Using full-service brokers to get better access to IPO allocations

[luutzu]

@luutzu,

Are you so jealous of these people (DeepState et al)
who can afford a subscription to data providers;
that you have to rubbish them, the firms they work for,
and the data providers too?

You should get a smack for this post!

Just say it like how I see it, sorry if it's offensive.

I did say, and was sincere in saying it, that it might be useful in RY's line of work where you can invest in a large number of opportunities and widely diversify... that makes sense and might be useful.

I don't think it's wrong to say it's somewhat useless to a bloke with $100k to invest though. I mean, just like a subscription service that make some 100 recommendations a year, then it tells you that over the past 3 years, if all its recommendations were followed, it'd earn 12% p.a.

Can an average guy with say $200k really diversify enough to get an "average" of the recommendations?


Why would I be jealous? I also have access to similar databases too... and I got to it for free Not that I use them as they're intended but yea, I can get to them.

 

[DeepState]

Well, too much red cordial before bedtime?

Put titles on the axes might help.

Have you actually put up any originally drawn charts in the hundreds of posts and pieces of advice you have put forward? Could you point out an example or ten that I could learn this practice of adding titles from?

The problem I find with your data and line of reasoning is they tend to be impractical, useless in another word.

My stuff is useless for you? Excellent.

Don't mean to offend you, I understand that when you handle large asset pool in the hundreds of million or enough to enable relatively wide, and still meaningful and cost-effective, diversification... the data about "in general, most would do well"... that might be useful.

To most normal investors, it's quite useless.

No offense taken. The people I worked with are WORTH "in the hundreds of million (sic)". We don't take offense. We don't really care that much. It was a long time ago when I started with that type of experimental money. No, Luu, I managed many billions. You'd need to use more than one hand because you'd run out of fingers. Oh, I was involved in some IPOs here and there. We didn't just fill in a prospectus form either. There's quite a bit to the equity capital markets process.

I also have access to similar databases too... and I got to it for free Not that I use them as they're intended but yea, I can get to them.

No data? Or heaps of data, but no/little idea how to use it? Basically saying that you do not use data in your prognostications and advice? That would be the same as saying "making stuff up without basis?" If you were a financial planner, let alone a self-appointed adviser to all and sundry, you would require a basis for your advice. Conveniently, this standard is not required here in general chit chat. Phew. Please continue.

By the way, how do you know what database I have when you only asked about this recently...without response. Just making it up again? If you have my stuff, that would be over 2.2million economic series and so much data for bottom up analysis that it you could stick your head up it far enough to find darkness. Actually, maybe you do have it. I believe you.

What you do mean? That original owners would want to leave something on the table, the advisors and bankers would do the same... that they want to price it below fair value, leave some for the other guys to establish/strengthen relationships? That and also some for the new shareholders because over the long term, bankers and such don't want to float bad stocks and scare away investors?

You write as if this were ridiculous. That's sort of it, as it turns out. But all is not equal. It's a conspiracy to enrich the wealthy at the expense of you. Really. Those with some skill at this should participate and some who have solid first line full brokerage arrangements in place should almost do so as a matter of course.

You must have and know many very good people.

What was I doing this morning... Well, I flew in to our nation's capital where I met with some hitters. They invited me, by the way. We discussed what to do with a couple of yards in ring-fenced assets under Federal oversight. I sat next to a guy who was a former RBA board member who has analysed stuff I haven't even heard of. Others in the room advise entire nations (yes, plural) on economic and monetary policy.

Do you want to know what tomorrow brings?

How was your day?

The only situation I could imagine that happening is, as Peter Lynch pointed out, when the Gov't float the assets - they would priced it lower etc. to make voters happier... doing favours to rich and powerful friends, and a few mum and dad investors. That I can see. Getting re-elected is a good incentive... though if the price goes up too high, questions might be asked as to why the gov't sell something so valuable so cheaply.

You lack sufficient imagination in some areas and have too much of it in many others.

Can an average guy with say $200k really diversify enough to get an "average" of the recommendations?

