM performs good or bad. Hence I think the risk and deviation of All Ords is irrelevant.

Re: your example, yes, I would be. Let me rephrase your example with the rism element included that I'm talking about above:

Would you be happy investing in the All Ords index earning expected 16%p.a bearing a 25%p.a. standard deviation (for arguments sake) if over that time Paladin expected 25% but had a 70%p.a. standard deviation?

Isn't it apples and oranges to compare?

Again to me the risk or deviation (once I have analysed it "my way" and once I am happy with the result) during the term of the investment is irrelevant. So disregarding that (and given that your suggested Paladin with made it through my analysis toolbox sucessfuly) I would be seeing apples and apples and of course rushing in to get as much of Paladin as possible and

I think we will get bit closer to our fundamental dispute if I say, and it may come as a little shock to you, that to me the share price deviation during the year is not representing the risk of my investment. If I can (as an outcome of my analysis) reasonably believe that my investment will produce 25% within the year (to stick with your numbers) than they can close the ASX down for a year. Once I purchased on the level guaranteeing 25% I am not interested in the price anymore. Why would I? I know there will be 25% on the end so anything between is irrelevant.

As I see it you stoxclimber are technical analyst whereas I go by fundamentals. Our argument have been going on betw. these investor categories since ever. We may consider to make ourselves a favor and just move on. I just hope that by now you can see my arguments as pointed out in the article may not be all that laughable after all

Cheers

jkool

 

[stoxclimber]

I agree that we are not making much headway so its probably time to go back to making money, but I do want to address a few main points for anyone who may be reading along [this will be my last post, most likely]

For anyone reading, I again emphasise that the true basis on which the comparison on investment performance is made is between investments of equal risk; one doesn't compare a market neutral hedge fund with a levered investment in the All Ords, for example.

Eg. If one reasonably believes that the ASX markets at 6,300 (or thereabouts) can within a year go upto say 6,700 (I am not sayin it is or it is not ) than thats more than 6%ish percent a bank is offering you and you money is best kept in the stock. However if one conludes that such level is unreasonable than put it in the savings account. See? Simple algebra

You simply MUST measure risk as a function of standard deviation (and perhaps with 3rd and 4th moments as appropriate), it is NOT just simple algebra. Even when you conclude the fair value of the ASX index in one year is 6,700 (cf 6300 today), you surely must recognise there is a probability distribution around that number for the infinite number of random factors that influence the stock price. You CANNOT simply say that your investment has no risk because it is worth 25% more than what you are paying, etc. The amount of volatility affects your confidence in the spread around the value.

I measure the risk by the records of past performance, earning, growth, debt levels and the like you probably dont believe in.

The obvious problem with past performance is the past. You don't need 10 years of past financial statements to invest in a company; it likely includes inaccurate information not reflective of the business now. I do not meticulously sit down and compute standard deviations and betas on an investmest, but when I'm reading through company annoucements I do have a rough guideline in my head about how risky the company is; in particular, what each division is and what the main risk factors are there; and I look to see if the market is overpricing the risk (for a large company, for smaller companies i just don't believe in rational pricing).



And lastly, I can HARDLY say that I am technical...

 

[3 veiws of a secret]

My advisor says anything north of $6.50 is over the top. By the way, the painter has finished today an your brickwork now looks lovely.

Well it looks like the PTM epiphany is ringing true ,I hope the slide continues reeling at $8 and below......When not a holder of a stock I need the share to drop,but when holding the stock I need the urge for it to rise. No theories from me -just hunting
"Greenfs what brick in particular are you refering too" :bricks1:

 

[jkool]

stoxclimber:
I enjoyed our conversation and I hope we entertained few people around here but lets just move on than.

After all I recognize that there is many different ways to investing success and anyone who finds one suitable and profitable enough should stick to it.

Since the article was written by myself, on my blog and reflecting my investing approach, it is obviously biased accordingly

Good luck

jkool

 

[investforwealth]

Seems as though there's a fair bit of support for PTM around the $8.00 mark. I had expected to see it slide back towards $7.00, perhaps $7.50 tops, and would still be happy with the performance of my $5 investment at those levels.

With Kerr Nielsen himself offloading $25M worth of his stock in the first week, it is perhaps an indication that he believes those highs the stock reached then won't be breached again in the near future. It wasn't like he needed the cash, but then again the gallery he and Judith are putting together is probably costing them a pretty penny.

egoli recently published a "Fact Sheet" on Platinum that I thought may be of interest... http://www.egoli.com.au/egoli/egoliStoryPage.asp?PageID={293F8CF8-5AD8-4565-B20E-1F98E6EE3AA5}&Section=StockIdeas