TGA - Thorn Group
- Thread starter McCoy Pauley
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tga thorn group
I don't think your chart is factual at all. You have picked a subjective time-frame to suit your case and based your analysis on this.
On a 5-year daily chart the share price has retraced from peak high of the post-GFC trend to the 38.2% fib level. Arguably if it finds support here we could, according to your precious elliot wave methodology (cannot remember any rich chartists who have compounded this over 20% pa for 40 years by the way) see the start of an impulsive third wave on the long term trend.
There seems to be a trend in this thread to rubbish any attempt at Technical analysis of TGA.
As far as I can tell, the Fundamental analysis says that TGA is a sound, profitable company. All that Boggo is saying is that he wouldn't buy it at the present time.
It took me over 40 years of investing to learn to overlay my Buy and Sell decisions with an eye for the TA picture. In this case, I'd agree with Boggo and wait before adding to my modest holding.
As far as I can tell, the Fundamental analysis says that TGA is a sound, profitable company. All that Boggo is saying is that he wouldn't buy it at the present time.
It took me over 40 years of investing to learn to overlay my Buy and Sell decisions with an eye for the TA picture. In this case, I'd agree with Boggo and wait before adding to my modest holding.
- Joined
- 27 December 2010
- Posts
- 1,729
- Reactions
- 48
There's nothing wrong with giving a technical opinion, I think the backlash was based on the way he went about it....
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Why do you feel it necessary to be personally insulting to someone who is simply explaining his different approach?
+1. Exactly.
If you're looking for a reason to take offence you will find it.
I could see nothing wrong with Boggo's comment.
Why on earth does there have to be this constant personal attack when someone disagrees with what you believe is the best approach?
Is it really so incomprehensible that a different approach could be as good or maybe even better than what you have fixated on?
- Joined
- 27 December 2010
- Posts
- 1,729
- Reactions
- 48
Does this post not fit what you have just described?
"Amid all this sometimes eloquent 'I need to justify the pyschology of why I am still holding/averaging down' banter with meaningless numbers thrown in to back up my amateur buffetology opinion comes a time for the reality check"
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
I wasn't having a go at you, Value Snatcher.
I'm just sick of all the personal snide attacks against one another right across this forum.
Probably just me being idealistic, I suppose.
I'm just sick of all the personal snide attacks against one another right across this forum.
Probably just me being idealistic, I suppose.
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
Not at all. It's the remarks about FA that come with each chart that cause the problem.
Julia, see post 281.
In any event, the issue here is saying something meaningful about this particular stock. Saying that more people are selling than buying and, ergo, that that's why the share price is going down is not meaningful. It's stating the obvious. Meaningful would be saying why PPT perhaps is getting out of TGA or how TGA might continue to grow or what risks it faces in the future: in short, it would be going beyond the circular reasoning that says the share price is going down because more people are selling than buying and more people are selling than buying because the share price is going down. That adds nothing to anyone's understanding of TGA.
In any event, the issue here is saying something meaningful about this particular stock. Saying that more people are selling than buying and, ergo, that that's why the share price is going down is not meaningful. It's stating the obvious. Meaningful would be saying why PPT perhaps is getting out of TGA or how TGA might continue to grow or what risks it faces in the future: in short, it would be going beyond the circular reasoning that says the share price is going down because more people are selling than buying and more people are selling than buying because the share price is going down. That adds nothing to anyone's understanding of TGA.
tinhat
Pocket Calculator Operator
- Joined
- 1 May 2009
- Posts
- 1,756
- Reactions
- 768
Yikes!, I'd have nothing to say.
- Joined
- 28 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,554
- Reactions
- 1,283
Exactly oldblue, its as simple as that.
I would buy it tomorrow if it shows any sign of a turnaround but until then it is just another stock that has gone back in time to Sept 2010.
My comment regarding the psychology of the postings that has touched a nerve is based on my factual observation that the intensity and detail in the postings is inversely proportional to the price of the stock and seems to be a common trait of those who cannot accept the basic human fault of accepting that they may be wrong.
Regarding value vs price, the only value that I am interested in is the value of my account.
I have learned the hard way that believing in the opinions of those who have a vested interest in their idea of value is of no benefit to me.
Up until it went bust a few days ago there was three brokers with a buy on KZL because of their opinion of its value - a complete fantasy but people believe it, the price told the real story.
Read the real story of Enron or have a look at the documentary 'The Smartest Guys In The Room', the price told the real story but only to those who were wise enough to see it.
If there is value in a stock then the barometer (PRICE) will reflect it, anything else is irrevelant if you are in this business to make money.
I am not trying to rubbish FA, I actually believe that when you get good FA and the price going up then you are on a winner (compare TGA with RRL since Sept 2010 as an example), if you believe that the FA is good but the price is going down then its time for a reality check as something is wrong.
So_Cynical
The Contrarian Averager
- Joined
- 31 August 2007
- Posts
- 7,464
- Reactions
- 1,463
TGA is a retail stock that simply has a round about way of selling its stock, i think the market is valuing it as a retailer just like the others, selling it down.