Achieving average is not the point. Betting with edge is.

Not betting when someone hands you a definitely loaded coin in your favour is.....stupid/idiotic....unless you have no tolerance for risk whatsoever...or no idea. A coin with a 55% chance of hitting heads on a throw will not produce 5.5 heads on 10 rolls. Each roll gave you a 5% statistical edge. That is investing. Finding edge, exploiting edge. It is as relevant to a person tossing 10x $1 coins in a playground to buy marbles as it is to Soros to people in-between thinking about whether to put up some of their money into an IPO. Just look at, gee, Medibank Private. Should a person with $20k total assets not have made a bid? Ask around...check the data. ASk the 'normal' investor what the right thing to have done was. Let me know ok?

There is an edge to IPO participation on average. There is favouring of various degrees that goes on for "mates". Still, you'd need to mount a strong argument to overcome the data that I showed and which is readily corroborated by research undertaken around the world (please feel free to prove otherwise with your data, by the way).

Undertaking a relationship with a full service broker for the sole reason of getting better access to IPOs is unlikely to be net beneficial in isolation. The costs would exceed the IPO participation benefits for most arrangements. You would need to value other services to tilt the value proposition. As to the various break-evens, "it depends".

 

[luutzu]

Well, too much red cordial before bedtime?

Have you actually put up any originally drawn charts in the hundreds of posts and pieces of advice you have put forward? Could you point out an example or ten that I could learn this practice of adding titles from?

My stuff is useless for you? Excellent.

No offense taken. The people I worked with are WORTH "in the hundreds of million (sic)". We don't take offense. We don't really care that much. It was a long time ago when I started with that type of experimental money. No, Luu, I managed many billions. You'd need to use more than one hand because you'd run out of fingers. Oh, I was involved in some IPOs here and there. We didn't just fill in a prospectus form either. There's quite a bit to the equity capital markets process.


No data? Or heaps of data, but no/little idea how to use it? Basically saying that you do not use data in your prognostications and advice? That would be the same as saying "making stuff up without basis?" If you were a financial planner, let alone a self-appointed adviser to all and sundry, you would require a basis for your advice. Conveniently, this standard is not required here in general chit chat. Phew. Please continue.

By the way, how do you know what database I have when you only asked about this recently...without response. Just making it up again? If you have my stuff, that would be over 2.2million economic series and so much data for bottom up analysis that it you could stick your head up it far enough to find darkness. Actually, maybe you do have it. I believe you.


You write as if this were ridiculous. That's sort of it, as it turns out. But all is not equal. It's a conspiracy to enrich the wealthy at the expense of you. Really. Those with some skill at this should participate and some who have solid first line full brokerage arrangements in place should almost do so as a matter of course.


What was I doing this morning... Well, I flew in to our nation's capital where I met with some hitters. They invited me, by the way. We discussed what to do with a couple of yards in ring-fenced assets under Federal oversight. I sat next to a guy who was a former RBA board member who has analysed stuff I haven't even heard of. Others in the room advise entire nations (yes, plural) on economic and monetary policy.

Do you want to know what tomorrow brings?

How was your day?


You lack sufficient imagination in some areas and have too much of it in many others.


Achieving average is not the point. Betting with edge is.

Not betting when someone hands you a definitely loaded coin in your favour is.....stupid/idiotic....unless you have no tolerance for risk whatsoever...or no idea. A coin with a 55% chance of hitting heads on a throw will not produce 5.5 heads on 10 rolls. Each roll gave you a 5% statistical edge. That is investing. Finding edge, exploiting edge. It is as relevant to a person tossing 10x $1 coins in a playground to buy marbles as it is to Soros to people in-between thinking about whether to put up some of their money into an IPO. Just look at, gee, Medibank Private. Should a person with $20k total assets not have made a bid? Ask around...check the data. ASk the 'normal' investor what the right thing to have done was. Let me know ok?

