In a break from tradition, let's have a 'strategic' thread on the investors BB - such threads are usually a staple of the traders BB.

This thread is intended not to be about any tactical issues such as individual share longs or shorts - more a general discussion on whether share prices in general approximately represent fair value given all that is known about a company at any given moment in time.

Chartists (and I count myself amongst their number) will dismiss any fundamental analysis with a flippant 'It's all in the price dear boy'.

Pure fundamentalists will explain that given sufficient research, anyone can become more knowledgeable than the market and therefore be better placed to gauge true value. (sometimes described as 'the Zulu Principle' - after Michael Walters' book by that name)

Added On edit - oops - It was Jim Slater who wrote the Zulu Principle - not Walters. in the book, Slater argues the case for research and fundamentals by explaining that there are very few people thoroughly researching any single topic, if you make that topic narrow enough. He goes on to explain that everyone can be an expert so long as their research topic is made very specialised.

testex,

Can you please refrain from personal attacks on these Bulletin Boards - stick the discussion at hand and not the individual posters.

Thanks

Ian

Careful, G. Or I'll set Ash on you.

:o)

Testex,

Thank you.

Ian

Tested - if I open contract in OOM for 10,000 shares. I only have to front 10% of the costs up front i.e. less than 1,000(instead of 100% - 10,000) for every .25 it moves thats 25 profit on my 1,000. If I can do that every 30 min over the day just on .25 I can make 200 with just 1,000. Obviously 0.5 is double the profit etc. And I can do it both if the share drops as well as if the share goes up in price.

I'm not with CMC anymore - and I have never drunk beer.

Hi LW,

I'm trying to work out which is the greater invention -

(1) Bulletin boards for the promotion of free speech,

or

(2) Squelch buttons to eliminate the worthless.

Votes please ?

Look forward to meeting you all.

Regards etc.

Good post 38, at least your post is factual and not hearsay!

testex: bye bye

Glad you deleted that post, Bullshare.

It would have offended many people, whatever their race or creed.
I couldn't believe what I was reading.

Melnibone.

Melnibone. We are only sorry it was up there for a few minutes

Bullshare well done, I can only echo Melnibones comments

Gausie, well that realy did move away from the normal threads on this side, not sure if we addressed the initial question infull and seems to have lost the thread now. The views have narrowed to fundementals v charts and as usual no real answers. In the end we all use both at some point in time. My question what makes us look at a particular share...is it a % price increase....a news release or scanning charts. I would say 33% each. You hear some news or read a BB ( which may be about a price rise ), look at the price then the chart, from then if you like the look you go and do your homework, be that fundementals or charts.
Regards KA

Well, now the rowdy element have gone (you still here, Gausie?) it is worth pointing out the obvious in that statistical smoothing, news management, analyst comment and so on play a large part in building rumours and news in to the price of the majors (FTSE250) but that more unpredictable things can happen with smaller stocks. Not to mention PDX by name, of course.

But the central truth remains that unless you are in possession of inside information of the sort that it would be illegal to use, you ain't likely to know anything more than anybody else.

However, there is no law against being lucky. However, those who are lucky very frequently re-interpret their luck as their own cleverness, insight or other form of intellectual superiority. They then become victims of chance through delusion.

Gausie,
Please forgive familiarity, not formerly introduced and all that, and you seem to be a celebrity on this site. Love the thread, really opened a Pandoras box here. I have come across similar debates before, generally resolving to one of two positions.
1. A sensible debate between two well informed but opposing opinions.
2. A dogfight between opposite, sometimes dogmatic views with no common ground.
Previously I have only witnessed such confrontations face-to-face and logic determines that a BB environment would bring a more measured exchange of views, given that one has to compose a written response rather than open mouth and stick foot in. I am a little surprised, therefore, to see the vehemence and even hostility on this thread. I think it is possible both sides miss out by adopting adversarial positions. In a dynamic environment it is likely that at any given moment one of a hatful of factors, all well known in principal, create a given price, and therefore the same applies to it's future. The worst part for most of the entrenched opinion is that each has something to gain from the other. For a generally stable share, large cap, mature business, the ideal fundamentalist stock, the value area from the enemy might be from stockpicker users, usually chart type programmes. For volatile "quality" stocks the fundametalists can guide chartist through such idiosyncracies as "sell in May and go away". To discount an important factor in the market generally costs you money, if one side were always right we would all know by now and "The Game" would be dead, and we could go and play bingo. I believe the answer to your question is NO, but it will be tomorrow! So let us all continue to enjoy "The Game", but try and learn from the others, it might save or even make you money.
Regards
SC