Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Sehan

Fundamental Analysis...I'm Doing It Wrong?

Recommended Posts

I was browsing the stocks people are watching over at Investopedia and one that came up was Atmel Corp. I decided to investigate them a bit further and after doing a few quick calculations in my head and looking at the P/E, ROA, ROE and ROI data calculated by Reuters I thought they were nothing special and seemed to be underperforming versus the rest of their industry and over priced.

 

That was fine until I looked at the Reuters rating and it was 'Buy' and quite highly recommended at that. It was about this point that confusion set in ;) Seeing as I've only been looking at this stuff for about a week I'm assuming that they have it correct and I've messed up but for the life of me I can't tell why. From the data here though I don't see why this would be an attractive purchase at all.

 

I had a look at their balance sheet and income statement and while they have their dept well covered I can't see anything that makes me think I should buy.

 

I made an attempt at calculating their ROCE but came up with approx. 1/120 so I think I did that wrong. Going on what wikipedia told me I had pretax operating profit (10) divided by total assets (1713) - current liabilities (562) which gave me my result...which in my rather inexpert opinion seems like a pretty crap return if it's correct.

 

Any suggestions on how I've misread the data and/or miscalculated the ROCE are appreciated.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sehan - I'm going to be up-front, if you want a discussion on fundies, I suggest finding another forum. Perhaps there's a few fundie guys around here, but my guess is that most are technical traders and rarely (if at all) look at pe ratios, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, brownsfan is absolutely correct. We are pretty much completely technical analysis, but I do want to reply to a few things in your post.

I was browsing the stocks people are watching over at Investopedia and one that came up was Atmel Corp.
While it's great you're doing your own research, I wouldn't rely on random internet postings to pick your stocks for you (assuming that's what you want to do).
I decided to investigate them a bit further and after doing a few quick calculations in my head and looking at the P/E, ROA, ROE and ROI data calculated by Reuters I thought they were nothing special and seemed to be underperforming versus the rest of their industry and over priced... it was 'Buy' and quite highly recommended at that.
In general, the big analysis firms do not have an outstanding track record. To be dead honest, these ratings do have a history of manipulation. If they did work well, you could just do what they say and make easy money. Most analysis you may do based on pure numbers (P/E's, ROA's, etc) has little significant benefit, simply because (in general) the market has already priced in the value of the company. With fundemental analysis (and to an extent, technical analysis), you're banking on the fact that you can price a company better than the market (a very challenging feat).
...I'm assuming that they have it correct and I've messed up but for the life of me I can't tell why.
Never assume in this game. As I mentioned above, they have very little edge (if any). In the future, if a edge you use and stick to has you buying or selling an instrument, don't listen to the chit-chat. That assumes you have an edge, but that's a different story.

 

To be fair, I know very little about this company, and I do not primarily trade stocks. That said, I took a look, here's what I see (and please don't trade off this, I'm just showing you an alternative perspective).

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=7438&stc=1&d=1217827135

 

The stock has been hit fairly hard recently, and can't be considered in an uptrend yet. Furthermore, it's nearing some potential resistance above. There is very little volume above this (by price), which could also resist upward movement. However, if it does break upwards, it should move pretty well. A potential upside target would be 4.20-4.40 due to previous value and possible resistance. There seems to be a decent sized area of value around where it is now (with a slight bearish bent, currently). There also seems to be some steady buyers at 3.10-3.20, so if it breaks below this, you may have problems. I would personally wait for more signs of accumulation before considering a buy (this is only the opinion of a random internet poster, remember :) ).

atml.png.90c541c67db7376baaaad177aeb147b5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was browsing the stocks people are watching over at Investopedia and one that came up was Atmel Corp. I decided to investigate them a bit further and after doing a few quick calculations in my head and looking at the P/E, ROA, ROE and ROI data calculated by Reuters I thought they were nothing special and seemed to be underperforming versus the rest of their industry and over priced.

 

 

The stock market is a forward looking mechanism. Stock price is a reflection of expectation of future earnings, especially when dealing with high-tech companies. If their current financial is mediocre, and there is a good REASON why it is over-priced. In general, there is probably positive outlooking on the company regarding such matters as new products in the pipeline, major contracts to be signed, adoption of new management...etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most analysis you may do based on pure numbers (P/E's, ROA's, etc) has little significant benefit, simply because (in general) the market has already priced in the value of the company. .

 

I'm a TA converted fundamental guy. To me there are two paths you can take...get really deep into aswath damodaran stuff or stick with old Ben Graham...The problem with Damodaran type stuff is that your going to have to make big speculations on interest rates and expected returns in your model. The bigger problem is that it would be a huge project to be able to automate this valuation process. You have to assume that the market is efficient enough that if you randomly pick a stock it will not be undervalued.

Even if you find "gold" most the time it will be fools gold because your directly betting that your analysis is better than well paid teams of analyst who's job it is to understand all the variables. The most likely bet is that your missing a very important variable.

Basically, I think fundamental analysis is the most difficult type of analysis you can do yet in the retail literature there is this air of it being easy. I think Buffet does a huge disservice to the investor community with his ideas. Its like if Tiger Woods talked about how to golf by saying "I just hit the ball". While thats totally true the big hidden variable there is "you aint Tiger Woods".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for the replies guys. It has certainly been eye opening. I've been pouring over articles on Investopedia and fundamental analysis seems to be the subject of a huge proportion of the material so I decided to try my hand at that to begin with but as you guys have mentioned....one person with a background in computer science is unlikely to out perform a team of qualified investors....especially seeing as how I have exactly 5 days of experience at this ;)

 

I'm going to continue fooling around on the simulator at investopedia for a while more I think and especially up until I've done a good bit more research.

 

Thanks for the help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to save yourself alot of time looking for the right approach, I would strongly suggest reading Nicholas Darvas "How I made $2,000,000 in the Stock Market" and then go right to William O'Neal's most recent book titled "The Successful Investor". That will get you off to a great start. You'll find, however, that both authors/traders recommend melding fundamental with technical analysis.

 

The first big question you should answer is why do you want to be buying stocks in a down market?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stock fundies fall into two distinct camps, Growth and Value. Depending on which camp you fall in will determine how you interpret information and what you will want to focus on.

 

but the fundamentals only get you so for. don't listen to CNBC and think that the few who know what is going on are only trading the fundamentals. the fundamentals are used as a filter and the trade is technical.

 

if you want a quick easy read on analyzing stocks check out Harry Domash's book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the fundamentals are used as a filter and the trade is technical.

 

That's actually not true at all. Your big money managers - American Funds, Vanguard, etc. - rely on fundies almost exclusively, unless the particular fund prospectus details otherwise. The big funds are NOT looking at VSA, waves, fans, etc. etc.

 

They are too big to try to play a value area or the hammer on the weekly chart. They are the reason the VAH and hammers exist. The big boys CREATE the technicals that we look at as traders.

 

I spent quite a bit of time at different funds while I was a broker and now that I have seen the fundie and technical side, I can tell you w/o a doubt that most (if not all) major funds are fundie related. And I'm talking the big boys here, the ones that have to take MONTHS to build a position. And MONTHS to unload a position.

 

On that side of the tracks the talk is p/e, peggy, sharpe, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was not referencing the big funds, but i stand corrected. i was referring to the stock traders/brokers/hedge fund guys that i personally know.

 

they use the funnymentals to find companies that the big boys are most likely to go after and wait for the move to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.