There is an edge to IPO participation on average. There is favouring of various degrees that goes on for "mates". Still, you'd need to mount a strong argument to overcome the data that I showed and which is readily corroborated by research undertaken around the world (please feel free to prove otherwise with your data, by the way).

Undertaking a relationship with a full service broker for the sole reason of getting better access to IPOs is unlikely to be net beneficial in isolation. The costs would exceed the IPO participation benefits for most arrangements. You would need to value other services to tilt the value proposition. As to the various break-evens, "it depends".

You've probably gone sky diving right?

Say that before your plane takes off and you're in the hangar full of parachutes. The operator tells you to pick one, saying... most of them, around 90% ,are good. The other 10% are defective. But overall, the odds are they'll work just fine.

Ey man, which parachute is defective? Any red cross on them to mark it?
No, it's random, but like I said, chances are you'll survive - 90%. The odds are in your favour 9 to 1 my friend.

Are you going to put on any parachute based on that info? Are you going to risk it? You'll probably call in the regulators right?

Yet somehow a similar opinion based on historical averages makes perfect sense and investors should jump in.


I even give it to you that given your big status and years of playing with big boys and mucking around big numbers, that you're used to thinking stupid... but you're offended so OK.

Seriously though, ever consider you might have lost perspective thinking "big picture"?
Say a general was planning the D-Day invasion... his war planners said that given Germany's defenses, its garrison and anti-air measures, given wind speed this and that... chances are 80% of the paratroopers will make it while 20% might not reach the ground alive.

A big picture supreme commander might see that as acceptable, even a good odd... That would make sense given the circumstances and the objective. BUt that same general at that hangar would demand 100% chance of him and anyone else's landing safely.

-----

With IPOs... I don't believe in conspiracies or the rich having it in for the poor or class warfare... it's just people doing things that serves their interests. I think you're old enough to know that serving one's interests rarely mean serving someone else's interests - in reality.

While you're rubbing shoulders with the big boys, advise them to sell more stuff to people who already own it. I love to go buy things I already own, love it.

Hey Australian battlers, you mum and dad investors, you know that company that you and me and all of us own? How would you like to buy it?

------

How many stock databases are in the world do you think? Thomson|Reuters, Bloomberg, S&P? The rest simply get certain pieces from them and represents it in pretty charts. Or I don't know anything?

The reason I ask you was because I was curious that since you put so much faith in the database's consensus forecast why you don't just send them your money to manage. Why pay for for the subscription that tells you what to do; might as well cut out the middle man (yourself) and just let the guys that tell people what to do do it.

2.2 million data series ey? No wonder you guys can't see straight.

 

[DeepState]

You've probably gone sky diving right?

Say that before your plane takes off and you're in the hangar full of parachutes. The operator tells you to pick one, saying... most of them, around 90% ,are good. The other 10% are defective. But overall, the odds are they'll work just fine.

Ey man, which parachute is defective? Any red cross on them to mark it?
No, it's random, but like I said, chances are you'll survive - 90%. The odds are in your favour 9 to 1 my friend.

Are you going to put on any parachute based on that info? Are you going to risk it? You'll probably call in the regulators right?

Yet somehow a similar opinion based on historical averages makes perfect sense and investors should jump in.

Yep.

You did at least some finance. Please recall the concept of utility. The state of death is rather a lot worse than a state of losing 5% of your assets in a catastrophic IPO allocation and, say, 30% decline in value at pop. It would be appalling risk management to be in this situation. For your example of an average $200k investor, that's $10k. It's not comparable to death. The state you are in at that time is not permanently fixed at "stuffed". You can diversify (through time as well, in an IPO strategy). You can't diversify death. Death is really not an appropriate analogy for a bad IPO outcome.

I even give it to you that given your big status and years of playing with big boys and mucking around big numbers, that you're used to thinking stupid... but you're offended so OK.

Seriously though, ever consider you might have lost perspective thinking "big picture"?
Say a general was planning the D-Day invasion... his war planners said that given Germany's defenses, its garrison and anti-air measures, given wind speed this and that... chances are 80% of the paratroopers will make it while 20% might not reach the ground alive.

