🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:32:26 +0100, xynix2@hotmai1.com (Xynix) wrote:

> > De Koers/Winstverhouding 2003 is 54,8 terwijl de verwachte Koers/
> > Winstverhouding voor 2004 zich boven de 100 bevindt. De verwachting
> > is dat de winst in 2005 meer dan 100% zal toenemen waar de te
> > verwachten Koers/Winstverhouding voor 2005 zich terug rond de 50
> > zou moeten situeren. Vanaf dan zou de winst terug sterk moeten
> > toenemen.
> 
>Je speculeert min-of-meer op een winstherstel vanaf 2005. Als je een
>representatieve K/W van 50 bij Schering-Plough vindt horen en "Vanaf
>dan zou de winst terug sterk moeten toenemen" 25% toedicht, dan gaat
>Schering-Plough het pas vanaf 2007 winnen van 16,04% ren-dement, wat
>hieronder kort-door-de-binnenbocht weergeven is:
>
>     Jaar    Koers     WPA   K/W   16,04%
>     ----   ------    ----   ---   ------
>     2004   100,00    1,00   100   100,00
>     2005   100,00    2,00    50   116,04
>     2006   125,00    2,50    50   134,65
>     2007   156,25    3,13    50   156,25
>
>16,04% ren-dement is niet heel veel voor een speculatieve belegging,
>waarbij alles ook zo'n beetje mee moet zitten (de winstverdubbeling,
>om mee te beginnen). Vanaf 2007 moet de winst, bij een constante K/W
>van 50, dan ook met meer dan 16,04% per jaar groeien. Mogelijk is de
>25% winstgroei na 2005 te laag, maar je geeft hier zelf ook niet aan
>wat de beoogde winstgroei dan wel zou gaan bedragen. Met dividend is
>hierboven geen rekening gehouden, maar tussentijds heeft deze 16,04%
>zo altijd een voorsprong op het theoretische koersverloop.
>
> > Het vijandig bod van Sanofi op Aventis kan de verdere speculatie
> > binnen de sector verhogen.
> 
>Of niet, nietwaar? Enniewee, ik denk zo het mijne van het merendeel
>van de waarderingen in bijna de hele sector; ik heb Schering-Plough
>er niet speciek uitgelicht voor je, maar de waardering is wel tegen
>het (i.c. 16,04%'s) licht te houden...


Wat je van ver haalt is lekker?

Het getuigd van gebrek aan inzicht in de handel in effecten als je
belangstelling voor buitelandse firma's hebt en dan volgens
fundamentele analyse laat (mis)leiden. Er zijn genoeg Nederlandse
firma' die de potentie hebben het qua koersverloop beter te doen.

Zie de technish signalen die door 
AHOLD-HAGEMEYER-CORUS-MOO-LOGICACMG 
worden afgegeven.

Miljoenen beleggers hebben miljarden dollars/euro verspeeld door af te
gaan op fundamentele analyse.

THE MAJOR TRAP OF FUNDAMENTAL ANALYSIS


An ideal equilibrium will never exist in the market. It has no part in
the market game and never will. Such a theoretical balance would mean
that a slide rule computation showing a stock to be worth $60 a share
would also be accompanied by that stock going across the tape at 60.
If the stock rose to 65, just enough selling pressure would develop to
bring it back to 60, and if it dropped under 60, just enough buying
would come in to put it back up to 60. It would stay at 60 until the
next earnings report and then out would come the slide rules and a new
equilibrium figure would be computed to which the market price would
adhere. 

Such an exact cause and effect relationship between fundamental
changes and the price of a stock is ridiculous and is almost totally
irrelevant to the game the market plays, a game between accumulators
and distributors, measured not in values but in terms of force
regardless of values, a game almost totally dependent on timing.

Giving this a little thought, the fundamental analysis of stocks has
little or no part to be played in the successful winning of the market
game. Anyone who has bought a stock based purely on fundamental
considerations can attest to their shock when the market game then in
progress completely ignored those considerations, tossing their stock
on the vicious waves of the high seas of supply and demand. Such
fundamentalists, not accustomed to the perpetual market game, were
either pushed into becoming investors, holding declining stocks in a
bear market, or pressured to sell them too early in a bull market.

Such investors became the "required fall guys" in the market game
because somebody has to hold stocks in a bear market, and somebody
must be ready to suppfy stocks to the smart money buyers in a bull
market. Not being attuned to the faster movements of the speculator,
the stock investor largely plays the sucker role, not being able to
divorce himself from the market game whether he likes it or not.

The most compelling demonstration of wholesale market stupidity
continues to be shown by the allegiance to the precepts of the
fundamentalist school, so many of them laid down by the "father of
fundamental security analysis," Benjamin Graham. Graham actually
frowned on stock speculation, feeling that there were no sound
principles to guide the speculator in the market. Yet Graham or his
many followers could never buy or sell a stock without becoming
involved in the "game"' a game almost totally foreign to fundamental
stock analysis. Closer to the real truth of the matter, it is the
speculator who does have the sound priciples to guide him in the
market while there are no sound principles to guide the investor in
the market. As we go along you will see the total truth of that
statement. 

After all, the market is an entity far more subject to supply and
demand pressures rather than to values. As I have said so often, any
young person who is seriously out to learn all he can about the market
will do well to study all he can about psychology and he might minor
in economics or even skip the subject completely, it having so little
to do with the market. Economics scarcely takes into consideration how
people feel, and it is those mass feelings translated into supply and
demand pressures which more often than not trample down all the
careful irrevelant work done by the fundamentalist in their
misdirected efforts to determine such things as appraised values,
estimated earning power, multipliers, and asset values.

From:" Granvilles new stratregie of daily stockmarket timing for
maximum profit" Granville  Prentice hall Englewood Cliffs N.J
by Joseph E.Granville