-----------------------
Did anyone else see HVN's quarter on quarter sales figures from today's announcement?
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20120503/pdf/4261m500mdjm9w.pdf
Slovenia and Croatia are going gang busters with double digit growth...but everywhere else its a blood bath.
-----------------------
Did anyone else see HVN's quarter on quarter sales figures from today's announcement?
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20120503/pdf/4261m500mdjm9w.pdf
Slovenia and Croatia are going gang busters with double digit growth...but everywhere else its a blood bath.
- Joined
- 27 December 2010
- Posts
- 1,729
- Reactions
- 48
Ok, my misunderstanding.
Yes I agree, nobody gains from any personal attacks...perhaps a 'reputation' function could help this issue. A system where members can give other members reps for good/informative posts and negative reps for posts that detract from the usefulness of the forum. I guess this is a topic for another thread however.
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
Without straying too much further OT, I'd hate to see a "reputation" function introduced. It would basically just become a "consensus" function.
Intense the posts may be. But I suspect that it is more a genuine bewilderment that the share price of TGA can be so depressed relative to other stocks whose fundamentals are equal to TGA's or much poorer. Even those stocks whose fundamentals might be said to be better cannot fully explain the discount at which TGA is presently trading. Pioupiou gave some examples yesterday. It is attempts to account for this discrepancy that a lot of the posts on TGA are engaged in. Your suspicion is that people who express this bewilderment in the context of an assessment of TGA's fundamentals are trying to convince themselves (in bad faith) that the stock is really sound when in fact they fear it is the contrary. I would share that suspicion if TGA was being ramped up without reference to fundamentals. But that is not the case here. Ultimately, it is the strengh or weakness in the assessments of the fundamentals in the posts here that you should look to in order to consider whether confidence in TGA is well founded.
This is dead wrong. It assumes markets are 100% efficient. Prices usually do follow value but on occasions anomalies occur for a variety of reasons. Have a read of the book The Handbook of Equity Market Anomalies. I referred yesterday to John Paulson's team buying credit default swaps leading up to the US subprime mortgage crisis. These derivatives were priced at levels out of all proportion to their upside, i.e. they were dirt cheap, because the market had simply failed to price in the prospect that the US housing market would collapse. And yet the fundamentals of US housing were clear: house prices were at unsustainable levels and a great deal of mortgage lending had gone rogue.
Ultimately, prices in themselves cannot tell you if a stock is cheap, fair or dear. This is because there is nothing to know about a price: it is what it is. And this is not changed by the fact that the price is higher or lower than it was a year ago. It just means that people were prepared to pay more then than they are now. However, if you can then explain why people were prepared to pay more for a stock then than they are now and, even better, critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons why they were so prepared, you'll have something worthwhile to say. Otherwise, you are just saying: the share price is going down, more sellers are willing to sell down than buyers are willing to pay up. Or: the share price is going up, more buyers are willing to pay up than sellers are willing to pay down. Such observations are totally devoid of meaningful content.
Agree.
- Joined
- 28 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,554
- Reactions
- 1,283
Can you show or explain an example of how you have or would make money from a stock that has a high perceived value while the price continues to go down ? (apart from shorting).
- Joined
- 25 July 2010
- Posts
- 1,120
- Reactions
- 284
One that comes to mind is the ORL scenario that has played out nicely for a friend not too long ago (My investment started after this).
His valuation came in around the $8.70-ish mark back in May/June last year (can't remember which month exactly, but around 1year ago) - If you take a look at the chart, there was a solid downtrend at that time, and he got in at around $7.70. Since then, the share price has started trending upward again and is now sitting at $8.61 as of Friday's close.
He used no technical analysis in making his decision, but decided solely on the fundamentals of the company, and now has good unrealized profit and a nice dividend to show for it.
And to be honest, the case is a lot stronger for TGA in this case than it was for ORL back then.
- Joined
- 28 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,554
- Reactions
- 1,283
Aaaah, the price, that's my point though Klogg.
I am surprised that you ask that question since I would thought that it was clear that I consider TGA to be presently just such a stock. But how about McMillan Shakespeare in 2010: I bought 10,000 shares for $3.35 in March 2010 after it had been sold down on fears that the Henry Tax Revue might recommend doing away with the fringe benefit tax of government workers and therefore, if acted upon, more or less wipe out MMS's business. I sold out of that position this after it hit $11 this year. Now, there was of course a real risk that the Henry Tax Revue might recommend doing away with the FBT. However, the question always seemed to me not what Ken Henry might recommend but what the government would do in response to that recommendation. And there was no way, in my mind, that the government was going to do away with one of the few benefits that made government work attractive. Further, the possible return for the government of doing away with the FBT was out of all proportion to the strife that it would cause: it never was a very lucrative tax fiscally. Nevertheless, you might consider that the risk, however small, was real and that MMS was appropriately discounted for that risk. And I can't disagree. But the question with all really profitable trades is how real or great is the risk relative to the upside. And in MMS's case, it was, on my valuation, small.