A big picture supreme commander might see that as acceptable, even a good odd... That would make sense given the circumstances and the objective. BUt that same general at that hangar would demand 100% chance of him and anyone else's landing safely.

It was awesome. Many of my ex colleagues are still out there defying gravity. We weren't stupid. I'm pretty comfortable on that call. You may disagree, without truly having an insight into what was going on. I don't particularly feel the need to defend the actions of all people in the industry any more than you should have to defend the actions of criminal elements of the first generation Vietnamese. You don't have to. I don't either.

As for your military example, as before, death is not diversifiable for a single person. If you can't take risk, you can't move. In a military situation that would drive someone to consider such odds and such a desparate mission, actually, if you don't move, you die. It is the least worst. Doesn't matter, the analogy of the general sitting in the hanger is not appropriate. You can bet on 100 IPOs in your investing career. Some will stink. Some will do well. On average, you can EXPECT to be ahead. That's it. Every investment you make is like this. Why are IPOs so weird? Every one produces an outcome just as any stock purchased will. No single one will kill you unless you lever up and apply for a stack of your net worth in a single one. It's just another trigger with an edge to buy a stock. It is one of the most reliable which is why the whole mechanics of equity capital markets is so important to wholesale investors. Retail does get ripped off to some extent, but it works out that the smaller end of retail, say around $20-50k is actually in a wonderful sweetspot. They normally get minimum allocation and don't run the risk of getting stuck with a monster amount of overbid if the IPO goes down so long as they get the bid roughly similar (or via other appropriate weighting) each time. The banks are not out to totally screw the retail market. They would get a good benefit once, maybe, and then will be locked out of the market for a long time and hurt their ability to get underwriting deals and also bear more risk if they do win one. The game does not work that way. If you want, it is a repeater game.
-----

With IPOs... I don't believe in conspiracies or the rich having it in for the poor or class warfare... it's just people doing things that serves their interests. I think you're old enough to know that serving one's interests rarely mean serving someone else's interests - in reality.

While you're rubbing shoulders with the big boys, advise them to sell more stuff to people who already own it. I love to go buy things I already own, love it.

Hey Australian battlers, you mum and dad investors, you know that company that you and me and all of us own? How would you like to buy it?

------

What?

How many stock databases are in the world do you think? Thomson|Reuters, Bloomberg, S&P? The rest simply get certain pieces from them and represents it in pretty charts. Or I don't know anything?

The reason I ask you was because I was curious that since you put so much faith in the database's consensus forecast why you don't just send them your money to manage. Why pay for for the subscription that tells you what to do; might as well cut out the middle man (yourself) and just let the guys that tell people what to do do it.

2.2 million data series ey? No wonder you guys can't see straight.

You know something, but possibly not everything. Generally, scrapes from these databases is at the summary level. It may not include securities which have been discontinued which is important if you want to avoid survivorship bias in backtesting. It may not go back terribly far. It may not report segments. Almost certainly does not provide details of the refinancing and debt structure which were absolutely vital through the GFC. Does not allow for adjustments or tell you what they are. Does not tell you where the number actually came from in the accounts....and so on. They are incomplete. Depending on your purpose, say, valuation, they are very incomplete because you do not know what is actually going on behind headlines. You can use it, but you will be at a disadvantage in a competitive situation as markets are set to be. Data is expensive. They don't give away the good stuff for free. If you want to compile this by hand and reclassify line by line, you can do it. Unless you value your time at zero, that's not free either.

As to consensus, it comes from insto brokers. They produce research and do not manage money. This is different to private client advisors. Consensus is useful to know what is being priced into the market and why. The consensus figures hardly have any impact on long term valuation. Short term consensus movements have a material impact of share price movements. For these reasons and many more besides, fund managers exist and so do traders. Brokers would make very poor money managers and are heavily conflicted.

