Greed

[zangatangring]

What possible difference could that bring to the debate?

Sorry if it's too intrusive, I just feel I need to know what I'm engaging with.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to say who.

Its not too intrusive at all...I just believe it to be irrelevant. You wont offend my sensitivities...honest.

Yeah, sorry about that. Thanks for the interesting debate, btw.

So, would you please mind answering the question?

 

[bluetoo]

Sorry if it's too intrusive, I just feel I need to know what I'm engaging with.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to say who.

Its not too intrusive at all...I just believe it to be irrelevant. You wont offend my sensitivities...honest.

Yeah, sorry about that. Thanks for the interesting debate, btw.

So, would you please mind answering the question?

This is getting pretty dumb if you ask me...I already said I think its irrelevant...

 

[zangatangring]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to say who.

Its not too intrusive at all...I just believe it to be irrelevant. You wont offend my sensitivities...honest.

Yeah, sorry about that. Thanks for the interesting debate, btw.

So, would you please mind answering the question?

This is getting pretty dumb if you ask me...I already said I think its irrelevant...

Ok, I'll respect your wishes.

Now, where were we?

 

[metalblue]

Based on? Certainly not P/E ratio which shows the Market massively underpriced.

Plus I'm sure you know more than Warren Buffet of all people. Look him up.

Based on, what I consider, to be the flawed logic that even over valued stock are better than cash (i assume you hear the same arguments) as they offer at least some sort of dividend return (versus nothing on cash). Although I think recent volatility may well have shaken some back to cash, lest we forget the market is a great price discoverer.

P/e ratios, what sector(s) are you referring to? P/e on it's own would suggest some sectors are undervalued but let's not discount that high inflation and low p/e ratios are nothing new.

That warren buffet comment was pretty poor, as I said I disagree with you I didn't say you were wrong, would ask you show me the same professional courtesy going forward.

I'm sorry but none of that makes any sense. You don't believe the market consensus (Warren Buffet included) that companies are hugely undervalued at present, shown by the market's P/E ratio for one (vs historic P/E ratios) and have great room for growth over the medium to long term based on your view that " over valued stock are better than cash" is flawed logic.

Well ermmm. No I have never heard anyone suggest that over valued stock IS better than cash. The very thought would be idiotic. I have never come across anyone that would use an idiotic fallacy such as that as a reason to invest in stock when you could always garner a similar dividend investing in bonds/gilts and have a (more or less) guaranteed capital value of your investment in the meantime. So if that is what you are being told then I would agree with you (that cash is better than over priced stock) but that in itself has absolutely nothing to do with the medium to long term prospects of the markets. Your comment on high inflation is also incorrect as even 5% is historically not classed as "high". You may be mixing up "high" with "above the rate of deposit based accounts".

My Warren Buffet comment was not wrong, it was fair comment. He is on record as living by the mantra of "be fearful when others are greedy, but be greedy when others are fearful."

As for showing you professional curtesy. No. I know nothing about you, your business, your agenda or your qualifications. I know mine, I know the records of the fund managers I have dialogue with and those of our investment committee and I would back myself to n-th degree on this topic. The present climate can indeed be a worrying one for a lay investor not receiving regular information, and comments such as yours serve no purpose other than to increase a feeling of unease, especially when backed by less than the water tight logic you use above and I do not find your comments helpful, especially when you haven't back them up with a worthwhile argument.

The price is the market consensus, as JMA said future value is all about educated guess work and the price proves there is currently no consensus that stocks are "massively undervalued" in the "long term" (exhibit "A" - the price) further you don't describe what you mean by "massively undervalued" 50%? and "long term" 12 months?

Your fail to understand the investment strategy yet you call it "idiotic", if I needed double digit returns in a <12 month period bonds would hardly constitute a good investment whilst a combination of a good % yield with a modest price uptick can achieve that, yes there are risks as we have seen recently, but that's your risk/reward ratio.

You cannot simply discount the link between high inflation = low p/e ratio, by implying a confusing historical inflation rates versus current p/e ratios; have a look at what p/e ratios where like back in those times of higher inflation and then tell me they still look "massively" undervalued on that measurement.

You are yet to highlight what sectors you are referring to.

You appear to be too focused on the forward price to see that the move upwards in stock prices may come from a lower base, thus a 20% upward move from prices 15% (not suggesting this will be the case) lower in 2 years isn't all that great,  you cannot simply discount reasons behind why prices are here.  You have offered no reasons why you think this is the bottom.

