$2.40 is considerably over anything I've valued TGA at. The valuation arrived at by Donnelly Wealth Management is a good example of the weakness of using a P/E ratio alone to reach a realistic near term valuation.
The Donnelly report did not attempt to derive a near-term valuation. The report does not say so, but target valuations are typically 12 month targets.
The Donnelly report did not attempt to derive a near-term valuation. The report does not say so, but target valuations are typically 12 month targets. Also, in the paragraph where the multiple of 12 is mentioned, the report refers to investors, not speculators.
If you are an investor, and a PER of 12 seems toppy, then use a lower one, or some other FA methodology. All FA valuation methodologies rely on the concept of a required rate of return (RRR), and all long-term investors use them, sometimes without even knowing that there is an RRR lurking behind the rules of thumb multipliers that they use. The higher the multiplier, the lower the RRR.
If you want to second-guess a near-term price, then TA is the way to go, or some other empathetic way of guessing what Mr Market is going to do in the immediate future.
We have done this FA vs TA topic to death. If you have an immediate craving for avocados, you mosey to the shop and buy them, but if you want to invest in avocados, you plant avocado trees, and wait a few years. Both approaches to obtaining avocados are valid, and nobody bothers to debate the Buy Avocados vs Grow Avocados topic.
Rudi Filapek-Vandyck and John Murray debate TGA on last Friday's boardroom radio roundtable. Quite an interesting discussion about why TGA's share price is in a downtrend compared to FXL's share price.
John Murray again noted that he's a big fan of TGA's management (especially its managing director).
FWIW, I believe that TGA is impacted by the cheap prices at which people can now buy TGA's stock outright, rather than going through a hire-purchase arrangement with TGA. So long as I can buy a TV at ridiculously low prices (compared to a few years ago) why would I go to TGA to buy it? IMO, there may well be a squeeze on TGA's performance over the last 12 months when the results are released later this month.
Also, I noted Macquarie's point that people are now diversifying their consumption of electronic media away from the TV and onto tablet computers, mobile phones and the like. IMO, as broadband prices continue to fall, more and more people will start consuming their media needs on non-traditional devices and the need to buy a flat-screen TV, either outright or through TGA, will decline for some market segments.
12 months is near term. Otherwise agree.
I now have 470,000 TGA shares.
And yes, I would love to own a piece of this business, and to this end I regularly buy more shares (bought another 10,000 today). I now have 470,000 TGA shares.
Or very risky.Wow, impressive. VERY impressive
I believe that TGA is impacted by the cheap prices at which people can now buy TGA's stock outright, rather than going through a hire-purchase arrangement with TGA. So long as I can buy a TV at ridiculously low prices (compared to a few years ago) why would I go to TGA to buy it?
Or very risky.
That's a whack of funds in just one company, especially one in a clear downtrend.
Or very risky.
That's a whack of funds in just one company, especially one in a clear downtrend.
Many people have as much or more tied up in their homes. In western Sydney some are living in homes with negative equity. Personally, I think there is less risk, i.e. there is a greater margin of safety built into, buying TGA at current prices than there is buying a Sydney property at the moment. Yet many Australians have a false sense of comfort that you can't lose money on property.
Or very risky.
That's a whack of funds in just one company, especially one in a clear downtrend.
For FA, the two most important factors required to be invented are the RRR and a growth factor to apply to EPS,.
.In my humble opinion you have missed the most important factor. Profitability
.
And I think all of those in this dog have missed another---DEMAND!
There isnt any!
That's ridiculous. For one thing plenty of companies go to zero. Land doesn't.
.
And I think all of those in this dog have missed another---DEMAND!
There isnt any!
.
And I think all of those in this dog have missed another---DEMAND!
There isnt any!
Clearly, you're confusing stock market cap with the liquidation value of a company. But you're also wrong on a basic level: residential property can go to $1 which is effectively zero. Don't believe me? Check out the price of residential properties in Detroit in the US: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/02/detroit-homes-mortgage-foreclosures-80
The issue raised by Julia was the question of risk. You can't just talk in general terms about the value of "a company" potentially going to zero, as you put it. You need to identify and tie specific risks to specific companies and then weigh up the probabilities of those risks materialising. That's the context in which my remark about Australians' bias towards property as a safe investment was made.
Is the risk of permanent capital loss of people who bought McMansions out in Sydney's western suburbs pre-GFC that are presently in negative equity higher than the same risk of buying TGA at $1.40 a share? I'm inclined to say yes.
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?