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

Robusta fundamental, leveraged investments

Jump to new
There was no need for this thread to turn into a TA vs. FA scrap.

I have tried to clean it up a little by removing some off topic posts, and ones containing personal attacks, so let's please try and keep this thread both civil and on topic from this point forward.

It's far better to have a constructive discussion, even one that's a bit heated at times, than one riddled with insults and off topic posts. Any further off topic posts or ones containing insults or personal attacks will be removed.

Please use your ignore lists if you feel the need. I sincerely hope that nobody leaves the forum over a relatively minor incident such as this.
 

I and im sure many others have learnt alot from your postings tech/a and i appreciate your input. But your either just 'not getting it' when it comes to value analysis or your playing dumb to stir the pot. I think myself and some other posters have gotten the feeling that your deliberately misinterpreting things to troll people. Your posting above simply serves to highlight this.

But again without substantial change in the underlying market Fundamentls---it's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

We understand your point ... most gains in stocks are made in times of bull markets and the majority of stocks will only move in that direction as a whole during that time of optimism ... thats great ... but it misses the point that as a true value investor ... what the hell does underlying market fundamentals mean ? It means nothing... because we dont invest in the market. We invest in a business, which after doing some form of financial analysis, we have deemed to be being traded at a price that represents a discount to the value of the business on an ongoing basis. So you can understand that although there are times even during a bull market where you can find business to buy at a decent price, the majority of business could/will be overpriced during a bull market. Like you stated 80% of which will run off with the bull.

Does it not stand to your reasoning that as a result of 'generally' not being able to purchase business during a bull phase that the majority of a value investors purchases would indeed be considered during a sideways or bear market?

Indeed, the aim of value investing is not to snatch at any falling knife ... the key to the discipline is simply distinguishing those that you'd be happy to snatch at and those your happy to watch fall without catching. That's where the true power of value investing can be realised and significant outperformance made. Its essentially being able to distinguish the purchase of only business that have a superior business moat and or competitive advantage.

Over the long term. Significant Change in underlying Fundamentals and you'll get a reversal to 80 % bullish from current bearish price action,including HHL.
So unless I've missed this significant shift--- my comments remain.
Click to expand...

What are the underlying market fundamentals tech ? What would you deem to be a 'significant shift' ... and do you suggest that we should be waiting for this to occur before making stock purchases, is that your point ?
 
What are the underlying market fundamentals tech ?
Click to expand...

In General terms and in no particular order.

Banks restricting capital to companies.
Slowing of the China and Indian bull.
Decreased confidence in government.
Investors shell shocked from Super losses.
European crisis still hanging about.
USA still printing money and not making a dent
in their ever growing debt.
Slowed growth everywhere.

***A significant shift would be sustained growth without the fear of
financial collapse within government and or banking sectors.

is that your point ?
Click to expand...

I cant see confidence in the markets returning for a very long time.
Super funds will continue to perform badly and investment will be
frustratingly un reliable as a source of capital growth or passive income- to those who have already retired.

The thought of retirement either self or government funded will fade as the years pass by.
The recognised retirement growth areas of Housing and Stock investment will stay stagnant
longer than many can wait---including the Govt who will need to fund those too old to work.

The only solution I can see s for people to "Learn to TRADE" and place themselves in a position of passive income.
Time-frames of over a week or so will be disappointing.
Conventional Fundamental type investing just wont give the return needed.
Particularly as most have no risk or portfolio management criteria in place.
Again MOST have no idea if what they are doing will in the long term return a passive income or ANY income.
For most INVESTING OR TRADING IN TIMES LIKE THESE. There is loss,pain and anxiety.

F/A or T/A Based!


Without ****--The significant shift---Doing the same thing day in and day out and EXPECTING a different result---isn't going to do it.

And that's what I see in thread after thread on these boards.
Disappointment after disappointment.
What worked years ago isnt working now and wont until **** then EVERYTHING WORKS!
 
tech/a said:
What worked years ago isnt working now and wont until **** then EVERYTHING WORKS!
Click to expand...

It's still working, even robusta would be ahead if it wasn't for his leverage.

There are plenty of people on here using fundamentals and making money, myself included (25% ytd, on a decent amount of capital, without going into detail it's seven figures). In my experience, it's become easier to find value and make money post GFC than in the years 2003-2007, when the king tide lifted everything, regardless of how rubbish it was.

You seem to attribute poor analysis as being the result of FA being flawed, which is wrong.
 
How do you get that---

You seem to attribute poor analysis as being the result of FA being flawed, which is wrong.
Click to expand...

From That----
 
tech/a said:
How do you get that---



From That----
Click to expand...

I don't...I get it from this comments like this...


Made in complete ignorance of FA generally and VI specifically.
 

It is even working for me, despite the leverage and some massive stuff ups.

This from page 31 of this thread.


I'm getting that felling of deja vu all over again with the TA vs FA thing. Both are profitable strategies given good execution.
 
I am a little reluctant to become involved in this discussion, as I hold Tech/A's views in high regard, yet I also hold Craft's views in a similar vein. Personally I mostly trade using TA but I also use and hold stocks for longer periods using FA. I believe, and results indicate there is merit in both.

The FA analysis I use is close to Piotroski's, you can read about it here...

http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/selectedpapers/sp84.pdf

Of relevance is the following from Forbes magazine...


Obviously to me is that there are many different types of "value analysis" that does not work, just like there are many types of "technical analysis" that do not work. The real danger is dismissing all of one type of analysis, just because you have not been able to make it work for you. That is where I find all these FA vs TA arguments come from.

Tech/A
"A significant shift would be sustained growth without the fear of
financial collapse within government and or banking sectors."
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if you have your tongue in cheek here, your experience would clearly indicate that when all the good news is out, with nothing but blue sky, is often the time to cash out rather than the time to invest.

Super funds will continue to perform badly
Click to expand...

Super funds continue to attract funds from the super guarantee currently 9% and slated to rise. They have to do something with the money and interest rates are declining here.


Completely agree; my observation is that most FA practitioners, and for that matter most TA as well, ride losers to oblivion using the single worst strategy around, averaging down.
 

Is this saying what I think it is?

The solution to retirees who don't have sufficient income is day trading? Speculating on stocks based on squiggly lines, whilst lining brokers pockets?

Surely not.
 
George, you have made 4 posts on this forum, yet you choose to attack a long established member with a proven record. Perhaps you could earn yourself some credibility before attacking anyone about anything.

How about detailing what you think you know about the market in terms of FA as that could be beneficial and relevant to this thread. Are squiggly lines different to numbers on paper? Tell us your wisdom. Show some evidence.
 

Bert Forget the Squiggly line bit but I think the question is quite relevant. He's simply asking a question on Techs seriousness with retirees solution to learn to trade in shares in order to get ahead.
I find that a rather bizzar statement.
It would be good for the market but seriously how many of those advised to trade shares with their retirement money will lose more than they gain? Unless you've had years of experience which most retirees dont have. Bad advise imo.
 
jancha,

Currently nearly all self funded retirees have money in the stockmarket, often with managers that charge a fee to invest in pretty much the indexes, with a prerformance that lags the indexes. Learning to take care of their own money is what I would recommend as nobody will care as much as themselves.

Are you advocating that retirees entrust their future to someone else who earns a fee irrespective of performance? If so I strongly disagree.
 

A fund that hugs the index minus fees, although not an ideal solution, is a much, much better solution then having gramps day trading to provide money to support himself.
 

Bert. Certainly not suggesting that.
There are different ways in which to invest your own money but to suggest to an inexperienced retiree that only way to add to your funds by learning to trade shares on daily basis is not good advice. What % do you think will be successful in making a profit day trading?
At least with sound dividend paying companies they can keep an eye on the market and pull out of it when needed and re enter when things are looking better. Easier than what Tech saying.
I dont think trading on a daily basis is that simple unless your experienced in knowing your trade and as with all other trades it takes years of learning.
I can see if retirees did what's suggested here who would profit from it.
 
jancha,

I did not mention day trading, neither did Tech/A, though he did mention time frames of more than a week could be disappointing, a premis I disagree with.
I mentioned learning to trade; everyone involved with the stockmarket trades, whether you use a fund or do it yourself. You still have to choose the fund manager and decide when to enter and exit, in other words trade it.

I did not mention day trading at all, and I know Tech/A has mentioned in the past how boring it is to sit in front of a screen all day, something I have experienced and entirely agree with. That does not sound like someone suggesting day trading.

If you disagree with the concept of retirees learning to trade, then what would you have them do with the funds, put it in a bank and earn small and shrinking interest?
 

At last, a sensible post - thanks brty.

Those who confuse daytrading with technical analysis and those who see the price of their "investments" as squiggly lines probably need to stop posting and start learning before you become the next generation of Gramps that are dependant on in date daily meds and out of date twice yearly company twaddle.

Those squiggly lines (that confuse those who are dependant on others for belated theoretical opinions) represent the actual value of the items you invest in regardless of what you have been told it should be worth, and if it is not going in the right direction then you are not making money, your friendly and trusted fund manager is still doing ok though.

The squiggly lines below represent the actual weekly values of a company where in August the CEO sold $10.8mill worth of shares for a $5mill profit and his new annual remuneration package is now up to $19mill, a Value Investor perhaps, yeah right.
Some of you guys wouldn't sell though, its got VI all over it
 

Attachments

  • ANZsquiggly.png
    22.8 KB · Views: 9
Joe Blow said:
There was no need for this thread to turn into a TA vs. FA scrap.
Click to expand...

But there is a reason why they always do!




There was no childish personal attack - I called somebody a troll because that is how they are acting and I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks that.

Obviously you don't see things the same way.

Joe Blow said:
I sincerely hope that nobody leaves the forum over a relatively minor incident such as this.
Click to expand...

The straw that broke the camel’s back. Perhaps something to consider when you think about the fading vibrancy of ASF in comparison to other forums.

Please close my account
 

You seem to be confused about price and value.
 

Boogo you are so condescending it aint funny. What gives you the right to tell members of the forum when they should post and when they shouldn't. The information you deliver is useful but your back handed comments are not. This is part of the reason why it becomes a slinging match!

I can understand why craft is leaving the forum.

Berty I'm not saying retirees shouldn't learn to trade. I disagree in what Tech is advising in the way retirees should trade. There are safer easier methods imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

My Passive Portfolio - Best options?
Replies
15
Views
4K
divs4ever
S
Advice - next stage in our investment plan
Replies
17
Views
2K
PZ99
S
'Quality' ASX Stocks
Replies
16
Views
3K
RIP1
R
A
Approx $300K to invest
2
Replies
26
Views
9K
APINDEX
A
D
USA CGT on SMSF investment in shares/ETFs
Replies
0
Views
4K
doona
D
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...