As to the data...perhaps we can actually see and our actions seem like we aren't going straight. However, the world doesn't move in straight lines so we curve out arcs. This is investing. Would you rather play with a blindfold? I wouldn't. Data is how the world is brought into a framework for decision making. No-one uses 2.2 million economic series to make a stock pick. But to have what data you need for a situation is handy. A stack of data that is truly required in any situation is not even in these databases. That's how much is out there and valuable.

 

[TPI]

Thanks for the replies, I posed this question to someone on HC who got good broker firm allocations and they said that they only used Commsec online broking accounts for over 15 years but incurred a lot of brokerage with a lot of trading (and/or large value trades I guess), not sure of course how much investable assets they had.

 

[TPI]

You know something, but possibly not everything. Generally, scrapes from these databases is at the summary level. It may not include securities which have been discontinued which is important if you want to avoid survivorship bias in backtesting. It may not go back terribly far. It may not report segments. Almost certainly does not provide details of the refinancing and debt structure which were absolutely vital through the GFC. Does not allow for adjustments or tell you what they are. Does not tell you where the number actually came from in the accounts....and so on. They are incomplete. Depending on your purpose, say, valuation, they are very incomplete because you do not know what is actually going on behind headlines. You can use it, but you will be at a disadvantage in a competitive situation as markets are set to be. Data is expensive. They don't give away the good stuff for free. If you want to compile this by hand and reclassify line by line, you can do it. Unless you value your time at zero, that's not free either.

...

As to the data...perhaps we can actually see and our actions seem like we aren't going straight. However, the world doesn't move in straight lines so we curve out arcs. This is investing. Would you rather play with a blindfold? I wouldn't. Data is how the world is brought into a framework for decision making. No-one uses 2.2 million economic series to make a stock pick. But to have what data you need for a situation is handy. A stack of data that is truly required in any situation is not even in these databases. That's how much is out there and valuable.

Hi RY, do your databases calculate ROIC for all stocks?

 

[DeepState]

Hi RY, do your databases calculate ROIC for all stocks?

I just use FactSet and an associated tool which helps a data manipulation engine grab information directly from their servers for analysis. Yes, FactSet does calculate this in its pre-canned reports amongst other common ratios. As you can extract all the underlying bits and pieces, you can also calculate whatever ratio you want across a universe etc. FactSet is just one of the data aggregators out there with Bloomberg etc. It probably has around 30% of the market for this type of service. It has less market share than Bloomberg, which tends to be more bond centric.

 

[skyQuake]

Death is really not an appropriate analogy for a bad IPO outcome.

Ha! Would love to see that in a prospectus...

Potential Gain: 10%-15%
Potential Loss: Death

---------------------------------------------------------------
I recently had a trial with Factset for specific substantial holders data. They're a bit worse than Bloomberg in that regard but all other data = outstanding

 

[TPI]

I just use FactSet and an associated tool which helps a data manipulation engine grab information directly from their servers for analysis. Yes, FactSet does calculate this in its pre-canned reports amongst other common ratios. As you can extract all the underlying bits and pieces, you can also calculate whatever ratio you want across a universe etc. FactSet is just one of the data aggregators out there with Bloomberg etc. It probably has around 30% of the market for this type of service. It has less market share than Bloomberg, which tends to be more bond centric.

Thanks RY, how much does it cost you for FactSet? Is there any way for a retail investor to get access to this at low or no cost?

 

[DeepState]

Thanks RY, how much does it cost you for FactSet? Is there any way for a retail investor to get access to this at low or no cost?

Basic FactSet Workstation standard costs are in mid AUD 20k region per annum (contract confidentiality prevents an exact figure). This is in the vicinity of Bloomberg. It provides bulk information of the type we have largely been discussing. That figure is before additional custom databases that you may wish to acquire. These include things like the weights of the FTSE index etc. These are seriously expensive for what they are. We're talking ~30k for that. And so on. I then get other stuff worth $7-10k to use it more intensively than looking through screens one at a time.

This is a subscription service and I do not know of a portal to it which circumvents the fees. I would have done it otherwise... It is mostly marketed to institutions.

