sharetrader
Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 135
  1. #41
    Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by macduffy View Post
    I assume you meant "rarely read...…", kiora?

    Personally, I reckon percy's annual report checklist is about right. There's a few key numbers and ratios to be found in the balance sheet!
    Oops thanks McD Now corrected.Percy's checklist about right for experienced investors but majorly off putting to new investors.They would likely just end up procrastinating.
    The first check on the checklist should be checking on daily volume versus average volume.Shows up if an investment should be sold or bought(GTK ,I have never owned but stayed interested,daily volume signal yesterday)
    Last edited by kiora; 15-01-2020 at 12:54 PM.

  2. #42
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kiora View Post
    The first check on the checklist should be checking on daily volume versus average volume.Shows up if an investment should be sold or bought(GTK ,I have never owned but stayed interested,daily volume signal yesterday)
    That is the biggest nonsense I have read so far on this thread. Especially considering the initiator of this thread is talking about long term investing and portfolio building.

  3. #43
    Guru justakiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    2,569

    Default

    As a beginner, I 100% disagree. Percy's words of wisdom, including this checklist, have been absolutely invaluable to me. We might be beginners, but we aren't stupid. We are more than capable of developing our understanding of "all things investing" with the help of checklists like his. As for your comments on volume - that makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever!

    Quote Originally Posted by kiora View Post
    Percy's checklist about right for experienced investors but majorly off putting to new investors.They would likely just end up procrastinating.
    The first check on the checklist should be checking on daily volume versus average volume.Shows up if an investment should be sold or bought(GTK ,I have never owned but stayed interested,daily volume signal yesterday)

  4. #44
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    7,289

    Default

    I'd agree with checking variations in the daily volume traded, but not so sure that it indicates a buy or a sell without also noting the trend in the shareprice. Remember, every share sold is bought by some other party. Which side is the pressure coming from?

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snow Leopard View Post
    In the real world away from academic hypotheses and monotonous uniformed posts there are those who long term outperform the market and those who underperform it and all those in between.

    To discover if you can be a star then you have to give it go and put some effort in.
    To give up before you start is not how you succeed.

    As Peter Lynch once said. "You do not outperform the index by buying the index".

    And for the benefit of SBQ the EPS figure is always at the end of the statement of P&L/Comprehensive Income which is usually the first item in the Financial Statements which is often in refered to in an index near the front of the report.
    No it's not. My aunt receives annual reports from her NZ holdings and on odd occasion, the 1st thing I look at is EPS. I remember decades ago with The Warehouse Group pushing their dividend policy as front page achievement in their glossy annual reports. Only to be disgusted that EPS was not a figure to be found - my aunt said you have to calculate that. So no I strong disagree. What is a fact is NZ's obsession of dividend payment on shares and that's why we have brokers like MacQuires NZ pushing the same rubbish and NZ listed companies having the same expectation to paying dividends.

    As a rebuttal for Peter Lynch, a reference to Warren Buffet's spew again those (active fund managers, individuals investors actively trading, the whole shebang!): Who's the better investor Peter Lynch or Warren Buffet? you decide...

    https://realbusiness.co.uk/warren-bu...stment-skills/

    and for those that don't care to click on the link, i'll post most of it here:

    “It seems so elementary,” he said, “but people just can’t believe that because they have billions of dollars to invest that they can’t go out and hire somebody who will do better than average. I hear from them all the time. Supposedly sophisticated people, generally richer people, hire consultants, and no consultant in the world is going to tell you ‘just buy an S&P index fund and sit for the next 50 years.’ You don’t get to be a consultant that way. And you certainly don’t get an annual fee that way.

    “So the consultant has every motivation in the world to tell you, ‘this year I think we should concentrate more on international stocks,’ or ‘this manager is particularly good on the short side.’ So they come in and talk for hours, you pay them a large fee and they always suggest something other than just sitting on your rear end and participating in business without cost. Those consultants then in turn recommend other people who charge fees, which cumulatively eats up capital like crazy.

    “I’ve talked to huge pension funds, and I’ve taken them through the math, and when I leave, they go out and hire a bunch of consultants and pay them a lot of money,” he said. “It’s just unbelievable, and the consultants always change their recommendations a little bit from year to year. They can’t change them 100 per cent because then it would look like they didn’t know what they were doing the year before. So they tweak them from year to year and they come in and they have lots of charts and PowerPoint presentations and they recommend people who are in turn going to charge a lot of money and the flow of money from the ‘hyperactive’ to what I call the ‘helpers’ is dramatic.”


    Buffett also didn’t hide his resentment for their lack of abilities when it comes to investing.

    There’s been far, far, far more money made by people in Wall Street through salesmanship abilities than through investment abilities,” he said. “There are a few people out there that are going to have an outstanding investment record. But very few of them. And the people you pay to help identify them don’t know how to identify them. They do know how to sell you.”

    Now are you trying to tell me that there exists some NZ actively managed fund that will outperform what Buffet has claimed? Get real, 1st let's start with their true % returns on their prospectus working through the math and taxation directly to the individual. They don't. There's no need; he won the Protégé Partners bet.