I could go on and on, for the record I have 20 years trading experience, spread across brokerages, hedge funds, and investment banks, I've not been fired yet so i guess my bosses trust my judgement (although stocks aren't my speciality) so would I get long here from a flat book? No.  If i was already long would i stop out? Probably not. Do i think we are at the bottom? Nothing to suggest we are at present. Do I think the indices move higher at some point in the future? Yes.  Do I know when? No, I could guess, what are your price targets? Could I be wrong? No, oh wait, abso-fucking-lutely, the thing to remember about trading is not how many times you are right but how much it costs you being wrong, right now I would rather leave profit on the table than donate it to the market.

I say again your "I am sure you know more than Warren Buffet" comment was a poor attempt to discredit another posters view, you should be able to debate your own views without reverting to this.

Hope you found this "more useful".

 

[stonerblue]

Get a office.......

 

[metalblue]

Get a office.......

Haha, fair point, i'll leave it at that.

@SWP, pm me mate if you want to discuss it more, you have obviously got some interesting views and no doubt some views that you probably haven't even put on here, would welcome discussing and learning something from them. Ultimately we are doing nothing more than demonstrating why markets move (or don't)!!!

 

[SWP's back]

Based on, what I consider, to be the flawed logic that even over valued stock are better than cash (i assume you hear the same arguments) as they offer at least some sort of dividend return (versus nothing on cash). Although I think recent volatility may well have shaken some back to cash, lest we forget the market is a great price discoverer.

P/e ratios, what sector(s) are you referring to? P/e on it's own would suggest some sectors are undervalued but let's not discount that high inflation and low p/e ratios are nothing new.

That warren buffet comment was pretty poor, as I said I disagree with you I didn't say you were wrong, would ask you show me the same professional courtesy going forward.

I'm sorry but none of that makes any sense. You don't believe the market consensus (Warren Buffet included) that companies are hugely undervalued at present, shown by the market's P/E ratio for one (vs historic P/E ratios) and have great room for growth over the medium to long term based on your view that " over valued stock are better than cash" is flawed logic.

Well ermmm. No I have never heard anyone suggest that over valued stock IS better than cash. The very thought would be idiotic. I have never come across anyone that would use an idiotic fallacy such as that as a reason to invest in stock when you could always garner a similar dividend investing in bonds/gilts and have a (more or less) guaranteed capital value of your investment in the meantime. So if that is what you are being told then I would agree with you (that cash is better than over priced stock) but that in itself has absolutely nothing to do with the medium to long term prospects of the markets. Your comment on high inflation is also incorrect as even 5% is historically not classed as "high". You may be mixing up "high" with "above the rate of deposit based accounts".

My Warren Buffet comment was not wrong, it was fair comment. He is on record as living by the mantra of "be fearful when others are greedy, but be greedy when others are fearful."

As for showing you professional curtesy. No. I know nothing about you, your business, your agenda or your qualifications. I know mine, I know the records of the fund managers I have dialogue with and those of our investment committee and I would back myself to n-th degree on this topic. The present climate can indeed be a worrying one for a lay investor not receiving regular information, and comments such as yours serve no purpose other than to increase a feeling of unease, especially when backed by less than the water tight logic you use above and I do not find your comments helpful, especially when you haven't back them up with a worthwhile argument.

The price is the market consensus, as JMA said future value is all about educated guess work and the price proves there is currently no consensus that stocks are "massively undervalued" in the "long term" (exhibit "A" - the price) further you don't describe what you mean by "massively undervalued" 50%? and "long term" 12 months?

Your fail to understand the investment strategy yet you call it "idiotic", if I needed double digit returns in a <12 month period bonds would hardly constitute a good investment whilst a combination of a good % yield with a modest price uptick can achieve that, yes there are risks as we have seen recently, but that's your risk/reward ratio.

You cannot simply discount the link between high inflation = low p/e ratio, by implying a confusing historical inflation rates versus current p/e ratios; have a look at what p/e ratios where like back in those times of higher inflation and then tell me they still look "massively" undervalued on that measurement.

You are yet to highlight what sectors you are referring to.

You appear to be too focused on the forward price to see that the move upwards in stock prices may come from a lower base, thus a 20% upward move from prices 15% (not suggesting this will be the case) lower in 2 years isn't all that great,  you cannot simply discount reasons behind why prices are here.  You have offered no reasons why you think this is the bottom.

I could go on and on, for the record I have 20 years trading experience, spread across brokerages, hedge funds, and investment banks, I've not been fired yet so i guess my bosses trust my judgement (although stocks aren't my speciality) so would I get long here from a flat book? No.  If i was already long would i stop out? Probably not. Do i think we are at the bottom? Nothing to suggest we are at present. Do I think the indices move higher at some point in the future? Yes.  Do I know when? No, I could guess, what are your price targets? Could I be wrong? No, oh wait, abso-fucking-lutely, the thing to remember about trading is not how many times you are right but how much it costs you being wrong, right now I would rather leave profit on the table than donate it to the market.