 

[TPI]

Basic FactSet Workstation standard costs are in mid AUD 20k region per annum (contract confidentiality prevents an exact figure). This is in the vicinity of Bloomberg. It provides bulk information of the type we have largely been discussing. That figure is before additional custom databases that you may wish to acquire. These include things like the weights of the FTSE index etc. These are seriously expensive for what they are. We're talking ~30k for that. And so on. I then get other stuff worth $7-10k to use it more intensively than looking through screens one at a time.

This is a subscription service and I do not know of a portal to it which circumvents the fees. I would have done it otherwise... It is mostly marketed to institutions.

Ok thanks, bit too pricey for me!

 

[luutzu]

Basic FactSet Workstation standard costs are in mid AUD 20k region per annum (contract confidentiality prevents an exact figure). This is in the vicinity of Bloomberg. It provides bulk information of the type we have largely been discussing. That figure is before additional custom databases that you may wish to acquire. These include things like the weights of the FTSE index etc. These are seriously expensive for what they are. We're talking ~30k for that. And so on. I then get other stuff worth $7-10k to use it more intensively than looking through screens one at a time.

This is a subscription service and I do not know of a portal to it which circumvents the fees. I would have done it otherwise... It is mostly marketed to institutions.

Say hello to my database



I did some searches earlier in the year and there's this guy who wrote instructions on setting up your own "Bloomberg" terminal: Set up four monitors or so, have Google Finance, Reuter News site and stuff like that. It's quite funny but might not be that far from the truth.

In all seriousness, I'm sure these systems you have are essential to your work... they certainly are very impressive. Just for me personally, I wouldn't know what I'd do with them.

Will try to reply later.

 

[luutzu]

Yep.

You did at least some finance. Please recall the concept of utility. The state of death is rather a lot worse than a state of losing 5% of your assets in a catastrophic IPO allocation and, say, 30% decline in value at pop. It would be appalling risk management to be in this situation. For your example of an average $200k investor, that's $10k. It's not comparable to death. The state you are in at that time is not permanently fixed at "stuffed". You can diversify (through time as well, in an IPO strategy). You can't diversify death. Death is really not an appropriate analogy for a bad IPO outcome.

Hi general RY,

So my $10K walks into the hangar asking for a parachute and...

We were at lunch and a finance manager walk by; we made small talk... asking how the audit was going he said it's going great except for one item they couldn't reconcile... but it's a small thing, only $25 million, so no problem.

He and us had a good laugh on hearing $25 million as a small thing... so I know where you're coming from dealing with big numbers and averages, just I don't find them suitable for most people. Actually, I don't find it suitable for anyone wanting to make informed, rather than speculative, decision.

It was awesome. Many of my ex colleagues are still out there defying gravity. We weren't stupid. I'm pretty comfortable on that call. You may disagree, without truly having an insight into what was going on. I don't particularly feel the need to defend the actions of all people in the industry any more than you should have to defend the actions of criminal elements of the first generation Vietnamese. You don't have to. I don't either.

??

As for your military example, as before, death is not diversifiable for a single person. If you can't take risk, you can't move. In a military situation that would drive someone to consider such odds and such a desparate mission, actually, if you don't move, you die. It is the least worst. Doesn't matter, the analogy of the general sitting in the hanger is not appropriate. You can bet on 100 IPOs in your investing career. Some will stink. Some will do well. On average, you can EXPECT to be ahead. That's it. Every investment you make is like this. Why are IPOs so weird? Every one produces an outcome just as any stock purchased will. No single one will kill you unless you lever up and apply for a stack of your net worth in a single one. It's just another trigger with an edge to buy a stock. It is one of the most reliable which is why the whole mechanics of equity capital markets is so important to wholesale investors. Retail does get ripped off to some extent, but it works out that the smaller end of retail, say around $20-50k is actually in a wonderful sweetspot. They normally get minimum allocation and don't run the risk of getting stuck with a monster amount of overbid if the IPO goes down so long as they get the bid roughly similar (or via other appropriate weighting) each time. The banks are not out to totally screw the retail market. They would get a good benefit once, maybe, and then will be locked out of the market for a long time and hurt their ability to get underwriting deals and also bear more risk if they do win one. The game does not work that way. If you want, it is a repeater game.
-----