    As for some checklist? What kind of check list do active fund managers use when they look to buy or sell stocks? Complete utter nonsense and to the novice investor, the best the NZ gov't does is tell them to go into Kiwi Saver, for which, who is really getting rich?

  6. #46
    Reincarnated Panthera Snow Leopard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Private Universe
    Posts
    5,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    No it's not. My aunt receives annual reports from her NZ holdings and on odd occasion, the 1st thing I look at is EPS. I remember decades ago with The Warehouse Group pushing their dividend policy as front page achievement in their glossy annual reports. Only to be disgusted that EPS was not a figure to be found - my aunt said you have to calculate that...
    Pretty sure I will be in trouble with justakiwi for this.

    But I think that this is the most appropriate response:
    om mani peme hum

  7. #47
    Guru justakiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    2,569

    Default

    Not this time

    Quote Originally Posted by Snow Leopard View Post
    Pretty sure I will be in trouble with justakiwi for this.

    But I think that this is the most appropriate response:

  8. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    400

    Default

    SBQ, so in summary what is your conclusion, appreciated.

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voltage View Post
    SBQ, so in summary what is your conclusion, appreciated.
    The conclusion being for the vast majority of NZ residents, they would be better off buying a 2nd home and i'm speaking purely from the tax free capital gain perspective & the ability for the owner to increase the value of the home by DIY improvements which adds to the tax free capital gain (and please, don't remind me about the 5 year brightline test, only a fool sells a house within 5 years or leads IRD on that they intend to sell the house for a profit). In terms of share investments, what the NZ gov't has essentially done is pushed people into Kiwi Saver for which the largest benefit going to IRD & the managers that operate these funds. I'm not looking for an agreement from other forum members here so this is just my stark conclusion.

    @Snow Leopard: I also find it amusing that investors spend so much time on fundamental analysis and little regard on taxation and i'm speaking with the NZ perspective. I mean if it's as bad overseas on the ways you can twist figures on a financial statement around, what chance would the NZ investor wanting to learn will have? When I looked at the financial statements of various listed NXZ companies, it's very clear their reporting standards are wide open and manipulative and certainly not in best interest of the shareholder, yet you have all these Kiwi Saver fund manager painting picture that to understand such documents you need a phD on account of some sort. Watch the video in the link below as an example. Particularly at 4:35 where Charlie Munger rants at how EBITA is "BS earnings" yet it's taught at business schools even here in NZ uni classes.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/video/ebit...211547259.html

    So the question i've put before is why the obsession of dividends? I'm not saying dividends are bad but they're entirely different investment objectives. In NZ there appears to be zero distinction on the asset when it comes to paying dividends. Abroad, dividends are a last resort for a business if there are NO growth or expansion. Why is that not adopted here, yet we have NZ brokers continually pushing the 'dividend' sale? Why are they not pushing for capital gains which are tax free in NZ? (domestic shares that is), and when overseas markets that promote share value via capital gain, the NZ gov't believes IRD will miss out on tax so instead, they brought in FIF. What kind of double standard is? No other country in the world uses this kind of tax approach that I can think of. No wonder US brokers have shut the door on the NZX on their clients after NZ's FMA came into effect late last year.

    I'm not saying dividends are bad. Hell Buffet is a big fan for dividends but they don't understand why Berkshire has never paid a dividend to it's shareholder. and let's go back to early finance studies and understand 'what is the goal of the CEO'? Is that not to "increase shareholder value"? You certainly don't increase shareholder value by having a dividend paying program to meet some target while trying to expand the company's market share. Countless of great examples in NZ such as TWG; i've seen their annual reports not giving a full explanation why they had to issue more shares for which a portion of that goes back out to be paid as dividends - understand the tax implication that has. But who am I to say? I do know that when I invest in equities, I seek a return ON the investment, and not a return OF the investment in the form of dividends.

  10. #50
    Guru justakiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    2,569

    Default

    What you forget is that not everyone who chooses to invest, is a large investor as most people here appear to be. You guys have millions and millions of dollars invested, so your focus is going to be significantly different to mine. People like me, and people with far more than me but nowhere near as much as you, are simply trying to get a better return on what money we do have, than we would if we leave it sitting in the bank. Yes, we too are hoping to make a return ON our investment, but a return OF our investment is a major advantage. As I have already said often, dividends and DRP can really help us build our holdings. I'm not saying every company should necessarily pay a Divi but if they can, I am very happy to take it. If I can get both - even better. There was a time when someone like me had no chance of even getting started with investing. We had no option other than Bank deposits and hoping to win with Bonus Bonds. Now we have the opportunity to be a little proactive and do what little we can to improve our own financial situations. Sometimes I think people forget that investing isn't and shouldn't be, only for the "big boys".
    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    I seek a return ON the investment, and not a return OF the investment in the form of dividends.
    Last edited by justakiwi; 16-01-2020 at 09:30 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •