| Thursday, 28 January 2010 07:40 |
Ground Zero IITo some extent, Ground Zero is really about simple economics. I guess this is why freakonomics becomes famous as it revamps the way economics is being used. I once discussed this approach with a fellow member of my investment club and she found it hard to follow my logic. It might also be possible that some of you might find it difficult as well. Let me use Ford as an example. Ground zero approach is simple. The automobile industry may be really weak and Toyota has probably the best technology out there in the industry. From a Singaporean point of view, there is probably no way I will purchase a Ford over Toyota. I have a friend who has been studying in the States and he feels that people there are really patriotic, especially those in the south. So even if Ford does not have the best car for value out there, most Americans will want a Ford compared to a Toyota. National pride is the key factor over here and this leads to the notion of Ford grabbing a "greater share of a smaller pie". This is enough to justify our optimism in Ford. It is not about the numbers. I'm sure that the numbers will never justify this. So the issue here will be why national pride is the most important factor over here compare to other factors say technology, price, global demand and etc. This is something that really varies from people. I guess national pride is just not in sync with most Singaporeans over here and that's why they can't see the importance of it. I'm not trying to force you to think like us. The importance of this approach has two important benefits. No.1: It covers the blind spot of fundamental analysis thinking. Over here, the economy and the latest trend of automobile industry will probably throw the whole idea of Ford away. No.2: It frees your mind and not restricts your thinking on stuffs like valuation. I don't think I can justify Ford at $12. I don't know if there is anything out there to justify it. The only thing that I know is that Ford has a story to tell. Weirdly, I’m not a person who goes by the numbers. I hope that you can really get something away from Ground Zero Approach. Ciao! By Toh Chin Sheng VP, Research & Education of NTU Investment Interactive Club ~disclaimer:The information, statistical data and opinions contained herein are of the author’s own, and have been obtained from sources which he/she believes to be reliable, but it does not represent that they are accurate or complete, and they should not be relied upon as such. All opinions expressed and data provided herein are subject to change without notice. The securities mentioned in this report may not be suitable for all types of investors. ALL investments involve different degrees of risk. You should be aware of your risk tolerance level and financial situations at all times. Read any and all prospectuses carefully before making any investment decisions. As you know, a recommendation, which you are free to accept or reject, is not a guarantee for the successful performance of an investment and we are expressly prohibited from guaranteeing accounts against losses arising from market conditions. NTU-IIC and its members will not be held liable in any manner for any losses arising directly or indirectly from investment decisions undertaken based on the information/statistical data/opinions expressed. |
Well, the thing about fundamental analysis is that it does not really need a price target. The price target can be moving based on the fundamental of the company, if the company is keep on generating good cash flow, the price target can changed upwards.
The first thing with valuation when your valuation is different from the market, you must assume that the market is correct first and you are wrong, then, go through your valuation again, and look at whether the market is really wrong.
Same with catching the bottom, it is very hard to catch the top. You will never know when it is the top of a trend and it is very risky to ride the trend (There are people who can ride it well, but, it is rare). Sell when the price is not justified by the fundamentals. I don't think you need to sell at the top to make the gains. If you buy the good company at super cheap price, you will get your two or three bagger when you dispose your share at fair value. The thing about value investing is to buy company not at fair value but at dirt cheap price. Do it correctly, you will get your two to three bagger.
To Michael: Sure that's a good idea, I shall try to write something about that soon.
To SC: I wouldn't deny that at times, good companies may be selling for too much. But I feel that valuations retrain your rational thinking process. I tend to work on the premise that the market is right. If I were to come out with valuations, I might think that I'm right and the market price is wrong. What price is considered too high or too low? This is not something that I wish to behave because I feel that volatility is the order of the day in the future. There might be really weird behavior in prices compared to fundamentals.
Another issue that I have with price target is that it limits profit. While it is good for the downside, it caps the upside. I feel that if everyone is buying, it doesn't matter if it is entering into a bubble stage or not. It may sound really risky to buy something into a bubble stage, but that's where all the profits are. The big trend tends to produce the most gains at the very end. This is not healthy for most people but I feel that investors have to start to cope with volatility and make full use of it.
Nonetheless, what you say is still legit. I wouldn't deny that but I just feel that valuations make you more inward thinking and you may end up losing sight of the market sentiment.
Thank you.
Nice concept. In Ground Zero I, you "disagree with people are doing with Financial Analysis and Technical Analysis". Can you elaborate on the weaknesses in Techinical Analysis and how the Ground Zero approach can help the "Technicians" to overcome those weaknesses?
Thanks:)