Hi McL
I’ve had a chance to look at both now and my conclusion was that the differences in accuracy are marginal.
As far as verifying the data CIQ has a very useful feature in being able to drill to the source document when something looks abnormal.
Either database is adequate for prelim analysis but neither is perfect. – best to check your own chute before jumping.
As for the free data which seems to be generally sourced from Morningstar – I wonder how much is lost in the transfer process. Like when earnings are quoted is it as reported, adjusted for abnormal, normalized, weighted, diluted etc – all are available on the main Morningstar database and it would depend on which line is linked too. Perhaps the errors occur with the links.
Have you got any examples of errors on a free site – It would be interesting to compare it to Finanlysis.
The consensus estimates on Comsec seem to be very limited in the numbers of analyst contributing compared to the paid versions and very slow in updating.
If you open up the comparison between CIQ and Morningstar to include interface, Screening, exporting data etc then CIQ wins hands down (CIQ is quite awsome actually) but the core databases are very similar IMO.
Cheers
The history is all there in CAM for you to investigate yourself.
What about you?
Despite all the value investing rhetoric.
Value investing: Let's say, hypothetically, you want to invest in steel manufacturers. You find someone who has been in management for 20 years in the steel industry and you find out which companies are performing well and likely to perform well into the future. You ask him/her which steel producers are competitive and well managed. While you are at, you get them to teach you how the steel industry works. You buy this stock, and speculate that it will increase into the future, or until the circumstances change.
Rinse and repeat for all the other industries listed on the exchange.
I don't see any other way how you can truly "Understand the business". Regardless of how many financial statements you read about a company.
You've described fundamental investing, not value investing specifically.
The key to value investing above all else is the margin of safety.
Do you think Skaffold better assists in working out the margin of safety?
Trooper...post in real time or it didn't happen.
Your last post in the JBH thread was 15th-July-2011 before the big dip....if your gona spruk something, credibility is an issue...interesting that you posted in the JBH thread that you were buying at around the $15 level, well before Skaffold.
If however you use Skaffold to obtain fundamental data (and I have no idea how good/bad the data is) then I guess it could help you to understand and determine margin of safety.
The following is an example of some of the data for cash converters. The summary is:
For each company there is an evaluation function where you can select the history of data from the following drop down menu;
I assume this is your response below?
No, the MQR has nothing to do with capital gain or SP performance. It's about measuring/predicting/guessing the likelihood of a "capital event"; ie a need to raise money.
Here's what Monty said about MCE as its SP was hitting $9...
{bolding mine}
http://blog.rogermontgomery.com/when-to-sell-matrix-and-other-adventures-in-value-able-investing/
Hardly sounds like a guy who thought MCE was well over its IV...I assume his black box would have said it wasn't overpriced as well.
You've described fundamental investing, not value investing specifically.
Certain types of businesses are easier to understand than others. Find a circle of competence and stick with it. As I've mentioned before I try and find businesses with high recurring revenues because it makes estimating earnings easier and gives those estimates a margin of safety.
The key to value investing above all else is the margin of safety.
He rated MCE as an "A1" and WOW as a "B2". It had nothing to do with IV. The question is, if you understand the methodology he uses to arrive at his MQR how can a large consumer staple retailer operating in what is effectively a duopoly be considered inferior to a mining services contractor?
.
Looks the same as what Netwealth (and other brokers i'm assuming) provides for free just in a bit better format....
It depends how you approach it. Skaffold markets itself as a "valuation service" (I believe Monty has used this term when hyping it on his blog). As a "valuation service" it doesn't work because, as has been discussed ad nauseum on the RM thread the formula has some serious flaws.
If however you use Skaffold to obtain fundamental data (and I have no idea how good/bad the data is) then I guess it could help you to understand and determine margin of safety.
I wouldn't trust the MQRs or the valuation formula to make an investment decision though.
Mclovin or mcpox easy to sit afar and throw monkey poo,,, lots of people follow brokers consensus, lincoln valuations & now montgomery valuations.
Each to their own, (i follow none) everyone is not an expert (funny the experts just lose other peoples money whilst getting extremely overpaid), if huntleys montgomery & stockdoctor provide a education for some people and its a tax deductible expense who cares
Mclovin where do you find your picks without these programs.?????
Surely you mean to say that Roger Montgomery paraphrased this from the musings of those generations before him? It's certainly not an original or unique idea that he came up with...Mclovin you put the pox on the thread than come back with a roger quote "The key to value investing above all else is the margin of safety"
Thanks
Looks the same as what Netwealth (and other brokers i'm assuming) provides for free just in a bit better format....
Yes, it confirmed what I thought it was. The same data just with lipstick on it. You really are paying for the MQR and valuation service.
When you say "other analysis", what do you mean, quadfin?
Tough day to the guy who bought JB Hifi on Roger's program's recommendation, by the way. A small profit to a bigger loss will be a hard pill to swallow, I imagine. But the signs were all there (not that the program can tell you this information).
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?