I say again your "I am sure you know more than Warren Buffet" comment was a poor attempt to discredit another posters view, you should be able to debate your own views without reverting to this.

Hope you found this "more useful".

I don't have many investors (less than 2% of my client book) that look for double digit returns on an annual basis and I don't invest for clients that are looking at short term investment strategies (less than 12 months). I simply don't countenance investments of less than 5 years for the very reasons you state above. If clients are looking at double digit returns returns coupled with a turnover of capital in less time than 12 months, then I would say that they are not investing, but making a punt.

As for historic P/E ratios and their link to inflation, I would say that the resultant bull markets very much agree that stocks were undervalued (with the main indicies in the UK trebling in the decade following 7-10% inflation at the start of the 90's).

A well diversified portfolio (suited to a client's appetite to risk) and managed by long standing fund managers with a proven track record such as Neil Woodford at Invesco Perpetual or the guys at THSP still offers a great opportunity for growth over the medium to long term (industry standard and FSA definition of that timescale being 5 years plus) and this is where we may confusing ourselves if you are looking at time horizons around 12 months as it is impossible to state that a profit can be made (even if your well diversified during this time) as a volitile market is hard to beat due to its very nature. Although volatility does create opportunities for astute managers. Neil Woodford said last week “We believe the current returns on offer from UK equities look very attractive. In our view, there currently exists an unusual opportunity to invest in such companies, representing some of the biggest and best businesses, at valuations which do not appear to reflect the quality characteristics that they offer.” and I am not placed to argue against him and this isn't deferring to someone elses argument but a very real fact that a time proven manager feels there are opportunities in the marketplace.

In terms of my first post that you commented on, which was aimed by me and reassuring some of the guys on here that are already invested or trying to work out what to do to beat inflation with cash already losing out on deposit, it is worth nopting that figures from Fidelity show that someone invested in the FTSE All-Share Index over the past 15 years would have seen returns of 168% or 6.8% p.a. However, if they had panicked, sold and missed just the 10 best days performance, their returns would have shrunk to 45% or 2.5% p.a. Market volatility is something that is always with us. As such, reassurance is better than worrying investors to a point where they sell up, hold in cash then re-enter the market in 12 months time, missing the start (which is always the most profitable time) of the upturn and a short term paper loss is nothing compared with potential returns using a "time in" the market strategy as opposed to "timing" the market.

Despite the current uncertainty, investors can use the many, many lessons from history to support and inform their strategy. A portfolio that is well diversified across different asset classes has over time, proven to be the right strategy for investors to reduce risk and achieve their investment goals.

Would you disagree with any of that? Especially for the 95% of standard UK investors looking to acheive most returns (6-9% pa) over the medium to long term? Given different time horizons and target returns then the advice would be different but I was not talking about specialist needs in a rather mundane thread when I was asked for my reading of the current climate.

 

[bluetoo]

I'm sorry but none of that makes any sense. You don't believe the market consensus (Warren Buffet included) that companies are hugely undervalued at present, shown by the market's P/E ratio for one (vs historic P/E ratios) and have great room for growth over the medium to long term based on your view that " over valued stock are better than cash" is flawed logic.

Well ermmm. No I have never heard anyone suggest that over valued stock IS better than cash. The very thought would be idiotic. I have never come across anyone that would use an idiotic fallacy such as that as a reason to invest in stock when you could always garner a similar dividend investing in bonds/gilts and have a (more or less) guaranteed capital value of your investment in the meantime. So if that is what you are being told then I would agree with you (that cash is better than over priced stock) but that in itself has absolutely nothing to do with the medium to long term prospects of the markets. Your comment on high inflation is also incorrect as even 5% is historically not classed as "high". You may be mixing up "high" with "above the rate of deposit based accounts".

My Warren Buffet comment was not wrong, it was fair comment. He is on record as living by the mantra of "be fearful when others are greedy, but be greedy when others are fearful."

As for showing you professional curtesy. No. I know nothing about you, your business, your agenda or your qualifications. I know mine, I know the records of the fund managers I have dialogue with and those of our investment committee and I would back myself to n-th degree on this topic. The present climate can indeed be a worrying one for a lay investor not receiving regular information, and comments such as yours serve no purpose other than to increase a feeling of unease, especially when backed by less than the water tight logic you use above and I do not find your comments helpful, especially when you haven't back them up with a worthwhile argument.

The price is the market consensus, as JMA said future value is all about educated guess work and the price proves there is currently no consensus that stocks are "massively undervalued" in the "long term" (exhibit "A" - the price) further you don't describe what you mean by "massively undervalued" 50%? and "long term" 12 months?