Maybe I just have little money, maybe I'm just old school, but I prefer to not lose money. Investing already has its own risks - risks of eroding economics, competitive position; risks I might be wrong or reports were falsified etc. etc. To add all that risk to a risk that the one or two IPOs I buy might be the one or two that crash and burn and I won't know why since I didn't look or know enough but simply based purchase decision on averages of IPO performance.

------
What?

Was referring to the industry's and politicians' spin about privatising gov't corporations/assets, or bringing to public private companies... how they, and you apparently, say it's often good for the retail investors. Anyway, not important.

You know something, but possibly not everything. Generally, scrapes from these databases is at the summary level. It may not include securities which have been discontinued which is important if you want to avoid survivorship bias in backtesting. It may not go back terribly far. It may not report segments. Almost certainly does not provide details of the refinancing and debt structure which were absolutely vital through the GFC. Does not allow for adjustments or tell you what they are. Does not tell you where the number actually came from in the accounts....and so on. They are incomplete. Depending on your purpose, say, valuation, they are very incomplete because you do not know what is actually going on behind headlines. You can use it, but you will be at a disadvantage in a competitive situation as markets are set to be. Data is expensive. They don't give away the good stuff for free. If you want to compile this by hand and reclassify line by line, you can do it. Unless you value your time at zero, that's not free either.

Agree.

I got access to MorningStar Premium (Free from a uni library's account) and while they have more info/data than the free stuff from the likes of Commsec, they're not that much more useful.

As to consensus, it comes from insto brokers. They produce research and do not manage money. This is different to private client advisors. Consensus is useful to know what is being priced into the market and why. The consensus figures hardly have any impact on long term valuation. Short term consensus movements have a material impact of share price movements. For these reasons and many more besides, fund managers exist and so do traders. Brokers would make very poor money managers and are heavily conflicted.

I'm pretty sure selected fund managers also offer their estimates to be included in these consensus. Saw Wilson HTM saying they're the selected few contributing to StarGazer or something.

The point was, if we're to make our own decisions, what use is it to know what the market is thinking? To know what the market thinks may help us like you said, but more often it could influence, unconsciously maybe, our assumptions and estimates. Leading to forecasts that more often than not ended within that consensus of "expert" opinions.

As to the data...perhaps we can actually see and our actions seem like we aren't going straight. However, the world doesn't move in straight lines so we curve out arcs. This is investing. Would you rather play with a blindfold? I wouldn't. Data is how the world is brought into a framework for decision making. No-one uses 2.2 million economic series to make a stock pick. But to have what data you need for a situation is handy. A stack of data that is truly required in any situation is not even in these databases. That's how much is out there and valuable.

I think you might be micro-managing.

I just saw CSL's R&D powerpoint slides, all 110 pages of them. I haven't a clue what the heck each of their initiatives are, really, and how significant they are relative to peers or to medical sciences.

I could find out if I want to, I guess. Could spend weeks looking up stuff, and if I have the cash maybe even bring in a few experts to lecture me etc. etc. But even if I were interested and able to learn all that... I don't run CSL;

I do not have enough knowledge and expertise the scientists and managers of CSL have, do not know what they know... So let say I get to know what hemoglobin blood plasma for treating sickle cell disease is... and am sure that that's where the future is and if they were to follow that they could make x in earnings but following their current path they'll make x-y in earnings? How am I going to implement that "strategy"?

Data and knowledge is good, but I think it's more important to know what we know and what we can implement.

If we are to treat share ownership as ownership in a business, I think it's best to let the managers and the skilled experts, using the capital and structure available to them, let them read and analyse data they know well and have been around most of their working life.. let them decide. Let's not do their job for them, because often we couldn't do it, and if allowed to, couldn't do it as well.