Your fail to understand the investment strategy yet you call it "idiotic", if I needed double digit returns in a <12 month period bonds would hardly constitute a good investment whilst a combination of a good % yield with a modest price uptick can achieve that, yes there are risks as we have seen recently, but that's your risk/reward ratio.

You cannot simply discount the link between high inflation = low p/e ratio, by implying a confusing historical inflation rates versus current p/e ratios; have a look at what p/e ratios where like back in those times of higher inflation and then tell me they still look "massively" undervalued on that measurement.

You are yet to highlight what sectors you are referring to.

You appear to be too focused on the forward price to see that the move upwards in stock prices may come from a lower base, thus a 20% upward move from prices 15% (not suggesting this will be the case) lower in 2 years isn't all that great,  you cannot simply discount reasons behind why prices are here.  You have offered no reasons why you think this is the bottom.

I could go on and on, for the record I have 20 years trading experience, spread across brokerages, hedge funds, and investment banks, I've not been fired yet so i guess my bosses trust my judgement (although stocks aren't my speciality) so would I get long here from a flat book? No.  If i was already long would i stop out? Probably not. Do i think we are at the bottom? Nothing to suggest we are at present. Do I think the indices move higher at some point in the future? Yes.  Do I know when? No, I could guess, what are your price targets? Could I be wrong? No, oh wait, abso-fucking-lutely, the thing to remember about trading is not how many times you are right but how much it costs you being wrong, right now I would rather leave profit on the table than donate it to the market.

I say again your "I am sure you know more than Warren Buffet" comment was a poor attempt to discredit another posters view, you should be able to debate your own views without reverting to this.

Hope you found this "more useful".

I don't have many investors (less than 2% of my client book) that look for double digit returns on an annual basis and I don't invest for clients that are looking at short term investment strategies (less than 12 months). I simply don't countenance investments of less than 5 years for the very reasons you state above. If clients are looking at double digit returns returns coupled with a turnover of capital in less time than 12 months, then I would say that they are not investing, but making a punt.

As for historic P/E ratios and their link to inflation, I would say that the resultant bull markets very much agree that stocks were undervalued (with the main indicies in the UK trebling in the decade following 7-10% inflation at the start of the 90's).

A well diversified portfolio (suited to a client's appetite to risk) and managed by long standing fund managers with a proven track record such as Neil Woodford at Invesco Perpetual or the guys at THSP still offers a great opportunity for growth over the medium to long term (industry standard and FSA definition of that timescale being 5 years plus) and this is where we may confusing ourselves if you are looking at time horizons around 12 months as it is impossible to state that a profit can be made (even if your well diversified during this time) as a volitile market is hard to beat due to its very nature. Although volatility does create opportunities for astute managers. Neil Woodford said last week “We believe the current returns on offer from UK equities look very attractive. In our view, there currently exists an unusual opportunity to invest in such companies, representing some of the biggest and best businesses, at valuations which do not appear to reflect the quality characteristics that they offer.” and I am not placed to argue against him and this isn't deferring to someone elses argument but a very real fact that a time proven manager feels there are opportunities in the marketplace.

In terms of my first post that you commented on, which was aimed by me and reassuring some of the guys on here that are already invested or trying to work out what to do to beat inflation with cash already losing out on deposit, it is worth nopting that figures from Fidelity show that someone invested in the FTSE All-Share Index over the past 15 years would have seen returns of 168% or 6.8% p.a. However, if they had panicked, sold and missed just the 10 best days performance, their returns would have shrunk to 45% or 2.5% p.a. Market volatility is something that is always with us. As such, reassurance is better than worrying investors to a point where they sell up, hold in cash then re-enter the market in 12 months time, missing the start (which is always the most profitable time) of the upturn and a short term paper loss is nothing compared with potential returns using a "time in" the market strategy as opposed to "timing" the market.

Despite the current uncertainty, investors can use the many, many lessons from history to support and inform their strategy. A portfolio that is well diversified across different asset classes has over time, proven to be the right strategy for investors to reduce risk and achieve their investment goals.

Would you disagree with any of that? Especially for the 95% of standard UK investors looking to acheive most returns (6-9% pa) over the medium to long term? Given different time horizons and target returns then the advice would be different but I was not talking about specialist needs in a rather mundane thread when I was asked for my reading of the current climate.

Get a office.......

 

[SWP's back]

It's "an" office. Not "a".

Pfft. Chavs.

 

[bluetoo]

It's "an" office. Not "a".

Pfft. Chavs.

lol...only goes to reinforce the fact that the majority of what you said is lost on us ;)